Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.

Science > Physics > Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Corporate Shill Catcher"
Date:	28 Nov 2006 04:31:57 AM
Object:	Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.

Weinstein wrote:

Snow creates havoc in parts of B.C.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061127.wbcsnow1127/BNStory/Front/home

Vancouver ? The region that doesn't ?do? Canadian winter was in
frosty chaos Monday as Arctic air that has blanketed the West
wreaked havoc on Lotusland.

A 24-hour snowstorm left streets clogged with ice and slush ?
and with drivers who are not used to real winter.

Some people didn't want to risk driving. That meant long
lineups at transit stops for the morning rush in Vancouver,
and frustrated commuters as jam-packed buses drove right on by.

The city's SkyTrain had to cut back service to deal with snow
on the raised track, creating a crush of people waiting on the
platform. ...

Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make
intense winter cold.
A number of posts have dealt with harsh winter conditions in the
Northern Hemisphere recently. Apparently some people never learned
basic physics in the absolutely free education system we offer up to
the 12th grade.
Very arctic conditions were warned earlier this year. The preconditions
were set up and observed and measured. The results of the predictions
are now coming true.
For instance these links were posted:
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html
A check on http://groups.google.com shows the following record:
Results 1 - 24 of 24 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html"
Results 1 - 63 of 63 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html"
Results 1 - 57 of 57 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html"
Results 1 - 69 of 69 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html"
Results 1 - 62 of 62 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html"
Results 1 - 46 of 46 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html"
Results 1 - 44 of 44 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html"
So, as you can prove by an impartial record-keeper, you all were given
dozens upon dozens of warning and prediction repetitions.
Now, when it gets real cold, there has to be a reason. RepigglyKKKlans
believe that Je-Zeus YHVH, in his capricious and bloodthirsty manner
wreaks arbitrary hell on people, freezing some poor stiffs in Calgary
because they are too poor to buy heat. Science and reason has a much
better explanation which allows predictions months in advance, as you
can see by the posting record.
(1) First Global Warming increased storms intensities. Hurricane IOKE
was as strong as Katrina for 16 days straight.
(2) Then the tropical heat was transported quickly to the Arctic before
it could cooldown.
(3) Tropical rain fell on the Arctic Ice and melted a lake 38,000
square miles ten feet deep. 27,000,000 tons of TNT energy equivalent
was deposited in just that one lake.
(4) Melting ice absorbs heat and makes it disappear from thermometers.
The arctic didn't seem warmer, but that heat energy was stored in
there, waiting for winter to come.
(5) With the long dark nights the Arctic finally cooled enough to
refreeze that ice. Freezing ice releases energy, but the temperature of
that energy is at freezing -- it's not heat, but "expansion energy".
(6) The constant release of this expansion energy pushes cold air
masses off the top of the globe in the directions of least resistance.
(7) The Bearfort Sea, where the tropical heat energy was stored,
receives winds from the Japan current, so the expansion energy cannot
flow out that direction -- on the global temperature maps that
direction is the warmest direction of anywhere around the Bearfort Sea.
(8) The directions of least resistance for Arctic freezing air with
expansion backpressure from the Bearfort Sea has been Eastern Alaska,
Northern Central Canada and far north-eastern Siberia. These are the
coldest places in the Northern hemisphere right now, today. They are
also (look at a globe, not a flat map) the closest places to the
Bearfort Sea where the kinetic energy was stored this summer.
Unless you believe the Kansas Creationist mythology of Je-Zeus YHVH
having the whole world in his hands, and who also happens to be insane
and a real *****, then you need to turn to science to understand a bit
about weather, climate, and heat-kinetic energy.
The only time there is no heat energy is when something is absolute
zero Kelvin. All climate and all weather is a response to heat in the
system. Even the Arctic Express is heat energy in motion. The Earth is
so hot that some elements that are solid on other world have boiled
into gases on Earth -- like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon-Dioxide. It takes
heat to make anything go from solid to liquid to gas, so the very fact
that there is air is proof of heat in the system. Even blizzards with
-100 degrees windchill factors are heat effects putting fluids like the
air into motion.
It was posted months ago that the heat in the Arctic from tropical
storms photographed every step of the way from the equator to the North
Pole would cause expansion pressure later when the melted ice refroze.
These current conditions, even freezing temperatures down to Mexico
City are caused by Global Warming excess energy in the system.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	28 Nov 2006 06:39:49 PM

Anonymous Yellow Coward PosterCorporate Shill Catcher wrote:

These current conditions, even freezing temperatures down to Mexico
City are caused by Global Warming excess energy in the system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And the bear pooped on my Palm Springs Patio instead
of the woods while the Jewish Pope cased him.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html
Jan Eric Orme
Real Name, Real Person, Real Address
.

User: "Weinstein"
Title: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	29 Nov 2006 10:16:00 AM

wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".
With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------
Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)
It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.
A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..
And people ask me why I doubt the objectivity of AGW hysterists...
.

User: "Ken Muldrew"
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	29 Nov 2006 02:06:32 PM

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates. Obviously it gets a lot colder in December, January,
and February. The homeless people who froze to death might have
quibbled with the "trivia" label, though, had they made it through.
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.

User: "Edward Green"
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	01 Dec 2006 06:41:42 PM

Ken Muldrew wrote:

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates.

It's been an unseasonably warm autumn in NYC: today, Dec 1, it was a
balmy 65F. Could you please share some of your Canadian cold? This
weather is deranging my biological clock, and I won't flower properly
in the spring unless it gets colder now.

Obviously it gets a lot colder in December, January,
and February. The homeless people who froze to death might have
quibbled with the "trivia" label, though, had they made it through.

You mean, I hope this is not heartless to say, the alcoholics, I take
it. Wasn't it you who told me that frost bitten throat from hard
liquor left outside in winter was a common emergency room complaint in
your part of the world?
.

User: "Ken Muldrew"
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	04 Dec 2006 01:46:12 PM

"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:

Ken Muldrew wrote:

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates.

I'm sure there are many people who would gladly oblige if only there
was some way to ship the cold out of here. Then again, maybe they've
already forgotten about it; it was -30�C on Saturday morning and today
it's up to +3�C (balmy, but the streets are a mess).

Obviously it gets a lot colder in December, January,
and February. The homeless people who froze to death might have
quibbled with the "trivia" label, though, had they made it through.

You mean, I hope this is not heartless to say, the alcoholics, I take
it.

Because of insane growth over the past few years, there are a lot of
working poor who can't find housing at the moment, so the shelters are
full and the alcoholic and mentally unstable are often unable to get a
spot. Two people died in the recent cold weather and I think they were
both found to be heavily intoxicated. But dying from hypothermia is
really a very painful way to go and if you've ever been close to that
manner of suffering, an anaesthetic would certainly be welcome.
There is a leisure class at both ends of the social spectrum. I'm not
inclined to further the comfort of either, but neither am I inclined
to put them to death.

Wasn't it you who told me that frost bitten throat from hard
liquor left outside in winter was a common emergency room complaint in
your part of the world?

It happens several times every year in a big city emergency ward, but
not among alcoholics. It's mostly weekend imbibers who get carried
away with some foolishness or other (probably relating to televised
sports). Most frostbite cases are among alcoholic bums who are in poor
heath and have crappy circulation to begin with. Pushing a shopping
cart around with lousy mitts, or holes in their shoes, or just not
being able to find somewhere to warm up before it's too late. These
cases are usually frozen fingers or toes.
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	02 Dec 2006 08:47:51 AM

In article <1165020102.352037.19890@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:

Ken Muldrew wrote:

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates.

Some of my mothers flowers have already done their spring thing.
She had a rose and the crocus bloomed again. the rose is probably
all sleet now.
<snip>
/BAH
.

User: "z"
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	02 Dec 2006 12:01:14 PM

wrote:

In article <1165020102.352037.19890@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:

Ken Muldrew wrote:

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates.

Some of my mothers flowers have already done their spring thing.
She had a rose and the crocus bloomed again. the rose is probably
all sleet now.

Over the entire Thanksgiving weekend, I didn't see a single car, of the
constant stream on the northbound/southbound highways through
Connecticut, carrying skis. This is a new phenomenon.
.

User: "Herman Family"
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	02 Dec 2006 01:09:01 PM

"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1165082474.830475.237430@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1165020102.352037.19890@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:

Ken Muldrew wrote:

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates.

Some of my mothers flowers have already done their spring thing.
She had a rose and the crocus bloomed again. the rose is probably
all sleet now.

Over the entire Thanksgiving weekend, I didn't see a single car, of the
constant stream on the northbound/southbound highways through
Connecticut, carrying skis. This is a new phenomenon.

Global warming is an average based phenomenon, not a local event. This has
confused a lot of people, including many policy makers.
With the changing weather patterns it has always been pointed out that some
areas would end up dryer, some wetter, some hotter, and some colder. We'll
see increased desertification in some areas, and flooding in others. When
we look at the big picture, Calgary may be in for many more very cold
winters and New England might see a winter without snow. Neither of those
would necessarily be a good thing.
Michael
.

User: "Weinstein"
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	02 Dec 2006 05:35:22 PM

Herman Family wrote:

Global warming is an average based phenomenon, not a local event. This has
confused a lot of people, including many policy makers.

You're right.
I'm posting these 'cold weather' articles to balance off the newsgroup.
All last summer we saw 'hot weather' articles in the groups. NOBODY who
believes in AGW came forward to indicate that they were only local events.
They all remained silent.
When summer comes again to the northern hemisphere, I'll be discounting
all the inevitable hot weather posts as 'weather reports'.
You really do need long term data to determine whether a planet is
warming or cooling.
For instance, NASA has photographic proof that the poles of Mars have
been shrinking steadily for the last six years. Something that occurs
over 6 or more years is better proof of global warming than a weather
report or two.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005-imagesc.html
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 110 year cold weather record set to fall in Calgary Canada	03 Dec 2006 07:27:13 AM

In article <1165082474.830475.237430@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1165020102.352037.19890@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:

Ken Muldrew wrote:

Weinstein <wstien@autonet.com> wrote:

JanOrme99@aol.com wrote:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/11/28/2530545-sun.html

" The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a
110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected
to ease in the coming days".

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C
record set on this day in 1896".
---------------------

Thanks for posting the link Jan. I missed that one :-)

It seems that a 100 year record heat wave is absolute proof
of global warming.

A 100 year record cold snap is merely weather trivia..

Well it was just 2 days of record temperatures, and only for the
specific dates.

Some of my mothers flowers have already done their spring thing.
She had a rose and the crocus bloomed again. the rose is probably
all sleet now.

Over the entire Thanksgiving weekend, I didn't see a single car, of the
constant stream on the northbound/southbound highways through
Connecticut, carrying skis. This is a new phenomenon.

Not new since it's happened before. It's been a while that my mother
in Michigan got their first snow before me (Mass.). This year I
get to do the chortling.
/BAH
.

User: "john fernbach"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	01 Dec 2006 06:42:21 PM

Corporate -- magnificent post, IMHO. Thanks for the graphs, the links,
and the theory.
One question: You write that unless we want to follow Creationist
myths, we need to "learn some science." Which is great advice -- but
for many of us, including me, I think it's too vague.
Why? "Science" per se is a huge field, and it's expanding
exponentially, as Alvin Toffler noted several decades ago in his book
FUTURE SHOCK.
Because the field is so huge and complex, and because it's expanding so
fast, most ordinary mortals can't begin to keep up with it all.
Therefore we suffer from "future shock" and information overload, as
Toffler warned. Which means many of us just give up trying to
understand.
We tune out information like yours not "only" because we're lazy or
corrupt, but also, and importantly, because we've already given up on
trying to understand it.
So - since you urge us to learn "science," and quite rightly - can you
recommend some books or some highly credible web sites on this
subjected that the interested lay person can refer to, just to get
started?
Rightly or wrongly, most of us don't have the time, background, or self
esteem to follow science on the cutting edge, as you seem to. But we
can still try to absorb whatever scientific information we can handle -
we can still try to grasp the fundamentals, so that we can more or less
follow your arguments.
Where do we get started? Especially where do we get started on global
climate change, since we don't necessarily want to be learning rocket
science or microelectronics or recombinant DNA technology at the same
time.
We need a specialized introduction to climate change, credible &
unbiased, that's free enough of jargon for the layperson to access it,
and yet also accurate enough to prepare us to follow the debates.
Can you recommend elementary textbooks or popularized science writing
on this subject? So that the next time your write something, we're
smart enough to follow you?
---------------------------
Corporate Shill Catcher wrote:

Weinstein wrote:

Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make
intense winter cold.

A number of posts have dealt with harsh winter conditions in the
Northern Hemisphere recently. Apparently some people never learned
basic physics in the absolutely free education system we offer up to
the 12th grade.

Very arctic conditions were warned earlier this year. The preconditions
were set up and observed and measured. The results of the predictions
are now coming true.

For instance these links were posted:
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html

A check on http://groups.google.com shows the following record:
Results 1 - 24 of 24 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html"
Results 1 - 63 of 63 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html"
Results 1 - 57 of 57 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html"
Results 1 - 69 of 69 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html"
Results 1 - 62 of 62 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html"
Results 1 - 46 of 46 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html"
Results 1 - 44 of 44 for
"http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html"

So, as you can prove by an impartial record-keeper, you all were given
dozens upon dozens of warning and prediction repetitions.

Now, when it gets real cold, there has to be a reason. RepigglyKKKlans
believe that Je-Zeus YHVH, in his capricious and bloodthirsty manner
wreaks arbitrary hell on people, freezing some poor stiffs in Calgary
because they are too poor to buy heat. Science and reason has a much
better explanation which allows predictions months in advance, as you
can see by the posting record.

(1) First Global Warming increased storms intensities. Hurricane IOKE
was as strong as Katrina for 16 days straight.
(2) Then the tropical heat was transported quickly to the Arctic before
it could cooldown.
(3) Tropical rain fell on the Arctic Ice and melted a lake 38,000
square miles ten feet deep. 27,000,000 tons of TNT energy equivalent
was deposited in just that one lake.
(4) Melting ice absorbs heat and makes it disappear from thermometers.
The arctic didn't seem warmer, but that heat energy was stored in
there, waiting for winter to come.
(5) With the long dark nights the Arctic finally cooled enough to
refreeze that ice. Freezing ice releases energy, but the temperature of
that energy is at freezing -- it's not heat, but "expansion energy".
(6) The constant release of this expansion energy pushes cold air
masses off the top of the globe in the directions of least resistance.
(7) The Bearfort Sea, where the tropical heat energy was stored,
receives winds from the Japan current, so the expansion energy cannot
flow out that direction -- on the global temperature maps that
direction is the warmest direction of anywhere around the Bearfort Sea.
(8) The directions of least resistance for Arctic freezing air with
expansion backpressure from the Bearfort Sea has been Eastern Alaska,
Northern Central Canada and far north-eastern Siberia. These are the
coldest places in the Northern hemisphere right now, today. They are
also (look at a globe, not a flat map) the closest places to the
Bearfort Sea where the kinetic energy was stored this summer.

Unless you believe the Kansas Creationist mythology of Je-Zeus YHVH
having the whole world in his hands, and who also happens to be insane
and a real *****, then you need to turn to science to understand a bit
about weather, climate, and heat-kinetic energy.

The only time there is no heat energy is when something is absolute
zero Kelvin. All climate and all weather is a response to heat in the
system. Even the Arctic Express is heat energy in motion. The Earth is
so hot that some elements that are solid on other world have boiled
into gases on Earth -- like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon-Dioxide. It takes
heat to make anything go from solid to liquid to gas, so the very fact
that there is air is proof of heat in the system. Even blizzards with
-100 degrees windchill factors are heat effects putting fluids like the
air into motion.

It was posted months ago that the heat in the Arctic from tropical
storms photographed every step of the way from the equator to the North
Pole would cause expansion pressure later when the melted ice refroze.

These current conditions, even freezing temperatures down to Mexico
City are caused by Global Warming excess energy in the system.

User: "Alexi Tekhasski"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	02 Dec 2006 12:59:34 AM

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165020141.278662.33440@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
| Corporate -- magnificent post, IMHO. Thanks for the graphs, the
links,
| and the theory.
|
| One question: You write that unless we want to follow Creationist
| myths, we need to "learn some science." Which is great advice --
but
| for many of us, including me, I think it's too vague.
|
| Why? "Science" per se is a huge field, and it's expanding
| exponentially, as Alvin Toffler noted several decades ago in his
book
| FUTURE SHOCK.
|
| Because the field is so huge and complex, and because it's expanding
so
| fast, most ordinary mortals can't begin to keep up with it all.
| Therefore we suffer from "future shock" and information overload, as
| Toffler warned. Which means many of us just give up trying to
| understand.
|
| We tune out information like yours not "only" because we're lazy or
| corrupt, but also, and importantly, because we've already given up
on
| trying to understand it.
|
| So - since you urge us to learn "science," and quite rightly - can
you
| recommend some books or some highly credible web sites on this
| subjected that the interested lay person can refer to, just to get
| started?
|
| Rightly or wrongly, most of us don't have the time, background, or
self
| esteem to follow science on the cutting edge, as you seem to. But
we
| can still try to absorb whatever scientific information we can
handle -
| we can still try to grasp the fundamentals, so that we can more or
less
| follow your arguments.
|
| Where do we get started? Especially where do we get started on
global
| climate change, since we don't necessarily want to be learning
rocket
| science or microelectronics or recombinant DNA technology at the
same
| time.
|
| We need a specialized introduction to climate change, credible &
| unbiased, that's free enough of jargon for the layperson to access
it,
| and yet also accurate enough to prepare us to follow the debates.
|
| Can you recommend elementary textbooks or popularized science
writing
| on this subject? So that the next time your write something, we're
| smart enough to follow you?
John, you are rising very good concerns, the "future shock"
has become "present shock" IMO. I would say that there
is no escape from this situation. The science, real science
of climate is really complex, the roots of the problem
lie in shaky foundation of fluid dynamics, which has
a number of unsolved problems. Most people of
climatology do not understand the depth of the problem,
so they prefer to keep their eyes shut. The problem
is in a fairy complex mathematics of the phenomenon,
the mathematics that is far above best courses taught
in most colleges and universities. There are not many
people who really "got it", and once they got it, they
realize how "dirty" are the formulations of climate
problems, they are not treatable, and they do not jump
to premature conclusions and sensations. These are
spheres that are seriously outside comprehension
of many climate scientists, and definitely not for a
layperson to judge.
Instead of listening to primitivstic self-indulged explanations
of mentally-distorted Lion Kunz aka "Corporate Shill
Catcher" etc. (67.119.178.xx), go read some classics,
"Taken by Storm" by Essex and McKitrick. The book has
some introductory material, but again, some of their
arguments (like problems that arise from unclosed
equations of turbulence) are way above the
head of non-specialists in fluid dynamic field to
fully appreciate them, or even comprehend their
show-stopping significance.
Cheers,
- Alexi
.

User: "john fernbach"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	02 Dec 2006 03:37:04 PM

Alexi - I suspect you're on the other side of this debate from me, and
because of this I don't completely trust you -- sorry, but that's how I
am. But thanks very much for the reading recommendation.
If there's one thing that both sides in this fight should be able to
agree on, it's that climate trends are important, and understanding the
science of climate trends is important, and actually continuing
research on climate trends and what's causing them is very important.
I personally believe that there's enough evidence for AGW to start
tackling the problem now - and some smart scientists I read are saying
it's already almost too late; we should have started yesterday.
But whoever wins or loses the current climate fight, most of the sane
people in here on both sides agree that what happens to the climate
will have an enormous effect on human society, the fate of the earth's
current crop of plant and animal species, and future of human and
non-human creatures.
If something other than greenhouse gases is triggering the current
warming trend - which I doubt -- well, we need to understand what it
is, so we know what to expect, and I hope also what human societies may
want to do to shield ourselves from nasty developments down the road.
Looks to me as if it's really important that the climate scientists try
to develop ways of predicting future ice ages, too. And that if
there's some way we can shape the space program so as to develop
technologies for heading off future disasters caused by giant meteor
strikes, we should try to do that, too.
We all know that the planet has undergone severe cooling -- the ice
ages -- followed by periods of more or less intense warming. Most of
the paleontologists seem to agree that rapid climate change, probably
triggered by a meteor strike, effecting destroyed the dinosaurs after
their run of something like 160 million years as the planet's dominant
species. Unless we're total fatalists, and we want to leave the fate
of the human species in the hands of God or Brahman/Siva/Kali or the
hands of random chance, it makes sense for all of us to develop a
better sense of the climate forces that are shaping our destinies.
Alexi Tekhasski wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165020141.278662.33440@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
| Corporate -- magnificent post, IMHO. Thanks for the graphs, the
links,
| and the theory.
|
| One question: You write that unless we want to follow Creationist
| myths, we need to "learn some science." Which is great advice --
but
| for many of us, including me, I think it's too vague.
|
| Why? "Science" per se is a huge field, and it's expanding
| exponentially, as Alvin Toffler noted several decades ago in his
book
| FUTURE SHOCK.
|
| Because the field is so huge and complex, and because it's expanding
so
| fast, most ordinary mortals can't begin to keep up with it all.
| Therefore we suffer from "future shock" and information overload, as
| Toffler warned. Which means many of us just give up trying to
| understand.
|
| We tune out information like yours not "only" because we're lazy or
| corrupt, but also, and importantly, because we've already given up
on
| trying to understand it.
|
| So - since you urge us to learn "science," and quite rightly - can
you
| recommend some books or some highly credible web sites on this
| subjected that the interested lay person can refer to, just to get
| started?
|
| Rightly or wrongly, most of us don't have the time, background, or
self
| esteem to follow science on the cutting edge, as you seem to. But
we
| can still try to absorb whatever scientific information we can
handle -
| we can still try to grasp the fundamentals, so that we can more or
less
| follow your arguments.
|
| Where do we get started? Especially where do we get started on
global
| climate change, since we don't necessarily want to be learning
rocket
| science or microelectronics or recombinant DNA technology at the
same
| time.
|
| We need a specialized introduction to climate change, credible &
| unbiased, that's free enough of jargon for the layperson to access
it,
| and yet also accurate enough to prepare us to follow the debates.
|
| Can you recommend elementary textbooks or popularized science
writing
| on this subject? So that the next time your write something, we're
| smart enough to follow you?

John, you are rising very good concerns, the "future shock"
has become "present shock" IMO. I would say that there
is no escape from this situation. The science, real science
of climate is really complex, the roots of the problem
lie in shaky foundation of fluid dynamics, which has
a number of unsolved problems. Most people of
climatology do not understand the depth of the problem,
so they prefer to keep their eyes shut. The problem
is in a fairy complex mathematics of the phenomenon,
the mathematics that is far above best courses taught
in most colleges and universities. There are not many
people who really "got it", and once they got it, they
realize how "dirty" are the formulations of climate
problems, they are not treatable, and they do not jump
to premature conclusions and sensations. These are
spheres that are seriously outside comprehension
of many climate scientists, and definitely not for a
layperson to judge.

Instead of listening to primitivstic self-indulged explanations
of mentally-distorted Lion Kunz aka "Corporate Shill
Catcher" etc. (67.119.178.xx), go read some classics,
"Taken by Storm" by Essex and McKitrick. The book has
some introductory material, but again, some of their
arguments (like problems that arise from unclosed
equations of turbulence) are way above the
head of non-specialists in fluid dynamic field to
fully appreciate them, or even comprehend their
show-stopping significance.

Cheers,

- Alexi

User: "Alexi Tekhasski"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	03 Dec 2006 02:36:47 AM

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165095424.487438.29140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Alexi - I suspect you're on the other side of this debate from me, and
because of this I don't completely trust you -- sorry, but that's how I
am. But thanks very much for the reading recommendation.

Thanks for the thanks, but out of curiosity, why do you trust
ravings of that lunatic Lion more? As I tried to explain in
my previous post, the shallow high-school "science
program" is vastly inadequate to understand troubles of
the science of climate. Even Ph.D in climatology is not
usually enough, as evidenced by various nonsense posted in
multitude of "climate change" blogs and groups.

If there's one thing that both sides in this fight should be able to
agree on, it's that climate trends are important, and understanding the
science of climate trends is important, and actually continuing
research on climate trends and what's causing them is very important.

Yes, I could not agree more on the importance of understanding.

I personally believe that there's enough evidence for AGW to start
tackling the problem now - and some smart scientists I read are saying
it's already almost too late; we should have started yesterday.

You apparently read not very smart scientists. You can
look at the problem this way: people are just releasing
some carbon that was accumulated via natural processes,
thus restoring historical precedent... :-)

But whoever wins or loses the current climate fight, most of the sane
people in here on both sides agree that what happens to the climate
will have an enormous effect on human society, the fate of the earth's
current crop of plant and animal species, and future of human and
non-human creatures.

There is an opinion that what is happening to the climate would
happen regardless of any action or inaction. I think this is
the correct opinion.

If something other than greenhouse gases is triggering the current
warming trend - which I doubt -- well, we need to understand what it
is,

Again, couldn't agree more.

so we know what to expect, and I hope also what human societies may
want to do to shield ourselves from nasty developments down the road.

We just need to study paleohistory.

Looks to me as if it's really important that the climate scientists try
to develop ways of predicting future ice ages, too.

I would start first from explaining past ice ages. It will make much
easier to understand future ones.

And that if
there's some way we can shape the space program so as to develop
technologies for heading off future disasters caused by giant meteor
strikes, we should try to do that, too.

Not sure about the meteor strikes, but a program to prevent Sun
from turning into Supernova would be not the best spending of
resources IMO. :-)

We all know that the planet has undergone severe cooling -- the ice
ages -- followed by periods of more or less intense warming. Most of
the paleontologists seem to agree that rapid climate change, probably
triggered by a meteor strike, effecting destroyed the dinosaurs after
their run of something like 160 million years as the planet's dominant
species.

I don't think they explored all options. For example,
it is feasible that the climate change was still gradual,
but pushed the climate comfort zone outside the edges of
continents, so the species who could not swim died.
I have not heard about this explanation yet.

Unless we're total fatalists, and we want to leave the fate
of the human species in the hands of God or Brahman/Siva/Kali or the
hands of random chance, it makes sense for all of us to develop a
better sense of the climate forces that are shaping our destinies.

I do not see how climate forces are shaping destinies of several
immediate generations, other than some smarts want to
tax your fears (and me altogether).
Cheers,
- Alexi
.

User: "john fernbach"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	03 Dec 2006 12:01:54 PM

Alexi Tekhasski wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165095424.487438.29140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Alexi - I suspect you're on the other side of this debate from me, and
because of this I don't completely trust you -- sorry, but that's how I
am. But thanks very much for the reading recommendation.

Thanks for the thanks, but out of curiosity, why do you trust
ravings of that lunatic Lion more?

?? Which lunatic Lion? Maybe you're referring to someone I know
by another S/N. Don't know of any Lion.
As I tried to explain in

my previous post, the shallow high-school "science
program" is vastly inadequate to understand troubles of
the science of climate. Even Ph.D in climatology is not
usually enough, as evidenced by various nonsense posted in
multitude of "climate change" blogs and groups.

Hmm. I think maybe you're using slippery rhetoric and logic here.
"Even Ph.D. in climatoloy is not usually enough" -- suggests that
you're somehow in a position to judge, unlike the rest of humanity.
Maybe you don't mean to imply that.

Yes, I could not agree more on the importance of understanding.

The smiley emoticon is nice, but "restoring historical precedent"
doesn't
impress me as always desirable. There are historical precedents for
lots of social conditions I think we need to avoid -- chattel slavery,
Tamurlane's attempts to conquer all of Asia, etc. And I think there
are historical precedents or perhaps it's more accurately
"prehistorical"
precedents for natural and/or climatic conditions we need to avoid,
too.
From the scientists I'm reading, for example,
looks as though "historical precedent" indicates that climate changes
can lead to shifts in average sea levels of 120 meters -- more than 360
feet in Anglo-American measurement terms. The plant and animal
species that existed back then when sea levels were much higher than
today no doubt found ways to adapt -- at least the survivors did.
But if AGW were to lead to the total melting of the Greenland ice sheet
alone, raising sea levels around the world by an average of about 18
feet,
this would wreak massive floods and havoc on London, Manhattan, Miami,
Houston, Washington DC, and a big swath of Bangaladesh, turning tens
of millions of people into environmental refugees.
Do we want to return to this sort of "historical precedent" even if, in
some
sense, it's perfectly natural? I think not.
When I was in graduate school in Michigan, also, my profs used to cite
the "historical precedent" of my part of Michigan having once been
covered by a river of ice
around 2 miles thick. Again, does the fact that kindly old Mother
Nature once buried
Detroit in 10,000 feet of ice or more mean that it would be good for
Detroiters for
this to happen again? No.

There is an opinion that what is happening to the climate would
happen regardless of any action or inaction. I think this is
the correct opinion.

I think I understand the opinion, and I can see some of the logic in
it,
but I disagree with it. IF there is nothing that can be done to slow
or
halt global climate change - well, that's that, and we had better
adapt.
But the conclusion of the last IPCC report is that it's "anthropogenic"
emissions
of greenhouse gases -- not carbon dioxide alone, but a mix of gases
including
carbon dioxide -- that are responsible for most of the global
warming/global
climate change that's occurred since around 1979.
The main body of IPCC researchers also are warning that human-generated
emissions of GW gases are still increasing, and that the carbon dioxide
we're
now emitting into the atmosphere and indirectly into the oceans is
likely to
remain there for a long time, even if we stop emitting CO2 into the air
now -- which
so far, we're not doing. This means the more CO2 we emit, and the more
we
increase our rate of CO2 emissions, the more we store up a delayed
warming
effect in the system that could continue to warm the planet for well
past the end of the
century.
In short, there's good evidence that THIS episode of rapid climate
change -- not
the one that ended the last major ice age, but THIS surge of climate
change that's been happening since the late 1900s -- is caused by human
activity. And that suggests
that human activity can slow the effect or stop it.
That is, if we find this desirable. And I think it is. Because of the
potentially disastrous implications of continued warming -- e.g. the
risks of continued sea level rise, the prospects for more "extreme"
weather events such as droughts, floods and heat waves, and the
likelihood of widespread extinctions of plants and animals as the
climate keeps changing -- I think we ought to do what we can to control
THIS surge in temperatures.

If something other than greenhouse gases is triggering the current
warming trend - which I doubt -- well, we need to understand what it
is,

Again, couldn't agree more.

so we know what to expect, and I hope also what human societies may
want to do to shield ourselves from nasty developments down the road.

We just need to study paleohistory.

We "just" need to study paleohistory?
Alexi, that doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, obviously we need to
study paleohistory; paleohistory is crucial in giving us a sense of
what the climate has done in the past, and why, and some sense of what
we can expect in the future.
But clearly paleohistory isn't the only field needing study. We also
need to continue studying cloud behavior, I would think. And the
behavior of CO2 in the oceans, and the behavior of ocean currents that
help to distribute colder and warmer water around the world. And the
physics and chemistry of the atmosphere as these relate to the
retention of heat. And patterns of volcanic activity that can affect
the climate by spewing fine aerosols of sulfur dioxide into the air,
thus temporarily reducing the intensity of solar energy that strikes
the planet's surface and in this way temporarily counteracting
"greenhouse" warming.
The books on climate change I've been reading also indicate there are
other scientific questions of relevance as well. So - yes,
paleohistory is important, but it's not the only thing.
Unless you want to make the case, of course, that periods of cooling
and warming are just going to happen, and there's nothing that can be
done about this.
To the extent that paleohistory indicates that there are regular cycles
of global warming and cooling, but does not explain how and why they
arise, I'm sure you can cite the findings of paleohistory to make the
argument that global climate change is inevitable - so why bother.
But if astrophysics, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography etc. can
explain the mechanisms involved, we may well be able to alter some or
all of them, so as to produce different results from those of the past.

Looks to me as if it's really important that the climate scientists try
to develop ways of predicting future ice ages, too.

I would start first from explaining past ice ages. It will make much
easier to understand future ones.

And that if
there's some way we can shape the space program so as to develop
technologies for heading off future disasters caused by giant meteor
strikes, we should try to do that, too.

Not sure about the meteor strikes, but a program to prevent Sun
from turning into Supernova would be not the best spending of
resources IMO. :-)

Agree about the sun. :-) I saw someone in here the other day who was
proposing that we "reengineer" Old Sol. It seems just a wee bit
ambitious.

I do not see how climate forces are shaping destinies of several
immediate generations, other than some smarts want to
tax your fears (and me altogether).

If climate forces, either human-generated or natural, result in the
flooding of the world's major coastal cities over the next century,
that's definitely going to have a big effect
on future generations.
Ditto if climate forces result in hotter and drier weather damaging the
productivity of the US Corn Belt, or if it turns out that it's correct
that global warming = warmer ocean waters = bigger and more destructive
hurricanes. Or if climate forces, by affecting weather circulation
patterns in the Indian Ocean, result in more severe droughts in India
and Africa, thus affecting the food supplies of more than 1 billion
people.

From what I read on the Internet news sites -- Yahoo, Google, etc. --

Eastern Australia has been suffering from very intense drought for the
past 5 or 6 years, and Australian wheat harvests are falling as a
result, and very large numbers of Aussie farmers are facing financial
ruin; in reaction, a number of them are drinking more heavily, beating
their wives, and in some cases committing suicide.
Whether "global climate change" is responsible for the prolonged
Australian drought is debatable, and of course GW skeptics keep
insisting that rising CO2 emissions are not responsible for global
climate change. But the plight of the Australian farmers suggests to
me that climate forces, whether natural or real, could have extremely
large effects on human societies and the welfare of future generations.
The paleohistory that you suggest we study indicates the same thing,
doesn't it?
That the original migration of early human beings out of Africa, for
example, was apparently triggered by significantly dryer conditions in
East Africa and North Africa, which negatively affected the available
food supply and motivated humans to look for more favorable conditions
elsewhere?
Also, there's a lot of debate back and forth between GW true believers
and GW denialists regarding the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little
Ice Age" in Western Europe. From the historians and science writers
I've read, it looks as if the Medieval Warm Period helped to foster the
emergence of Viking raiders in Northern Europe before 1000 AD, among
other things.
The onset of the Little Ice Age is credited by some historians with
having caused a series of bad harvests and excessively rainy years in
Europe in the early 1300s that caused significant famines, and that may
have made the European population more vulnerable to the irruption of
the Bubonic Plague/Black Death in the 1347-1351 period.
As a North American, I should know more than I do about the apparent
effects of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age on Native
American cultures in areas that are now within the continental US. And
I don't remember many details on this, but I believe the climate
scientists now believe that during the end of the Medieval Warm Period,
there were severe droughts in the Southwestern US that resulted in the
destruction of the old Anasasi (sp?) culture of cliff-dwelling
agriculturalists in present-day Arizona and New Mexico.
I believe some climate scientists also have suggested that a
significant drying of the climate may have helped to cause the
destruction of the Mayan culture across most of Central America before
1,200 AD. Other historians have speculated that class conflict,
overpopulation and Central American volcanic activity may have caused
the high Mayan culture to collapse, but some of the climate researchers
are now wondering if dryer weather caused their agriculture to become
less productive, thus triggering a food supply crisis affecting the
whole civilization.
I may have some of the dates a little wrong in what I've just written -
I'm trying to do this from memory. But it's the patterns and not the
exact dates that I want to point to.
Clearly, if climate changes affect local and regional rainfall levels,
thus impacting human agriculture either for good or for ill, that can
have an enormous effect on human societies.
Changes in sea levels that either flood important port cities or
alternatively leave them stranded several miles inland, far from the
ocean-going vessels that they have been servicing, also have the
potential to drive big economic and social changes.
Changes in the prevalence of sea ice, by opening or closing certain
parts of the ocean to winter commerce and pirate raids -- as the
melting of sea ice in the Medieval Warm Period apparently affected the
spread of the Vikings, for example -- also can cause very significant
shifts in human commercial patterns and settlement patterns.
Some of the climate scientists and popular science writers -- e.g.
Australian naturalist Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers" --
also argue that if GW causes generally warmer winter weather in the
temperate zones, e.g. in much of Europe, North America and China --
this will enable the insects that spread certain tropical diseases to
become far more prolific and common.
Thus the population of the United States, for example, could become
increasing susceptible to "tropical" diseases like malaria and Dengue
Fever, if milder winter weather enables these diseases to extend their
ranges northwards. I believe populations of the Southern Fire Ant, a
nasty pest of the American Southeast, are expected to expand northwards
with any significant global warming as well.
I'm not saying that all the worries being cited by the GW alarmists are
necessarily correct, and that flooded coastal cities, badly disrupted
agricultural systems, greater fire ant population and an increased
incidence of tropical diseases all will necessarily occur exactly as
the pessimists predict.
But clearly, changes in the climate have the potential to make problems
like these more common. It's not as if when major climate changes
occur, human beings everywhere can meet the challenge by simply
cranking up our air conditioners or wearing more winter clothing, as
the case may be.
Cheers,
Fernbach
.

User: "Alexi Tekhasski"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	03 Dec 2006 02:17:53 PM

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165168914.516101.160980@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Alexi Tekhasski wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165095424.487438.29140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Alexi - I suspect you're on the other side of this debate from me, and
because of this I don't completely trust you -- sorry, but that's how I
am. But thanks very much for the reading recommendation.

Thanks for the thanks, but out of curiosity, why do you trust
ravings of that lunatic Lion more?

?? Which lunatic Lion? Maybe you're referring to someone I know
by another S/N. Don't know of any Lion.

Yes you do, you even thanked him for his high-school-level insights
on this very thread. This is a deranged person who spams
dozens (if not hundreds of Usenet groups) with abusive
nonsense, especially when he runs out of medication or arguments.
During last few years he posts from 67.119.178.xxx DHCP dialup,
with dozens of slander handles as "Science Fraud Buster",
"Psalm110", "Sodomized Claudius Denk's Oozing VD Sores"
"Claudius Denk Gay Liberation Brigade",
"Rightwing Thugs Burning America with Dereliction of Duty",
"Bush's Global Warming Dereliction of Duty", "ScienceCop",
"Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Disasters"
"Exxon Organized Crime", etc etc,
with fake host names as <OrionCA@ProfessionalPrick.com>
JAMES.Rapier@likeigiveafuck.com
RayLopez99@evilfucker.com
endangered_species@lionkuntz.com
"Melchizedek" Gods_Fist@sbcglobal.net,
and he can impersonalise other posters,
usually with slanderous intent.
When he is under controlled medication, he may write
something which may look reasonable. He also
maintains some utopist ideas about eco-villages
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Proposal/Palaces_For_The_People.html
and massive use of hydrogen, with a handle
"H2-PV NOW"

Hmm. I think maybe you're using slippery rhetoric and logic here.
"Even Ph.D. in climatology is not usually enough" -- suggests that
you're somehow in a position to judge, unlike the rest of humanity.
Maybe you don't mean to imply that.

Actually, I did, sort of. Not to judge, but, unlike
the predominant rest of humanity, I have some detailed
knowledge about general complexity of the problem,
and I am really upset that many people
(who run research and spend a lot of research
money) are ignorant of what they are dealing with,
and belligerently defend their outdated primitive
paradigm of static equilibrium in global climate.
[excessive concerns about everything are snipped]

Unless you want to make the case, of course, that periods of cooling
and warming are just going to happen, and there's nothing that can be
done about this.

Yes, that's a case I am making. Earth has natural oscillation from
ice ages to short warm periods and back to ice ages, all without
intervention of human furnaces.
More, the multi-million-year history of the Earth shows a gradual
overall decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration accompanied
by general decline in richness of biosphere. Would it be possible
to think that restoration of CO2 levels from otherwise irreversible
geological carbon deposits may revive the Earth, and is a
good thing in general, and it should be done in any case?
Yes, it would be restoring the "historical precedent", as an
alternative to slowly dying planet.

To the extent that paleohistory indicates that there are regular cycles
of global warming and cooling, but does not explain how and why they
arise, I'm sure you can cite the findings of paleohistory to make the
argument that global climate change is inevitable - so why bother.
But if astrophysics, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography etc. can
explain the mechanisms involved, we may well be able to alter some or
all of them, so as to produce different results from those of the past.

Then let them go ahead and explain historical facts first, and only
then hit alarms and advise to disrupt economies. As I see,
you elected to not comment on the following line of mine,
which already addressed the same point:

I would start first from explaining past ice ages. It will make much
easier to understand future ones.

[a lot of other potential concerns snipped]

But clearly, changes in the climate have the potential to make problems
like these more common. It's not as if when major climate changes
occur, human beings everywhere can meet the challenge by simply
cranking up our air conditioners or wearing more winter clothing, as
the case may be.

I see your proposed solution, to turn off heat in our houses.
Sorry, it is not going to happen, I will not endanger my family
by doing this. So will do most other people. You better tell
some regions not to breed so fast if their local economy
and environment cannot sustain their population growth
(which is about the same as advice to turn heat off :-().
Sorry, it is quite cynical, but this is the way things are.
Cheers,
- Alexi
.

User: "john fernbach"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	03 Dec 2006 11:05:45 PM

Alexi Tekhasski wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165168914.516101.160980@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Alexi Tekhasski wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165095424.487438.29140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Alexi - I suspect you're on the other side of this debate from me, and
because of this I don't completely trust you -- sorry, but that's how I
am. But thanks very much for the reading recommendation.

Thanks for the thanks, but out of curiosity, why do you trust
ravings of that lunatic Lion more?

?? Which lunatic Lion? Maybe you're referring to someone I know
by another S/N. Don't know of any Lion.

Okay - I thought that was who you were talking about, but I've never
seen him identify himself as "Lion" or "Loin," as hanson the
pseudo-maniac is calling him. I'm fought with him over the question of
abusive sexual insults, and I remember debating him in his "Psalm 110"
and "Melchizedek" guise, too. I'm skeptical of some of his solar PV
-H2 schemes. On the other hand, he has accumulated a really impressive
set of links to various kinds of climate-related and
environment-related topics. I think he can be off the wall at times,
but at other times I think he makes a real contribution.

When he is under controlled medication, he may write
something which may look reasonable. He also
maintains some utopist ideas about eco-villages
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Proposal/Palaces_For_The_People.html
and massive use of hydrogen, with a handle
"H2-PV NOW"

Alexi - okay. The obvious question to ask is: what kind
of "detailed knowledged about general complexity of the
problem" do you have? What are your credentials here?
And why should I necessarily take your word rather than that
of James Hansen, Thomas Karl, Tim Flannery, Kenneth Trenberson,
Sir James Houghton, New York Times science writer
William Stevens, and the
leading IPCC spokesmen?
Obviously, you may some superior insight into the issue
that all of these highly credentialed people lack. But
I'm not accepting your word for this just because you say so.
BTW, I think you just snipped out of your reply to my
earlier post what I wrote in reply to one of your comments
about climate change not really having much potential
to shape the destiny of future generations.
I'm too long-winded, I know that, but I think the paragraphs
you cut out were relevant.
In reply to what you wrote before,
which seemed to me to be saying that climate change is
not something to worry about, because it won't affect future
generations much, I tried to summarize some of the major
concerns that the IPCC and other GW researchers have
raised about the potential human impacts -- the potential
for gradually melting the Greenland and West Antarctic
ice caps and causing a sea-level rise of up to 18 - 40 feet,
for example. Or the risk of further climate change causing
an increase in "extreme" weather events, adding to the
destructive power of hurricanes, etc.
If you don't want to discuss these risks, or if you think the
scientists
who have raised concerns about them are displaying an exaggerated
fear of the future, I suppose that's okay. But since you had written
that you didn't see ACC having much potential to shape the human future
for good or for ill, I was citing these things in reply - because if
the projections are correct, or even plausible, I think you're wrong.

Unless you want to make the case, of course, that periods of cooling
and warming are just going to happen, and there's nothing that can be
done about this.

Yes, that's a case I am making. Earth has natural oscillation from
ice ages to short warm periods and back to ice ages, all without
intervention of human furnaces.

At the moment I'm reading "Climate Change: Turning Up the
Heat," by the Australian science A. Barrie Pittock, who led
the Climate Impact Group of the CSIRO (Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, I think) during
the 1990s.
Pittock's book acknowledges the natural oscillation of ice ages
and relatively short interglacials that you're talking about, but he
adds that this natural oscillation doesn't necessarily negate the
risks of a human-generated climate warming now, due to
industrial and agricultural emissions of CO2, methane and other
greenhouse gases.
Pittock doesn't use the term, but in some situations scientists talk
about things being "overdetermined," having a number of different
factors acting on them simultaneously. None of the GW researchers
whose popularized accounts I've read has denied the influence
of Milankovitch cycles on the coming and going of ice ages and
warmer interglacial periods.
However, they conclude that by
unearthing long-buried fossilized carbon that's been out of circulation
since the dinosaurs died out, or earlier, human beings now are
introducing
a new factor into the situation in the form of greenhouse gases.

More, the multi-million-year history of the Earth shows a gradual
overall decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration accompanied
by general decline in richness of biosphere.

"A general decline in richness of biosphere" over a period covering
the "multi-million-year history of the Earth."
Alexi, that statement seems so full of logical and rhetorical loopholes
that
I think I could drive a coal truck through it.
I forget just what the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was supposed
to have been
2 or 3 billion years ago, when life was just beginning to evolve in the
tropical seas,
but William Stevens says something about this in "The Change in the
Weather," and
my sense is that CO2 concentrations then were immense.
And temperatures were also much warmer than they are now -- and that
was probably fine for the trilobites or other creatures that were
living in the oceans at the time, but there were
no human beings at the time. There weren't even mammals -- or land
animals, if you
go back far enough.
So do you think it's a good idea to restore the "richness of biosphere"
by trying to go back to the CO2 regime that prevailed then, Alexi?
I realize I'm taking this to a ridiculous logical extreme, but frankly,
I think you're mostly mouthing cloudy and misleading rhetoric when you
write about the "multi-million-year history of Earth" and the supposed
biological richness we have lost.
Stevens in "The Change in the Weather" makes the point that human
beings first evolved under very different climate and CO2 conditions
from those that prevailed in the Precambrian or the Silurian or the
Crecateous, and that when our ancestors first moved out of Africa it
was probably in response to a significantly drier and colder climate.
Accordingly, it would seem to be potentially disastrous for human
beings, were we somehow to restore the previous "richness of biosphere"
and the very different CO2 and temperature conditions that once
prevailed billions of years, or even hundreds of millions of years ago.
Why should we want to do this, then?
Pittock further points out in "Climate Change" that while the human
species has certainly survived several wild swings in climate
conditions -- the coming and going of ice ages and interglacials, etc.
-- since our ancestors first evolved in Africa, we didn't have nearly
the population size or population density then that we do now.
Now there are more than 6 billion of us spread around the earth, which
is what -- six to 12 times the human population size of only 250 to 300
years ago. And we're organized into nation states, and we're armed,
and we're heavily dependent on settled agriculture as our distant
nomadic ancestors really weren't.
Pittock in "Climate Change" concludes from this that we therefore would
face enormous, disruptive, possible disastrous problems if a major
change in the climate forced our descendants into, say, the kinds of
migration strategies that apparently worked for early Neanderthal and
Cro-Magnon humans.
You have a Russian name, Alexi, and maybe that's where you're living
now. But I know that in the United States, anyway, many people of
white European backgrounds are appalled, angry and enormously fearful
to see a few million browned-skinned Latin Americans pouring across our
Mexican border in search of jobs and better lives. In Western Europe,
there appears to be an enormous, persistent uproar over Muslim migrants
from Africa, India and the Middle East, whom many Europeans fear are
threatening traditional Euro civilization.
I don't want to comment about the merits or demerits of
anti-immigration sentiment here. I neither endorse it nor reject it
out of hand.
But if some of the richest and most successful societies on Earth
already feel threatened by immigration on this scale -- how would most
societies react to the mass migrations that a really major change in
the climate might bring about?
If global warming eventually brings enough changes in Indian Ocean
circulation patterns to disrupt the monsoon season and trigger
significant drought and hunger in India, for example, and if say,
"only" 100 million to 200 million of the subcontinent's 1 billion or so
residents were to want to move somewhere else -- what kind of welcome
would they get?
What if the latest report warning of the impacts of climate change on
Africa are correct, and the next century sees an even further
deterioration of African agriculture, and another 40 or 50 million
Africans feel the need to migrate from an increasingly drought-stricken
continent to Europe or the US or maybe Russia? Again, is this
migration likely to happen smoothly and peacefully?
So the fact that 100,000 or 1 million or 20 million years ago, the
"biosphere" was biologically richer, or the fact that life was much
more prolific in the ancient Cambrian seas than it is today because of
the warmer clime and increased CO2 concentrations then, doesn't impress
me. If you're optimistic about returning to such conditions, I think
you're just not thinking about the immense difficulties that human
societies would face in making the transition from our present climate
regime to a "richer" but more prehistoric one.
Would it be possible

to think that restoration of CO2 levels from otherwise irreversible
geological carbon deposits may revive the Earth, and is a
good thing in general, and it should be done in any case?
Yes, it would be restoring the "historical precedent", as an
alternative to slowly dying planet.

"Historical precedent" meaning what, again?
WHICH historical precedent? How far do you propose that we go back in
time, Alexi?
To the last Ice Age? To the interglacial period before that last Ice
Age? To the climate conditions that prevailed in Africa when "Lucy"
and her family had only recently broken off from the great apes in
Kenya and Tanzania?
Do you think we might want to return to the climate conditions that
prevailed even before then -- for example, to those of the late
Jurassic, before all the dinosaurs died?
It sounds to me as if you're finding a spurious optimism in a recourse
to rather cloudy abstractions, in vague and hopeful rhetoric --
"historical precedent," "revive the Earth," "richer biosphere" and so
forth.
If we want the Earth's present population of 6 billion people and the
societies that they inhabit to weather the transition back to
"historical precedent" without suffering a great deal of pain and loss,
I'd like to know what the specifics of this "historical precedent" will
look like.
Will there be water enough for everyone? Will the major agricultural
areas of the Earth still be about as productive as they are now? Will
the Earth's major coastal cities survive intact, or will they be
flooded out, and if they're flooded out, where are those people going
to relocate?

I would start first from explaining past ice ages. It will make much
easier to understand future ones.

[a lot of other potential concerns snipped]

I see your proposed solution, to turn off heat in our houses.

Ah -- but wouldn't that be "historical precedent," Alexi?
Seriously - you're mischaracterizing me. The main "proposed solution"
I have is
for human beings to have GREAT CONSCIOUSNESS of climate change as
a problem. It's not to turn off the heat to your house.
Once individuals, institutions and entire societies recognize that we
face
a significant problem, I hope, we will begin to devise a number of
different
potential solutions to that problem.
There are a host of different partial solutions to "greenhouse" induced
climate change that have been proposed already:
1. greater development of improved windmill technologies
2. greater development of solar PV cell technologies, and
solar-powered
electric generators
3. Greater energy efficiency in the design of buildings and industrial
machinery
and vehicles, especially in the energy-wasteful United States
4. In the United States, the building of new mass transit systems so
that Americans
can take subways and tramways to work -- as many people already do in
Europe -- as an alternative to driving gasoline-burning private
automobiles
5. Greater development of biomass energy technologies, potentially
including ethanol fuel
for automobiles from switchgrass, other agricultural waste products
6. New patterns of urban planning in the US that do not segregate
different kinds of
economic functions as much as our current zoning laws do -- so
that rather than
having to drive virtually everywhere, every day, people in
suburbia can live closer
to the places where they worship, shop, work, and go to school.
Thus reducing
American automobile use and the CO2 emissions associated with it.
7. A less meat-intensive diet for Americans especially, and somewhat
greater reliance
on vegetables in our diets, so that less energy is used and CO2
emitted in producing
our food.
8. A move towards more localized, decentralized production of food in
the United States,
towards a food supply for the cities that is produced closer to
where the food is sold. Thus
reducing the energy consumed and the CO2 generated in shipping food
halfway
across the United States from giant agribusiness concerns in
California or Florida to
urban markets in the Midwest or along the East Coast.
9. The reconstruction of a decent passenger rail system in the US, so
that Americans
can rely more on railways (relatively low CO2 emissions per mile
per person traveled)
and less on jet airline travel (relatively high CO2 emissions per
mile per person traveled.)
10. Greater use of "telecommuting" in the economy, where people work
at home and
connect to their offices over the internet, as an alternative to
driving their automobiles
to work 5 days a week.
11. Some reduction of "planned waste" of energy and resources in the
US and world
economy -- less production and consumption of excessive paper
and plastic
packaging, throw-away plastic coffee cups and eating utensils,
etc.
12. Perhaps a reworking of the United States military budget, so that
our government spends a little more on renewable energy development and
a bit less on buying overly-expensive weapon systems (e.g. the "Star
Wars" system) that are unlikely to work.
Or, in another vein, changing Congress's pork-barrel spending habits,
so that we spend more more as a nation on renewable energy development
and less on "bridges to nowhere" and other useless construction
projects that powerful Congressmen now authorize in order to provide
jobs for their local constituents.
** * * *
The list of items above is suggestive -- not exhaustive. These are
just 12 ideas I wrote down at random. But NO - I am not proposing that
you stop heating your house, Alexi.
complementary methods for solving that problem.

Sorry, it is not going to happen, I will not endanger my family
by doing this. So will do most other people.

I agree that environmentalists are not going to get anywhere by urging
people to do things that will endanger their families.
But in addition to that being useless, I also think it's unnecessary.
I do think many people, and particularly many Americans, will need to
make some changes in their habits and their lifestyles to head off
truly dangerous climate change. Taking subway trains rather than
commuting by car to work, for example. Keeping our CO2 emissions
and our energy bills reasonably low by buying more efficient water
heaters. Relying somewhat more on Venetian blinds and somewhat
less on electric air conditioners. Maybe carrying cloth bags to the
grocery store for goods, instead of accumulating hundreds of free
plastic shopping bags that we then throw throwin in the garbage.
Drinking
coffee out of porcelain mugs instead of styrofoam.
But we're not talking about you and your family huddling outside
in the snow, Alexi, or going back underground to live in caves.
I also believe making the changes required will produce far less danger
to you and your family than doing nothing, and eventually seeing the
negative effects
of climate change unfold all around you.
You better tell

some regions not to breed so fast if their local economy
and environment cannot sustain their population growth
(which is about the same as advice to turn heat off :-().
Sorry, it is quite cynical, but this is the way things are.

Cheers,
- Alexi

User: "Alexi Tekhasski"
Title: Re: Remedial Physics for RepigglyKKKlans: Why Global Warming can make intense winter cold.	04 Dec 2006 02:24:34 AM

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165208745.306473.209030@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...