Science > Physics > GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"raylopez99" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2007 05:52:17 AM |
| Object: |
GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
Another Nobel in Climateology for me (refer to http://tinyurl.com/36djrg
for my previous Nobel).
I've discovered a new phenomena that explains GW (Global Warming),
which I term the "Neo-Urban Heat Island) (NUHI)(urban heat island is a
theory that GW is a local effect; Wikipedia it for more
information).
Essentially NUHI says that GW is a local phenomena, not worldwide, but
for the fact pollution is locally produced worldwide, so you see
regions of GW worldwide. This finding has important policy
implications (see below).
My inspiration comes from a review of the article: Global Air Quality
and Pollution by Hajime Akimoto, as published in Science (5 December
2003: Vol. 302, no. 5651), republished in Science's "State of the
Planet 2006-7".
Review of the data and conclusions:
- pollutants such as O3, CO, NOx, SOx, OH, HCHO discussed by Akimoto.
CO2 not specifically mentioned but greenhouse gases in general are
discussed, which include some of these pollutants.
- computer simulated graph shows surface O3 concentration in North
Hemisphere from May to Aug in 1860 (!) and 1993. Only the Congo and
Amazon are "free" of O3 (less than 15 ppbv -parts per billion by
volume--true even today). Pockets of pollution (> 60 ppbv) include:
for the 1860 simulation-- US east of the Mississippi, heartland of
China (Hunai) (mainly biomass wood burning); for 1993, same as 1860
plus Europe, north India, part of Russia. Graph is messed up for
Russia (printing errors)
-only pollutants with an atmospheric life greater than 1 month can be
transported across borders. This includes CO (1-2 mo avg.), O3 (only
in the wintertime--in the summer it has a mere 2 week lifespan).
-OH, a precursor molecule for other pollutants including CH4 and HCFC,
is a function of OH concentration.
- Aerosols have a mere 2 week lifespan,which means they are 'local'
and not likely to be transported across borders. Of course aerosols
'shield' a region locally and cause 'local' cooling (well known per
se). My contribution is to show that other pollutants, such as
greenhouse gases, are also "local" and their contributions to GW are
local.
- Even for molecules with a 1 month or greater lifespan, cross-border
pollution is very small overall. I surmise this is true for CO2 as
well. Several pages are devoted to this topic. One excerpt will give
you a flavor: "Although trans-Pacific transport of surface ozone has
not {note 'not'--RL} been captured by observation, modeling studies
have revealed that the Asian outflow enhances the concentration of
surface ozone in the US by a few ppbv". A "few ppbv" (!)--this out of
a total ppbv of 40-70 ppbv-- so we're talking less than 10% 'foreign'
pollutants in the troposphere travel across borders. Hence the
concern about 'global' pollution is vastly overstated. This was news
to me. I would like to know how CO2 is transported--is it also
"local"? A question for further research, but I now hypothetize it is
the same as the other pollutants. Note the troposphere is where CO2
largely resides.
- Fig. 17: NOx emissions by year from 1970 show the North America and
Europe regions emit roughly the same amount (about 23k-27k kt/yr),
while Asia went from 10k in 1975 to 15k in 1985 to 29k in 1997--
surpassing the other two regions. Hence Asia is responsible for
"global" warming and pollution, not the West. But, as I explain here,
this "global" warming is in fact local.
- pollution is local. Any affects of pollution are local. Very
little cross-border pollution occurs (10% or less) in the troposphere,
where humans reside. Though the article doesn't get into this, even
perhaps CO2 dispersal is local (if it follows the same path as the
other molecules).
- global warming, since pollution is local, is also local. In a
sense, this is effectively "urban heat island" revisited. CO2 will
cause IR trapping and tropospheric heating above the region producting
it, be it Europe, North America, China etc. In fact, the band of
"global warming" largely extends from 30N to 60N latitude only, and is
largely absent elsewhere (see concentration of pollutants graph of
Fig. 15). Note the smaller "GW" band (30S to 60S) in the southern
hemisphere is less pronounced, consistent with the fact there is less
industry and fewer megacities (populations greater than 10M people)
below the equator. Thus cities in the south hemisphere should
therefore show less GW than northern hemisphere cities (somebody can
confirm this--and please make sure you do not "correct for" UHI if you
do this--raw data only).
-- Fig. 15: Pristine polar regions are not as affected by pollution,
but the north pole shows much more pollution change than the south
pole. For instance, very little change in Antarctic pollution occurs
between the 1860 snapshot and the 1993 snapshot (both time periods
show close to zero pollution), but the Arctic went from near zero to
~25 ppbv pollution. This is also borne out by the evidence as well on
GW: south pole shows no increase in temperature (in fact, a
decrease), while the north pole seems to be heating up more. Why the
north pole is more polluted is a topic for further research, but it
could have to do with wind currents--recall from the above about 10%
of pollution is indeed "international" and cross-border, so some of
this pollution may be leaking to the north pole region. There's fewer
pollution in the southern hemisphere hence less leakage, and for
geographic reasons the wind patterns may be different there.
-NUHI implies that though GW is a "serious" problem, it is not a
"worldwide" problem that requires coordinated worldwide action. Each
country should clean up its mess, and if it doesn't, then its citizens
will suffer, but not its neighbors (respiratory problems mainly, and
possibly some slight environmental effects from heating such as
brought out by the lower bound of the latest IPCC report--estimating
for example a mean sea level rise of 2 inches over the next 100 years--
but not a big deal).
It's amazing how much science you can discover without actually doing
any lab work, just by reviewing the literature and doing thought
experiments, not unlike the early modern physicists, notably
Einstein. Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, though our IQs
are probably about the same and I did derive Einstein's Special Theory
of Relativity from the Lorenz transform when I was 18.
Any reasoned criticism welcome. This largely excludes the habitual
spammers of alt.global-warming, hence I'm cross-posting to
sci.environment and sci.physics.
RL
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 08:40:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1176029537.818449.217630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, says...
Another Nobel in Climateology for me (refer to http://tinyurl.com/36djrg
for my previous Nobel).
I've discovered a new phenomena that explains GW (Global Warming),
which I term the "Neo-Urban Heat Island) (NUHI)(urban heat island is a
theory that GW is a local effect; Wikipedia it for more
information).
Essentially NUHI says that GW is a local phenomena, not worldwide, but
for the fact pollution is locally produced worldwide, so you see
regions of GW worldwide. This finding has important policy
implications (see below).
To quote HaHaHanson, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's amazing how much science you can discover without actually doing
any lab work, just by reviewing the literature and doing thought
experiments, not unlike the early modern physicists, notably
Einstein. Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, though our IQs
are probably about the same and I did derive Einstein's Special Theory
of Relativity from the Lorenz transform when I was 18.
It's easy to copy someone else's work. The trick is thinking thru to
get the answer the first time around.
Any reasoned criticism welcome. This largely excludes the habitual
spammers of alt.global-warming, hence I'm cross-posting to
sci.environment and sci.physics.
Uh, Loopy Guy, how come it is that the satellite data shows warming?
Especially in places where there are no people living in an urban
environment, like the oceans, which cover about 72% of the Earth?
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 09:04:49 AM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 6:40 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176029537.818449.217...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, says...
Essentially NUHI says that GW is a local phenomena, not worldwide, but
for the fact pollution is locally produced worldwide, so you see
regions of GW worldwide. This finding has important policy
implications (see below).
To quote HaHaHanson, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Quite a reasoned response Err-Hick (NOT).
It's amazing how much science you can discover without actually doing
any lab work, just by reviewing the literature and doing thought
experiments, not unlike the early modern physicists, notably
Einstein. Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, though our IQs
are probably about the same and I did derive Einstein's Special Theory
of Relativity from the Lorenz transform when I was 18.
It's easy to copy someone else's work. The trick is thinking thru to
get the answer the first time around.
Apples and oranges. You calling Einstein an idiot for doing thought
experiments? You're the idiot then.
Any reasoned criticism welcome. This largely excludes the habitual
spammers of alt.global-warming, hence I'm cross-posting to
sci.environment and sci.physics.
Uh, Loopy Guy, how come it is that the satellite data shows warming?
Especially in places where there are no people living in an urban
environment, like the oceans, which cover about 72% of the Earth?
Depends where Err-Hick. Are the oceans warming more rapidly or are
they at a higher temperature over the band 30N-60N latitude than these
same latitudes south? If so, it's consistent with my theory (most
pollution stays in the lattitude in which it is made, since air flow
is largely west to east). If not, post a link Bozo, instead of just
postulating. I showed that in fact on land the urban areas seem to
heat faster, since the pollution they spew stays local. This is
significant.
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
Read the original post clown. I went over that one.
Lern 2 reed Err-Hick!
RL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 11:47:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1176041089.466451.68070@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
raylopez99@yahoo.com says...
On Apr 8, 6:40 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176029537.818449.217...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
raylope...@yahoo.com says...
Essentially NUHI says that GW is a local phenomena, not worldwide,
but
for the fact pollution is locally produced worldwide, so you see
regions of GW worldwide. This finding has important policy
implications (see below).
To quote HaHaHanson, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Quite a reasoned response Err-Hick (NOT).
It's amazing how much science you can discover without actually
doing
any lab work, just by reviewing the literature and doing thought
experiments, not unlike the early modern physicists, notably
Einstein. Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, though our IQs
are probably about the same and I did derive Einstein's Special
Theory
of Relativity from the Lorenz transform when I was 18.
It's easy to copy someone else's work. The trick is thinking thru to
get the answer the first time around.
Apples and oranges. You calling Einstein an idiot for doing thought
experiments? You're the idiot then.
Hardly so. I do think you are an idiot for ignoring all the work that
has been done on climate change, except your own thought experiments.
Any reasoned criticism welcome. This largely excludes the habitual
spammers of alt.global-warming, hence I'm cross-posting to
sci.environment and sci.physics.
Uh, Loopy Guy, how come it is that the satellite data shows warming?
Especially in places where there are no people living in an urban
environment, like the oceans, which cover about 72% of the Earth?
Depends where Err-Hick. Are the oceans warming more rapidly or are
they at a higher temperature over the band 30N-60N latitude than these
same latitudes south? If so, it's consistent with my theory (most
pollution stays in the lattitude in which it is made, since air flow
is largely west to east). If not, post a link Bozo, instead of just
postulating. I showed that in fact on land the urban areas seem to
heat faster, since the pollution they spew stays local. This is
significant.
Wrong-o, Loopy Ray. The air flow is not "largely west to east".
In the tropics, it's largely east to west. In the temperate regions,
it depends on the season, and in winter, there's a large component of
south to north and back. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the
surface record is area averaged and the area of urban land is a small
fraction of the overall land area. Not to mention the fact that the
Earth is mostly covered by oceans. That said, I do think there has
been a strong influence of pollution on temperature and that's been
taken into consideration as an explaination of the cooling seen in
the record from about 1940 to the 1970's. That's cooling, not warming.
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
Read the original post clown. I went over that one.
Lern 2 reed Err-Hick!
Reading your deluded thoughts is not science.
As for the Antarctic, there has been some evidence that the changes
there are the result of a strengthening of the Polar Vortex. Also, the
satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high
elevations. That said, as I showed, there is a slight warming trend in
the satellite data, during the winter half of the year. Others have
found a warming trend in the surface data. There is a well known strong
warming trend seen in data for the Antarctic Peninsula.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 12:42:39 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Also, the satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high elevations.
The only part of your post that I found of interest. Please explain.
The rest of your post ignores the fact that global cooling due to
aerosols from 1940 to 1970 is the same phenomena that I postulate
about CO2 dispersal. Is a CO2 molecule that different than an aerosol
when it comes to dispersion? Why? They are both very tiny (SOx vers
CO2--about the same size) and you would think the wind would cause
both to quickly drift away rather than linger over industrial regions
and affect the climate (in the case of aerosols, by blocking the sun).
RL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 01:16:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1176054159.949586.84040@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Also, the satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high elevations.
The only part of your post that I found of interest. Please explain.
Well, if you had taken the time to study the MSU you would not need an
explaination. But, your deluded brain hasn't made it that far yet.
The rest of your post ignores the fact that global cooling due to
aerosols from 1940 to 1970 is the same phenomena that I postulate
about CO2 dispersal. Is a CO2 molecule that different than an aerosol
when it comes to dispersion? Why? They are both very tiny (SOx vers
CO2--about the same size) and you would think the wind would cause
both to quickly drift away rather than linger over industrial regions
and affect the climate (in the case of aerosols, by blocking the sun).
Yes, CO2 is different than SO2. For starters, the SO2 molecules attract
H2O and become much larger aerosols. That aerosol tends to be rained out
of the lower troposphere fairly rapidly. CO2, on the other hand, hangs
around for centuries. More research is needed -- by Loopy Ray.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 03:06:02 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 11:16 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176054159.949586.84...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Also, the satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high elevations.
The only part of your post that I found of interest. Please explain.
Well, if you had taken the time to study the MSU you would not need an
explaination. But, your deluded brain hasn't made it that far yet.
You don't know or don't want to answer, out of spite. Noted, as-
whole.
The rest of your post ignores the fact that global cooling due to
aerosols from 1940 to 1970 is the same phenomena that I postulate
about CO2 dispersal. Is a CO2 molecule that different than an aerosol
when it comes to dispersion? Why? They are both very tiny (SOx vers
CO2--about the same size) and you would think the wind would cause
both to quickly drift away rather than linger over industrial regions
and affect the climate (in the case of aerosols, by blocking the sun).
Yes, CO2 is different than SO2. For starters, the SO2 molecules attract
H2O and become much larger aerosols. That aerosol tends to be rained out
of the lower troposphere fairly rapidly. CO2, on the other hand, hangs
around for centuries. More research is needed -- by Loopy Ray.
And for finishers? Your starter is a non-starter. SO2 attracts H20--
thanks for that factoid--it's called hydrophylic. SO2 gets rained out
fairly quickly implies--a quick Google shows that perhaps the SO2 half-
life is 7 to 14 days (see here:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/ftp/pub/inderjit/Data/Text/NSFAll/Abstracts/abstracts/ATM.GEO.a8715294.txt
) [Though this abstract implies further research is needed]
Thus indeed SOx is not the best example, let's switch to carbon black
or dust. C does not react much with anything (Google this, soot is
very stable).
Same question: given that CO2 in the atmosphere is also stable, with
a long half life (several hundred years), why would aerosols be that
much different than CO2 dispersal? I concede that aerosols from
carbon black are much larger than CO2, probably a billion times larger
(1 um versus probably 10-15m), but even a relatively large 1 um
particle is tiny and should get blown around quite a bit--but it
doesn't. Witness the dust that never seems to make it far past the
coast of Africa (except on rare occasions when it does and makes
news).
Bottom line: CO2 is local, weather is local, UHI is local, GW is
local.
Local is the yokal Err-Hick.
RL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 03:21:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1176062762.109977.95500@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 11:16 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176054159.949586.84...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Also, the satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high elevations.
The only part of your post that I found of interest. Please explain.
Well, if you had taken the time to study the MSU you would not need an
explaination. But, your deluded brain hasn't made it that far yet.
You don't know or don't want to answer, out of spite. Noted, as-whole.
Well, Loopy Ray, just why should I do your homework for you?? You are one
of those guys that thinks he knows everything and is worth a million, why do
you think my information is worth any less? After all, I've put in years
studying the problem. You should be paying me for my knowledge, that is,
if you really cared. That's why people go to college and pay tuition, right?
Thus indeed SOx is not the best example, let's switch to carbon black
or dust. C does not react much with anything (Google this, soot is
very stable).
Same question: given that CO2 in the atmosphere is also stable, with
a long half life (several hundred years), why would aerosols be that
much different than CO2 dispersal? I concede that aerosols from
carbon black are much larger than CO2, probably a billion times larger
(1 um versus probably 10-15m), but even a relatively large 1 um
particle is tiny and should get blown around quite a bit--but it
doesn't. Witness the dust that never seems to make it far past the
coast of Africa (except on rare occasions when it does and makes
news).
Bottom line: CO2 is local, weather is local, UHI is local, GW is
local.
CO2 addition is not very important on a local scale. The change in CO2
relative to the average is small. The residence time for CO2 is much
larger than the yearly cycle. The atmosphere is rather well mixed, the
CO2 concentration in Antarctica follows that in the NH by a few years
at most. Carbon black and the other aerosols, such as sulfate, don't
stay up very long. As a result, the amount of aerosols tends to be
greatest near the source.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 03:27:12 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Also, the satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high elevations.
The only part of your post that I found of interest. Please explain.
Well, if you had taken the time to study the MSU you would not need an
explaination. But, your deluded brain hasn't made it that far yet.
You don't know or don't want to answer, out of spite. Noted, as-whole.
Well, Loopy Ray, just why should I do your homework for you?? You are one
of those guys that thinks he knows everything and is worth a million, why do
you think my information is worth any less? After all, I've put in years
studying the problem. You should be paying me for my knowledge, that is,
if you really cared. That's why people go to college and pay tuition, right?
Calm down. I conceeded defeat in this thread, which is more than you
would do. And it was a hypothesis, a thought experiment. You never
did answer the MSU problem above BTW, but I'll let that slide--one
person can't know everything, especially you.
Bottom line: CO2 is local, weather is local, UHI is local, GW is
local.
CO2 addition is not very important on a local scale. The change in CO2
relative to the average is small. The residence time for CO2 is much
larger than the yearly cycle. The atmosphere is rather well mixed, the
CO2 concentration in Antarctica follows that in the NH by a few years
at most. Carbon black and the other aerosols, such as sulfate, don't
stay up very long. As a result, the amount of aerosols tends to be
greatest near the source.
Yes, I came to the same conclusion after Googling this, in response to
your previous post.
RL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 05:44:26 PM |
|
|
In article <1176064031.987427.258080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Also, the satellite data over the Antarctic is of no use due to the high elevations.
The only part of your post that I found of interest. Please explain.
Well, if you had taken the time to study the MSU you would not need an
explaination. But, your deluded brain hasn't made it that far yet.
You don't know or don't want to answer, out of spite. Noted, as-whole.
Well, Loopy Ray, just why should I do your homework for you?? You are one
of those guys that thinks he knows everything and is worth a million, why do
you think my information is worth any less? After all, I've put in years
studying the problem. You should be paying me for my knowledge, that is,
if you really cared. That's why people go to college and pay tuition, right?
Calm down. I conceeded defeat in this thread, which is more than you
would do. And it was a hypothesis, a thought experiment. You never
did answer the MSU problem above BTW, but I'll let that slide--one
person can't know everything, especially you.
At least, I'm far enough along to know how little I know. You, however, made
mistakes that a student who passed a first year meteorology course should not.
Bottom line: CO2 is local, weather is local, UHI is local, GW is
local.
CO2 addition is not very important on a local scale. The change in CO2
relative to the average is small. The residence time for CO2 is much
larger than the yearly cycle. The atmosphere is rather well mixed, the
CO2 concentration in Antarctica follows that in the NH by a few years
at most. Carbon black and the other aerosols, such as sulfate, don't
stay up very long. As a result, the amount of aerosols tends to be
greatest near the source.
Yes, I came to the same conclusion after Googling this, in response to
your previous post.
Thanks for your "support". I hope you will do your homework next time.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mass Killer COALition" |
|
| Title: *** The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger Ray Lopez |
08 Apr 2007 03:08:05 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 1:06 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bottom line: CO2 is local, weather is local, UHI is local, GW is
local.
Local is the yokal Err-Hick.
RL
The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger
Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.
I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.
http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548
SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.
Did I leave anything out?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Coppock" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 05:11:05 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 9:47 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176041089.466451.68...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
raylope...@yahoo.com says...
[ . . . ]
Apples and oranges. You calling Einstein an idiot for doing thought
experiments? You're the idiot then.
Hardly so. I do think you are an idiot for ignoring all the work that
has been done on climate change, except your own thought experiments.
[ . . . ]
Reading your deluded thoughts is not science.
Gee Eric! You've very accurately summed up everything
that Loopy Lopez has posted here in just two sentences.
Very good work!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 03:34:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 05:37:35 PM |
|
|
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5oe7f@4ax.com>,
Joe@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream, which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crooked Corporations Backing Crooked Politicians" |
|
| Title: Re: Swanson sinks to Joe Fischer level of incompetency |
08 Apr 2007 06:13:47 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 3:37 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5o...@4ax.com>,
J...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream, which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Eric. You are as wrong as Joe Fischer is.
These Arctic circle anim maps do not show warm air pushing out cold
polar air -- all they show is the diurnal effects of warming at noon
and cooling overnight.
ALASKA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xak_st_anim.gif
CANADA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xcn_st_anim.gif
EUROPE
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xeu_st_anim.gif
SIBERIA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xas_st_anim.gif
You are both wrong. Very, very wrong. Extremely wrong.
Grade -F, Flunked, Failed, Fooey.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Swanson sinks to Joe Fischer level of incompetency |
08 Apr 2007 08:11:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1176074027.697187.177480@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Crooked.Corps@Exxon-Turds.info says...
On Apr 8, 3:37 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5o...@4ax.com>,
J...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson)
wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like
that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except
that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream,
which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
Sorry Eric. You are as wrong as Joe Fischer is.
These Arctic circle anim maps do not show warm air pushing out cold
polar air -- all they show is the diurnal effects of warming at noon
and cooling overnight.
ALASKA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xak_st_anim.gif
CANADA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xcn_st_anim.gif
EUROPE
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xeu_st_anim.gif
SIBERIA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xas_st_anim.gif
You are both wrong. Very, very wrong. Extremely wrong.
Grade -F, Flunked, Failed, Fooey.
When/where did you learn that temperature is mass flow? All that cold
air over the U.S. didn't just magicly appear, it flowed in from
somewhere else, in this case, the Canadian Arctic. And, it made it to
the Arctic as warm air flowing North. Or maybe you believe that the
Red Sea parted so Moses and his herd could cross?
Besides, your animation is for today, not 3 or 4 days ago when the
cold air mass began to move South.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs" |
|
| Title: Re: Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your asses. |
08 Apr 2007 08:38:25 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 6:11 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176074027.697187.177...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Crooked.Co...@Exxon-Turds.info says...
On Apr 8, 3:37 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5o...@4ax.com>,
J...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson)
wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like
that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except
that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream,
which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
Sorry Eric. You are as wrong as Joe Fischer is.
These Arctic circle anim maps do not show warm air pushing out cold
polar air -- all they show is the diurnal effects of warming at noon
and cooling overnight.
ALASKA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xak_st_anim.gif
CANADA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xcn_st_anim.gif
EUROPE
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xeu_st_anim.gif
SIBERIA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xas_st_anim.gif
You are both wrong. Very, very wrong. Extremely wrong.
Grade -F, Flunked, Failed, Fooey.
When/where did you learn that temperature is mass flow? All that cold
air over the U.S. didn't just magicly appear, it flowed in from
somewhere else, in this case, the Canadian Arctic.
Yes it did, but not by the mechanism you described of heated air
displacing it out of the polar regions. No heated air is in the polar
region, not even close to the polar region.
You just made stuff up out of thin air without a speck of evidence to
back your stupid thesis.
And, it made it to
the Arctic as warm air flowing North. Or maybe you believe that the
Red Sea parted so Moses and his herd could cross?
You failed to show 25 years of warm air records flowing into the
arctic (your requirement of proof was 25 years records posted earlier
this past year). You failed your own standards of proof.
Besides, your animation is for today, not 3 or 4 days ago when the
cold air mass began to move South.
It's the only evidence on the table at all.
(1) There no warm air in the arctic, not even 4 day-old warm air,
(2) There's no pattern of push on one side versus pushed on the other
side,
(3) You didn't collect the data 3 or 4 days ago when you made up your
crackpot scheme to show that you are one IQ point smarter than Joe
Fischer.
Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your
asses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your asses. |
08 Apr 2007 10:00:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1176082705.204325.167680@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 6:11 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Crooked.Co...@Exxon-Turds.info says...
On Apr 8, 3:37 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5o...@4ax.com>,
J...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson)
wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like
that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except
that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream,
which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
Sorry Eric. You are as wrong as Joe Fischer is.
These Arctic circle anim maps do not show warm air pushing out cold
polar air -- all they show is the diurnal effects of warming at noon
and cooling overnight.
ALASKA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xak_st_anim.gif
CANADA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xcn_st_anim.gif
EUROPE
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xeu_st_anim.gif
SIBERIA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xas_st_anim.gif
You are both wrong. Very, very wrong. Extremely wrong.
Grade -F, Flunked, Failed, Fooey.
When/where did you learn that temperature is mass flow? All that cold
air over the U.S. didn't just magicly appear, it flowed in from
somewhere else, in this case, the Canadian Arctic.
Yes it did, but not by the mechanism you described of heated air
displacing it out of the polar regions. No heated air is in the polar
region, not even close to the polar region.
You just made stuff up out of thin air without a speck of evidence to
back your stupid thesis.
The Lemmings troll apparently didn't notice the storm moving into Alaska
with a trailing warm front now moving onshore in the Pacific North West.
Lots of Pacific warmth there. Those temperatures in Alaska and Western
Canada are warmer than the Southeast U.S.
Not only that, but it still can't figure out where all that cold air was
before it became that cold air mass that pushed down from Arctic Canada.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shitbag McCain Adulterer" |
|
| Title: Re: Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your asses. |
08 Apr 2007 10:12:40 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 8:00 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176082705.204325.167...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 6:11 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Crooked.Co...@Exxon-Turds.info says...
On Apr 8, 3:37 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5o...@4ax.com>,
J...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson)
wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like
that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except
that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream,
which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
Sorry Eric. You are as wrong as Joe Fischer is.
These Arctic circle anim maps do not show warm air pushing out cold
polar air -- all they show is the diurnal effects of warming at noon
and cooling overnight.
ALASKA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xak_st_anim.gif
CANADA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xcn_st_anim.gif
EUROPE
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xeu_st_anim.gif
SIBERIA
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/640x480/2xas_st_anim.gif
You are both wrong. Very, very wrong. Extremely wrong.
Grade -F, Flunked, Failed, Fooey.
When/where did you learn that temperature is mass flow? All that cold
air over the U.S. didn't just magicly appear, it flowed in from
somewhere else, in this case, the Canadian Arctic.
Yes it did, but not by the mechanism you described of heated air
displacing it out of the polar regions. No heated air is in the polar
region, not even close to the polar region.
You just made stuff up out of thin air without a speck of evidence to
back your stupid thesis.
The Lemmings troll apparently didn't notice the storm moving into Alaska
with a trailing warm front now moving onshore in the Pacific North West.
Lots of Pacific warmth there. Those temperatures in Alaska and Western
Canada are warmer than the Southeast U.S.
Not only that, but it still can't figure out where all that cold air was
before it became that cold air mass that pushed down from Arctic Canada.
You bucket of warm scuzz, you quoted every single word from my
description of tropical storm Bebinca, you plagerizing thief, only you
didn't bother to post the satellite pictures showing it move hour by
hour.
Here's the archives in case you want to steal from me again, at least
do a competent job of it, not some Joe Fischer low-IQ parody of semi-
literacy...
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/Shanshan_Tornadoes.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your asses. |
09 Apr 2007 08:51:13 AM |
|
|
In article <1176088360.630361.223590@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Apr 8, 8:00 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <1176082705.204325.167...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
The Lemmings troll apparently didn't notice the storm moving into Alaska
with a trailing warm front now moving onshore in the Pacific North West.
Lots of Pacific warmth there. Those temperatures in Alaska and Western
Canada are warmer than the Southeast U.S.
Not only that, but it still can't figure out where all that cold air was
before it became that cold air mass that pushed down from Arctic Canada.
You bucket of warm scuzz, you quoted every single word from my
description of tropical storm Bebinca, you plagerizing thief, only you
didn't bother to post the satellite pictures showing it move hour by
hour.
Here's the archives in case you want to steal from me again, at least
do a competent job of it, not some Joe Fischer low-IQ parody of semi-
literacy...
The "Shitbag" sockhead troll posts nice graphics of old weather, as if
that is a quote. He confuses tropical storms with cold season air mass
movement and storms. He posts dubious calculations of energy flows
with no theoretical support.
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
Then, he accuses me of plagerizing, when my statements are taken the
basics of atmospheric science. Here's the essence of his argument:
"the heat energy was computed to be over 300,000,000 megawatthours
per hour..."
He fails to notice tht a megawatthour per hour is a megawatt...
As usual, the "Shitbag" is full of, well, how can I say it nicely???
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your asses. |
09 Apr 2007 11:21:51 AM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 6:51 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
The "Shitbag" sockhead troll posts nice graphics of old weather, as if
that is a quote. He confuses tropical storms with cold season air mass
movement and storms. He posts dubious calculations of energy flows
with no theoretical support.
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
Then, he accuses me of plagerizing, when my statements are taken the
basics of atmospheric science. Here's the essence of his argument:
"the heat energy was computed to be over 300,000,000 megawatthours
per hour..."
He fails to notice tht a megawatthour per hour is a megawatt...
As usual, the "Shitbag" is full of, well, how can I say it nicely???
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
Well, I'm glad you read him and exposed his lies, since I never read
his posts, they're too long.
RL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks" |
|
| Title: Re: Denialist Corpse washes up on beach with eight bullet holes in head. Police suspect foul play. |
09 Apr 2007 06:29:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 9:21 am, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:51 am, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
The "Shitbag" sockhead troll posts nice graphics of old weather, as if
that is a quote. He confuses tropical storms with cold season air mass
movement and storms. He posts dubious calculations of energy flows
with no theoretical support.
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
Then, he accuses me of plagerizing, when my statements are taken the
basics of atmospheric science. Here's the essence of his argument:
"the heat energy was computed to be over 300,000,000 megawatthours
per hour..."
He fails to notice tht a megawatthour per hour is a megawatt...
As usual, the "Shitbag" is full of, well, how can I say it nicely???
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
Well, I'm glad you read him and exposed his lies, since I never read
his posts, they're too long.
RL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: Face it, Swanson, you and Fischer are both crackpots talking out your asses. |
09 Apr 2007 08:28:25 AM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 8:12 pm, "Shitbag McCain Adulterer"
<Adulterer.McCain.Scum...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:00 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
I hate to say it Eric, but it seems Shitbag got the better of you in
this thread.
Back to the drawing boards...all those years of skooling down the
drain...
RL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 10:10:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5oe7f@4ax.com>,
Joe@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream, which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
I saw a map with all the many currents, and I think
it showed a southward flow in the Bering Straits, and that
seems to suggest that there is northward flow on both sides
of Greenland.
But there is so much seemingly conflicting literature,
at least it seems like this article not very old is contrary to
the supposed warming in Europe;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4485840.stm
[QUOTE]
"They say that European political leaders need to plan for a future
which may be cooler rather than warmer. "
[UNQUOTE]
I think 6 degrees C colder would be rough for coastal
Europe to take.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shitbag Adulterer McCain" |
|
| Title: Re: Crackpot Joe Fischer again, competing for lowest IQ ever to post on science newsgroups. Who dares to challenge him for the title? How low can we go? |
08 Apr 2007 09:16:24 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 8:10 pm, Joe Fischer <J...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article <ecki131salm3bualn7bd65fk6gdvt5o...@4ax.com>,
J...@BigScreenComputers.com says...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Sorry Joe, it's the warm air pushing North that is causing the cold
air to flow back toward the South. It's a circulation LOOP, like that
in a steam engine with a condenser. Turn up the heat and things move
faster. Sort of like "peddle to the metal" for us car guys, except that
there's no exhaust.
BTW, the warming seen in the Arctic is not due to the Gulf Stream, which
doesn't flow to the Arctic Ocean.
I saw a map with all the many currents, and I think
it showed a southward flow in the Bering Straits, and that
seems to suggest that there is northward flow on both sides
of Greenland.
But there is so much seemingly conflicting literature,
at least it seems like this article not very old is contrary to
the supposed warming in Europe;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4485840.stm
[QUOTE]
"They say that European political leaders need to plan for a future
which may be cooler rather than warmer. "
[UNQUOTE]
I think 6 degrees C colder would be rough for coastal
Europe to take.
Joe Fischer
Crackpot Joe Fischer again, competing for lowest IQ ever to post on
science newsgroups. Who dares to challenge him for the title? How low
can we go?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Toxic Meme Germs" |
|
| Title: The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger Joe Fischer |
08 Apr 2007 02:49:28 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 1:34 pm, Joe Fischer <J...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
And, how come most of the warming is near the North Pole, again,
where there are essentially no people?
The Gulf Stream? It must be pushing all the
cold air down over Alaska.
Joe Fischer
The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger
Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.
I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.
http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548
SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.
Did I leave anything out?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raylopez99" |
|
| Title: Re: GW is local; Neo-Urban Heat Island (NUHI) discovered: as implied by article in Science mag. |
08 Apr 2007 03:23:51 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 3:52 am, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Another Nobel in Climateology for me (refer to http://tinyurl.com/36djrg
for my previous Nobel).
After careful consideration of the evidence I withdraw my hypothesis
that GW from CO2 is local. Unlike my critics, I acknowledge when my
speculation is unfounded.
Apparently CO2 is much more inert than I suspected, and pollutants
such as O3, CO, NOx, SOx, OH, HCHO are (seemingly) much more
reactive. So even with a 10% leakage between latitudes, because CO2
does not react much, eventually the latitudes will equilibriate in
CO2, while they may not in these other pollutants, which tend to have
a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere.
However, it is interesting that such pollutants tend to be very local
(especially SOx).
BTW I renew my first Nobel claim found at: http://tinyurl.com/36djrg
In this claim I discuss how CO2 is outgassed by oceans, and how El
Nino (ENSO) events are responsible for CO2 production, not human
activity. ENSO is random, and preceeds GW.
Of interest is this 1999 paper that discusses CO2 outgassing:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel1868/text.shtml
RL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mass Killer COALition" |
|
| Title: Re: They were willing to put up $300,000,000 to overthrow Democracy in the US in 1934... |
08 Apr 2007 03:28:09 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 1:23 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Another Nobel in Climateology for me (refer tohttp://tinyurl.com/36djrg
for my previous Nobel).
After careful consideration of the evidence I withdraw my hypothesis
that GW from CO2 is local. Unlike my critics, I acknowledge when my
speculation is unfounded.
RL
They were willing to put up $300,000,000 to overthrow Democracy in the
US in 1934...
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/PathoCorps_Chap4/PathoCorps_Chap4.html
The Corporation
The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
by Joel Bakan
* Hardcover: 240 pages
* Publisher: Free Press (March 10, 2004)
* ISBN: 0743247442
Democracy Ltd. (Chapter 4)
As institutional psychopaths, corporations are wont to remove
obstacles
that get into their way. Regulations that limit their freedom to
exploit
people and the natural environment are such obstacles, and
corporations
have fought, with considerable success over the last twenty years, to
remove them. Through lobbying, political contributions, and
sophisticated
public relations campaigns, they and their leaders have turned the
political system and much public opinion against regulation. The law's
ability to protect people and the environment from corporate harm has
suffered as a result. Business opposition to regulation did not begin
in
the current era, however. It can be traced back to the origins of the
regulatory state itself. Surely, the most bizarre moment in its
history
was when a group of leading bankers and corporate executives conspired
to
overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who they believed had gone
too
far with his regulatory ambitions, and replace him with a fascist
dictator. The story reads like a pulp fiction thriller, but it really
happened. Shortly after becoming president of the United States in the
spring of 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt created the New Deal, a sweeping
and
page 86
unprecedented set of regulatory laws and agencies that aimed to
strengthen
government's control of big corporations and banks. The New Deal
reflected
Roosevelt's conviction that the Great Depression would end only once
the
market's invisible hand was replaced by the very visible, and
benevolent,
hand of government. In that spirit, Roosevelt signed into law, among
other
things, new rights and protections for workers, debt relief for
farmers,
and fairness and transparency guarantees for investors. He later
described
his creation as follows:
The word "Deal" implied that the Government itself was going to
use
affirmative action to bring about its avowed objectives rather
than
stand by and hope that general economic laws would attain them.
The
word "New" implied that a new order of things designed to benefit
the
great mass of our farmers, workers and business men would replace
the
old order of special privilege in a nation which was completely
and
thoroughly disgusted with the existing dispensation . . . we were
not
to be content with merely hoping for . . . [constitutional]
ideals. We
were to use the instrumentalities and powers of Government
actively to
fight for them . . . because the American system visualized
protection
of the individual against the misuse of private economic power,
the
New Deal would insist on curbing such power.[1]
Inevitably the New Deal did just that -- it curbed corporations'
freedoms
and powers. Though many business leaders agreed with Roosevelt that
the
New Deal was necessary to save capitalism from itself, especially at a
time of rising labor militancy and a collapsing economy, others were
enraged, and believed that Roosevelt's plan would undermine American
capitalism. Which is why a group of them plotted to overthrow his
government.
On August 22, 1934, a little more than a year into Roosevelt's
presidency
and three days after Adolf Hitler had officially become
Page 87
Fuhrer of Germany, Smedley Darlington Butler, a former U.S. Marines
general, and one of the nation's most honored and decorated military
men,
entered the lobby of the Bellevue Hotel in Philadelphia. A man named
Gerald MacGuire, a World War I veteran who sold bonds for a living,
was
waiting to meet him. After a brief exchange of pleasantries, MacGuire
told
Butler he had been sent by a group of businessmen to ask the general
to
raise an army, seize the White House, and install himself as fascist
dictator of the United States.[2]
Many business leaders at the time found fascism attractive, especially
when they compared it to the "class hatred . . . preached from the
White
House," as Herbert Hoover characterized Roosevelt's New Deal. Benito
Mussolini and Hitler had slashed the public debt, curbed inflation,
driven
down wages, and taken control of the trade unions in Italy and
Germany,
respectively. Roosevelt, on the other hand, had turned traitor to his
class, they believed, and was now bent on destroying American
capitalism.
In its luly 1934 issue. Fortune magazine extolled the virtues of
fascism
and the economic miracles wrought by Mussolini. Laird Goldsborough,
the
man who produced the issue, wrote, "The good journalist must recognize
in
Fascism certain ancient virtues of the race, whether or not they
happen to
be momentarily fashionable in his own country.[3]
Indeed, at the time, some major American corporations were reaping
substantial profits by working for Adolf Hitler. Adam Opel AG, a
German
automobile maker owned and controlled by General Motors (which, at the
time, was controlled by the Du Pont family), was, with the help of GM
executives, transformed in 1937 into an armaments concern. If
manufactured
trucks for the German Army, including three-ton "Opel Blitz" trucks, a
crucial part of the blitzkrieg attacks on Poland, France, and the
Soviet
Union. It also built aircraft components, including engines for the
Luftwaffe's Junker "Wunderbomber".[4] A recent GM television
commercial
boasts of the role of GM trucks in building roads and bridges to
support
the Allied
page 88
campaigns during World War II -- "some people say we were paving the
road
to victory," the ad states -- but neglects to mention that the company
helped build trucks for the enemy's armies as well.
IBM-a company where "if your customer needs help, you jump," according
to
lrving Wladawsky-Berger, vice president, technology and strategy --
jumped
when Hitler sought its technical assistance in running the Nazi
extermination and slave-labor programs. IBM provided the Nazis with
Hollerith tabulation machines, early ancestors of computers that used
punch cards to do their calculations. Edwin Black, author of IBM and
the
Holocaust, says, "The head office in New York had a complete
understanding
of everything that was going on in the Third Reich with its
machines . . .
that their machines were in concentration camps generally, and they
knew
that Jews were being exterminated." IBM technicians serviced the
machines,
IBM engineers trained their users, and IBM supplied punch cards for
the
machines, according to Black, at least until 1941, when the United
States
declared war on Germany.[5]
IBM's motivation for working with the Nazis, says Black, "was never
about
Nazism . . . it was always about profit," which is consistent with the
corporation's amoral nature. Corporations have no capacity to value
political systems, fascist or democratic, for reasons of principle or
ideology. The only legitimate question for a corporation is whether a
political system serves or impedes its self-interested purposes.
According
to Peter Drucker -- who says he "discussed it more than once with old
Mr.
Watson," the head of IBM at the time -- Thomas Watson had reservations
about working with the Nazis'. "Not because he thought it was
immoral,"
says Drucker, but "because Watson, with a very keen sense of public
relations, thought it was risky" from a business perspective. In a
similar
spirit, Alfred Sloan, Jr., chairman of General Motors in 1939, seemed
morally unconcerned about his company's work for the Nazis. The German
subsidiaries were "highly profitable," he noted in defense of GM's
investments in
page 89
Germany, and Germany's internal political affairs "should not be
considered the business of the management of General Motors."[6]
Though
the assistance provided to the Nazis by U.S. corporations may seem
shocking in retrospect, it should not be forgotten that many U.S.
corporations today regularly do business with totalitarian and
authoritarian regimes-again, because it is profitable to do so.[7]
Looking back on the 1930s, a time when some top American corporations
unabashedly worked with fascist dictators and many businesspeople
believed
that the federal government was threatening the capitalist system, one
can
at least comprehend why a cabal of leading businessmen would hatch a
plot
to turn the country into a fascist dictatorship. Removing democracy
likely
seemed a defensible business plan, from their perspective, because
democracy threatened to undermine the corporation's mission. And
Smedley
Butler was the obvious person for the fob of removing it-or at least
that
is what MacGuire and his backers thought.
Butler had been a lifelong Republican and was a charismatic public
speaker. A celebrated military hero-one of only four men to be
decorated
with the coveted Congressional Medal of Honor twice -- the general had
spent most of his military career protecting American business
interests
throughout Asia and Central America. He was also adored by veterans,
for
whom he had fought for better treatment and more generous benefits
from
government. Butler seemed ideally positioned to raise an army of
veterans
and lead them on a campaign to seize the White House.
MacGuire and Butler had already met several times before the Bellevue
Hotel meeting. A year earlier, MacGuire had invited himself to
Butler's
Philadelphia home, claiming to be a representative of concerned
veterans,
and asked the general to deliver a speech at an upcoming American
Legion
convention. The speech, a copy of which MacGuire had with him, was
designed to rally the veterans against Roosevelt's decision to abandon
the
gold standard, which,
page 90
once done, would cost the banks dearly. Butler, confused about why
veterans should be concerned with the gold standard, had refused
MacGuire's request. A few months later, in September 1933, MacGuire
had
found Butler again, this time in New Jersey, where the general was
delivering a speech to a Legion branch. The two men had met in
Butler's
hotel room, where MacGuire had once again pleaded with the general to
deliver the gold standard speech at the Chicago convention. According
to
Butler, MacGuire scattered a mass of $1,000 bills on the bed and
invited
him to use them to finance his trip to Chicago. "You put that money
away
before somebody walks in here and sees that money around," Butler
recalled
telling MacGuire, "because I do not want to be tied up with it at
all."[8]
When the two men met at the Bellevue Hotel several weeks later, Butler
had
already acquired the names and affiliations of the men MacGuire
purported
to represent, mainly from MacGuire himself. There was, Butler later
stated, Grayson Murphy, head of a leading Wall Street brokerage firm
and a
director of Morgan Guaranty Trust, as well as of Anaconda Copper,
Goodyear
Tire, and Bethlehem Steel. Robert dark, a wealthy banker whom Butler
had
actually met after demanding MacGuire produce some of his backers and
who
had told Butler that he was prepared to spend half of his $30 million
fortune to protect the other half from Roosevelt, was another alleged
backer of the plot, as was John Davis, the unsuccessful Democratic
candidate for president in the 1924 election and later an attorney at
J.
P. Morgan & Co.
The meeting at the Bellevue Hotel took place in the closed-down hotel
cafe
at a table tucked away in a remote corner. MacGuire began by telling
Butler that he had spent the past six months in Europe.
Butler recalled the rest of the conversation as follows:
He said, "I went abroad to study the part that the veteran plays
in
the various set-ups of the governments that they have abroad. I
page 91
went to Italy for two or three months and studied the position
that
the veterans of Italy occupy and the Fascist set-up of government,
and
I discovered that they are the background of Mussolini. . . . I
then
went to Germany to see what Hitler was doing, and his whole
strength
lies in organizations of soldiers, too. . . . Then I went to
France,
and I found fust exactly the organization we are going to have. It
is
an organization of super soldiers." He gave me the French name for
it,
but I do not recall what it is. I never could have pronounced it
anyhow. But I do know that it is a superorganization of members of
all
the other soldiers' organizations of France, composed of
non-commissioned officers and officers. He told me that they had
about
500,000, and that each one was a leader of ten others, so that it
gave
them 5,000,000 votes. And he said, "Now, that is our idea here in
America -- to get up an organization of that kind."[9]
MacGuire told Butler that his backers' plan was to create an American
version of the Croix de Feu, the French soldiers' organization whose
name
Butler was unable to recall, and install the general at the head of
it.
With a powerful army behind him, the plotters anticipated, Butler
could
demand that Roosevelt make him a secretary of general affairs, a new
position where he would serve as a kind of assistant president. From
there, Butler could assume real power over the nation and the
president
would become a mere figurehead, on the contrived pretext that
Roosevelt's
health was failing. If Roosevelt refused to cooperate with the scheme,
according to MacGuire, Butler's army would overthrow him.
Journalist Paul Comly French, who also spoke with MacGuire,
corroborated
Butler's story:
During the course of the conversation he continually discussed the
need of a man on a white horse, as he called it, a dictator who
would
page 92
come galloping in on his white horse. He said that was the only
way;
either through the threat of armed force or the delegation of
power,
and the use of a group of organized veterans, to save the
capitalist
system.
He warmed up considerably after we got under way and he said, "We
might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him what Mussolini
did
with the King of Italy."
It fits in with what he told the General, that we would have a
Secretary of General Affairs, and if Roosevelt played ball, swell;
and
if he did not, they would push him out."[10]
The money was there, MacGuire boasted to Butler during their meeting,
to
raise and equip a veterans' army, $3 million in place and $300 million
available if needed. His backers were already on the move, he said,
putting together a front organization that would provide secret
financial
and practical support for the plot. The formation of the American
Liberty
League, an organization "to combat radicalism, to teach the necessity
of
respect for the rights of person and property, and generally to foster
free private enterprise," was announced three weeks later. The
league's
treasurer, Grayson Murphy, was MacGuire's boss. Robert Clark was a
major
financial contributor, and men from J. P. Morgan and DuPont were the
league's executives. John Davis was a member of the national executive
committee. Financial backers included some of corporate America's
major
concerns: the Pitcairn family, Andrew Mellon Associates, Rockefeller
Associates, E. F. Hutton Associates, William Knudsen of General
Motors,
and the V. Pew family.[11]
MacGuire and the plotters had made a fatal mistake in their choice of
a
leader, however. "With incredible ineptitude," states Jules Archer in
| | |
