On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:30:44 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
<eam@nospamimpix.com> wrote:

Captain Compassion wrote:

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:45:25 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
<eam@nospamimpix.com> wrote:

Captain Compassion wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:27:43 -0400, "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:641e3219dbi4l1f4csp6nn3i7pov9b4iq4@4ax.com...

Gore urges moral crusade against global warming
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

ROTFL Hollywood Al's moral crusade is PR. The internet inventor is the
environmental community's "ME" generation's best friend. He cooks up all
kinds of slick presentations spreading doom at any function that will
tolerate him for more than 5 minutes. The Sundance Festival was one of his
latest, complete with films showing the impending disasters.

His Global warming crusade could not be more political and is disguised in
junk science. The greenhouse crowd was preaching doom in 100 years a short 3
years ago. When it got no traction it was doom in 50 years. No luck there
either and it became 30 years, then 10. Now it is a campaign telling
everyone it's already here and may be too late already. Enter the Hollywood
bandwagon with Al 'the savior'driving the wagon. If there is one thing he
learned from being VP, it was how to get attention. Al took credit for
anything that looked good in the press and the press got pretty fed up with
it and dubbed him the internet inventor, much to his chagrin. It stuck and
he couldn't explain it away with any success. Al the environmentalist had a
New England dam release water to fill a lake for a photo op of himself
paddling a canoe. Just a good ol boy enjoying nature and protecting the
environment. They happened to be in a drought at the time. What a doofus he
is.

When I hear terms like moral and truth I start reaching for my gun.

Cap'n - memorize this and save yourself some embarassment:

This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for fighting
and this is for fun

It would be difficult to call my 12 Ga. Mossburg Street Sweeper a
rifle.

Whoa...are you trying to say that you're hung like a mule?

My .45 ACP is not a rifle either.

Well then...This is my pistol...

BTW, I've always thought a "gun" was an impressed British sailor.

I think they were called Tars or Jack Tars.

NeoLibertarian wrote:

Igor The Terrible wrote:

[snip]

Wrong. Carbon sinks did not "clear up" all 250 years of anthropogenic
CO2. Read the March 2006 Issue of Scientific American: "Alarming Rise
in Ocean Acidity"

IPCC says 200-400 years. This is also in question. 38 years is more
reliable, but let's don't digress.

And I'll look up the fucking article.

Look, even IPCC wisely points out that none of its Global Climate
Models work.

This is a revelation?

It is to many.

If the model is not predictive, it's not good theory. Period.

That is precisely the core of the problem. Too many researches are
looking for a single cause. It's not. There are a myriad over
variables that come into play.

Everybody from NASA to Alpha Gore are basing their assumptions about
the causes of Global Warming on IPCC data.

:o <yawn>

Yeah, I'm ready for bed, too.

IPCC is a flawed study. It completely ignores data provided by ARCIM-3,
SOHO, and SOLCON.

It is flawed in the sense that it discounted the effects of radiative
forcing under the most extreme of conditions contribute to roughly less
than 1/3 of the total global warming. The number is significant, but
there are far greater concerns unless, of course, something really
catastrophic happens to the sun.

Hug & Barrett claim 1/18th. I was being conservative.

That is why I used the word extreme.

In 1759 the tropospheric Carbon Dioxide, Amen, was 0.03% by volume. In
2006, the tropospheric Carbon Dioxide, Amen, is 0.04% by volume.

Carbon Dioxide, Amen, is not the cause. Dietze, Hug and Barrett, et al,
have shown that CO2 cannot account for even 1/3 of Global Warming.

They got it backwards. CO2 is a major culprit but it is causing
problems in areas where the "sunshine group" is totally ignoring. They
also need to read the March 2006 Issue of Scientific American:
"Alarming Rise in Ocean Acidity"

Alright already, I said I'd look it up.

But what IPCC failed to do with CO2 was to include the presence of
water vapor. At one millibar at 50% humidity, you can double the CO2
and you won't increase the forcing by 1%.

Look it up.

What's required to account for measured GW is a radiative forcing of
about 2.4 Watts per Meter squared.

So what you are implying is the amount of thermal energy required to
move earth's surface temperatures and SST at a given amount with
respect to time are constant? I hate tell you this but, it's not and I
totally disagree with that number.

That's IPCC's number. It is generally accepted, even by Peer Review.

We have lost a lot of ice leaving a
lot more of the earths surface exposed. Moreover, less ice, less
thermal energy reflected back into space.

That's silly. The water doesn't go anywhere, and more warm water and
less ice means more clouds.

That scenario suggests more heat and water vapor in the the evaporation
phase. Well.........I'll give you 50% credit on that one. It really
depends on what is going on at the final phase of the water vapor
feedback loop (WVFBL) itself. If the feedback is positive, meaning
that the temperature differentials, and upper level chemistry are
within favorable limits to keep water vapor in that state, then the
trend will continue with increasing surface warming and more H2O vapor
added to the loop.

On the other hand, should the H2O vapor yield to cloud formation,
(negative because the temperatures and "possibly' chemistry are
conducive for condensation), then reflectivity increases, hence less of
the sun's energy reaches the planet's surface. The net effect?
Cooling.

However, it DOES mean more Carbon Dioxide, Amen, released into the
troposphere. Global Warming may be causing a significant increase in
CO2, rather than the other way around. Kinda like when your soda fizzes
more when it's warm than when it's cold.

With the WVFBL ratios
roughly the same, the earth's surface and oceans are absorbing 90% of
the sun's infrared. Factor in the amount of thawing that has already
occurred, it takes far less thermal energy to maintain warmer
temperatures than it did 30 years ago. That said, warming will only
accelerate. Dummy.

Water vapor feed back, Dummy.

WVFB (L) = Water Vapor Feed Back (Loop)

So, radiative forcing could drop to 2.15W/M^2 and we will still have
climate warming.

For a time.

Look at the geographic record. You act like there's no correction
mechanism. Crash and burn--move the cities inland and eliminate half
the humans and wait it out for 110,000 years.

What if we're in for another Maunder Minimum?

Then we go online and buy stocks in greenhouse-gas producing energy
companies, winter apparel manufactures, etc... ...and don't forget your
sunglasses when you take your snowmobile for a spin. ;-)

Seriously...it's hard to say what the outcome might be. Will the size
(diameter) and rotation of the sun be the same? Will the absence of
sunspots be the same and in the same proportions and durations? Will
the duration of the MM be for the same amount of time? I would say,
without too much reservation, I doubt it. And here is a question the
solar camp won't ask. If...IF, hypothetically, the same event is
replicated, what will be the net global tempering effects be because of
the current warming anomaly we are experiencing due to greenhouse
gases?

Besides, look at it this way: no one, NO ONE in this whole fucking
"debate" has even suggested that man should establish a world wide
program to prevent the annual grassland and forest fires in Asia,

With the droughts we're having (nothing to do with CO2, Amen), do you
think it would be as futile to to stop the fires as it would to stop
solar flares?

No, we can prevent forest fires. A bear told me that when I was a kid.

That goddamned bear was in a state of denial, delusional, clueless to
global warming, and was in dire need of professional help. In a
drought stricken forest, a fire can start from a stray bolt of
lightning associated with a weak thunderstorm producing little or no
precipitation. In other words spontaneous. (He would have served
better as a rug at a resort clubhouse where meteorological and/or
climatological conventions are held.)

Africa and the Americas in order to significantly reduce CO2 aerosol
release into the troposphere.

If this "debate" were about a rational response, that would be the
FIRST fucking place to start. Were these almost continual fires
prevented, nearly 1/5 of all emissions would cease. And lots of land
and lives would be saved.

No, the entire object of Global Warming "debate" is to punish the
United States and, to a lesser extent, the Industrial West.

I don't buy that either. China's population alone beats ours by a
factor of better than 6.5. They will eclipse us as polluters soon
enough. With other developing countries their, that part of the world
will beat us out even sooner.

Hence, China and India are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol of the
UNFCCC.

This is a revelation? See above... with their attitude toward the
environment, they will soon be the world's biggest polluters and
EVERYONE will know that.

So why are they excluded from the debate?

Because they were.

Why does Alpha Gore ignore them in his demagoguery?

Because he can.



Moral of the story: Never, under any circumstances, put much stock in
a delusional mind that gleefully takes credit for a monumental
achievement such as inventing the internet while the axioms behind this
notion suggest the sum of the arguments are a contradiction to or less
than the source from which they were derived.


--Igor