AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Reality, science and climate (long)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sharon w.



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd be very grateful if anyone could help me out with a question that I have........ if co2 is 380 ppm and that is represented as .038.......What exactly does the .038 mean in words and fractions? Does it mean .038 of 1% .......38/1000 (thirty eight one thousandths of one percent) Any help appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
I wrote this recently when I was in a limerick mood:

Facing climate calamity
Doing naught is insanity
Yet the lovers of oil
Still do their best to foil
Efforts to save humanity.



Mark:

Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your limerick! It's clever, creative and just downright cute. You have a gift so please keep sharing. May I quote you to my friends who would enjoy and appreciate your talent?

Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't been able to do the searches needed for a long post (to respond to LisaW) because my computer stopped recognizing my ebook Reader & memory cards, and so far I haven't found a fix. Reader updates are TOP priority!
Quick items:
Sharon W.: ppm normally means parts per million, so 1 ppm would be 1/1000000 or 0.000001 of whatever is being measured. I don't know if what you are looking at is a number in terms of volume or mass/weight or count of molecules. Each of the 3 would be different values for the same mix of gases.
KarenS: feel free to quote anything I post on these boards. These are public forums and I wouldn't post anything here that I didn't consider public.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sharon w.



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
I haven't been able to do the searches needed for a long post (to respond to LisaW) because my computer stopped recognizing my ebook Reader & memory cards, and so far I haven't found a fix. Reader updates are TOP priority!
Quick items:
Sharon W.: ppm normally means parts per million, so 1 ppm would be 1/1000000 or 0.000001 of whatever is being measured. I don't know if what you are looking at is a number in terms of volume or mass/weight or count of molecules. Each of the 3 would be different values for the same mix of gases.
KarenS: feel free to quote anything I post on these boards. These are public forums and I wouldn't post anything here that I didn't consider public.


I believe it was count of molecules Mark. In that case the 380 parts per million was then represented also as .038.......is that correct as far as you know? If so then back to the original question of what that translates to in words and whether the .038 is actually a portion of 1%.........it seems to me that it would have to be because it's far less than 1% right? Any further insight greatly appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If 1 ppm is 0.000001 then 380 ppm is 0.000380 when expressed as a simple decimal ratio. Rephrasing as a percentage is equivalent to moving the decimal over two places (1% = 0.01), so a sample with 380 ppm of something has 0.000380 or 0.038% of that something in the sample measured.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can now report from personal experience that the "safely remove" command can be extremely unsafe on an HP PC with card reader slots in the front and running Windows Vista. After many wasted hours looking around in settings and hunting through help systems & an HP forum I have partially restored USB functioning on my PC, but it still isn't back to its original level. Updating my Readers is now possible again, but more difficult than before the system glitch.

Back to the topic of this thread.

My local newspaper mentioned the following in "There's a word for that":
"Agnotology - the study of deliberately created or culturally induced ignorance or doubt, such as falsehoods about evolution spread by creationists or past efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine cancer research."
The subject of climate change must be incredibly rich territory for agnotology.

Re: the latest from LisaW

The comment on timing of CO2 & temperature is a repeat of the Wattsup claim she posted before. See my 4/2 comments and READ the Engelbeen material I mentioned.

About Lord Stern's accuracy, I tried to use the URL Lisa gave & the page was unavailable. A search of the Telegraph found an apology from the columnist for misreading Stern.
Here is a summary of some issues from a more scientific source:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/stern-science/#more-389
Unless I'm misunderstanding, Stern deliberately picked the high end of the danger range because that is what planners must handle. You don't plan disaster coping systems against best cases, you plan against worst cases.

About Hansen's testimony, quibbling that a Congressional committee isn't Congress is really amazing.
About Hansen's accuracy, here is a summary of one item:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
The claims about 1934 vs. 1998 are 100th of a degree variations between data sources, heavily misrepresented by the topic twisters. Notice how old this is. Lies & attacks keep on going when people repeat them because they fit their bias.
Here is a summary of the other (the October 2008 data from Russia):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/
Yet again, distorters have been misrepresenting facts wholesale.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Perils of GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/19/20090619junelovely0619.html

Quote:

Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.


Uh -- we're talking PHOENIX ....


http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/better_detection_not_global_warming_behind_iceberg_increase
Quote:

Better detection, not global warming, behind iceberg increase

Contrary to an opinion held by some researchers, a new analysis of more than 20 years of historical data has found no evidence that the increasing number of large icebergs off Antarctica's coasts is a result of global warming trends. "The dramatic increase in the number of large icebergs as recorded by the National Ice Center database does not represent a climatic change," said Brigham Young University's David Long. "Our reanalysis suggests that the number of icebergs remained roughly constant from 1978 to the late 1990s."



But .... iceberg abnormality was supposed to be proof of man made global warming. Rolling Eyes


http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1706/version/1

Quote:

Icebergs which calve from the Antarctic ice shelves and drift in the Southern Ocean deliver fresh water, dust and minerogenic particles to the surface ocean along the iceberg’s path. Each of these components may have an effect on growth conditions for phytoplankton, as might the mechanical effects of the iceberg keel disturbing the water. Although anecdotal evidence and small-scale surveys suggest that drifting icebergs increase local primary production, no large-scale studies have reported on this possibility in detail. A combination of satellite and automated iceberg tracking data presented here shows that the probability of increased surface phytoplankton biomass was two-fold higher in the wake of a tracked iceberg compared to background biomass fluctuations. Only during the month of February were the effects of icebergs on surface biomass likely to be negative. These results confirm icebergs as a factor affecting phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean and highlight the need for detailed process studies so that responses to future changes in the Antarctic ice sheets may be predicted.


Uh ... I'm thinking phytoplankton are a Good Thing(tm)


And, I'm still waiting to hear just how MAN has caused Global Warming .... on Mars Wink

From Wiki:
Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.


Yeppers -- applies very, very well to the phony Man Made Global Warming

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20081218205953.aspx
CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/10/falling-belief-in-man-made-glo
Falling Belief in Man-Made Global Warming

And I found this: Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24090

1. What is the perfect temperature? So, what is it, Mark?

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent? Exactly -- don't ask questions, only ignorant fools ask question ... and "ignore the man behind the curtain"

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming? Well, maybe not for skiers ......

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition? And, what if we guessed wrong .... and cause worse damage?

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

9. How will we measure our successes? Hey, back in the 70's it was "The New Ice Age!" Maybe we should reverse what we did to make it go to Global Warming to make things cool again .... oh, wait ... nothing much was done.

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will no longer respond to the recycled garbage--rehashes of points addressed months ago--from LW. It looks like the tobacco industry is finally about the get regulated after over 40 years of fighting medical science. I have no desire to waste the next 40 years of time I could spend reading responding again & again to bad climate science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
I will no longer respond to the recycled garbage--rehashes of points addressed months ago--from LW. It looks like the tobacco industry is finally about the get regulated after over 40 years of fighting medical science. I have no desire to waste the next 40 years of time I could spend reading responding again & again to bad climate science.



Considering that more and more scientists are pulling back on wholesale support of Man Made Global Warming and that more people are seeing this as the attempt at control that it is rather than real science, excellent attitude.


But comparing climate to cigarettes? Weak.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Karly



Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is to LisaW.

You have done a very thorough job stating your case against man-made global warming. I deal personally with someone on a daily basis that I must make this case to, so having to deal with it online is not something I would look foward to, so THANK YOU for taking the time to so clearly make sure the truth about man-made global warming gets out there. Keep up the good work!!

I must get back to work now and return to my "chicken little", who has decided today is the day he is going to personally tell each one of us SUV owners exactly what our part is in the destruction of the planet. I can't wait, oh joy, Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
norcalgolfer



Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 38
Location: Ranch Cordova, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you LisaW for your excellent responses to Mark's post. I am fully supportive of caring for the environment, however I am not in support of make-work industries who force the expenses on the public.

It is a very real truth that man-made pollution is harmful to local environments, but that does not make it a global catastrophe. Global Warming is a multibillion dollar industry upheld by both lawyers and the media, who happen to be making a killing off it.
Another interesting aspect of Global Warming groups is their financiers. Most of the money global warming groups receive comes from the very same companies they claim to be the culprits behind stopping global warming legislation. Think about this.... If you own an oil refinery, do you want another built next door by a competitor? If you own an oil field, do you want a nearby oil field to be harvested by a competitor? Market value of goods is based on supply/demand. By generating a false lack of supply the MV is kept high. Alaskan oil fields contain more than enough oil to rid America of its need for foreign oil, and would also drive down the price of oil dramatically. This would cause a lot of very powerful people to make a lot less money, hence we see a large amount of money being funneled to groups who then use 90% of the money to pay the lawyers and administrators or to continue fundraising for the next year. Very little of the money donated to Global Warming groups actually goes to the environment.
We do need to curb our pollution wherever possible, but for one reason, the local damage. We have probably all seen the clouds of smog over our cities, over 70% of the population in the U.S. now lives in cities as opposed to 70% living rural 100 years ago. This is not because rural America is disappearing, it is due to the nature of the economy and jobs available. I personally have lived the majority of my life in rural settings, and living in a city now, I hate the air I have to breathe. However I am not going to claim the world will be destroyed because of it. 97% of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere is natural, only 3% is man-made. Instead of looking at graphs which average out all the temperature readings from the globe, many of which are now in urban heat island areas, look at each individual graph of temperature from the weather stations. Now look at where we have had temp increases..... wow, only in cities, weird Smile also look at the many pictures you can find on the internet showing the temp devices placed directly next to the bbq or A/C at many weather stations. The weather stations were forced to upgrade to fiber optic lines, which are extremely expensive, so in order to lesson the cost they run the lines only a few feet, leaving the devices sitting over the parking lot. Asphalt releases heat slowly, therefore nighttime temps seem to be much higher, raising the supposed average.
If someone wants to be sure they have the most accurate picture possible on a topic, they should not simply read those that agree with them, but read also those that disagree, and with the same open mind they have for that which agrees.
Take your time, look at individual data, not data that is cobbled together by someone with a job to try to keep. Make the decision for yourself what the truth is.
Follow the money.
Don't try to discredit someone simply by calling them data distorters or other names, look at their raw data and see who is actually distorting anything.
Don't be arrogant, the Earth has been here far longer than humans, our effect on the earth as a whole is fractional, and mother nature can easily handle it.
Don't lie and claim that the whole world is in danger, when it is merely a local effect.

I love spending time outdoors, and I do every chance I get, camping, rock climbing, golfing, hiking. I am all for caring for the environment, but not because of some supposed imminent global catastrophe which was supposed to kill the planet 10 years ago, still hasn't and is showing no signs of doing so any time within the next 10,000 years.
Instead of throwing billions of dollars at false global warming claims, let's give that money back to the working Americans and the companies who would love to employ the now unemployed Americans who are struggling to support their families.
Capitalism will dictate newer, more efficient energy sources, like for instance clean nuclear power (which if hadn't been held back by environmental extremists would be providing us today with energy at far far cheaper and greater amounts). Companies posing legislation to try to spend American taxpayer money to fund their inefficient and costly alternative energy sources are counter to the effort to provide better energy sources. A good alternative energy source does not need legislation, it's simple existence will cause it to be used.
News media has become so prevalent in the world today, that in order to get the ratings, it has become about getting out a possible story first, not caring whether you have all the facts or not. Modern media is also about fear..."Find out why you may be killing yourself by eating at the salad bar, tonight at 10".
Thankfully capitalism has also given rise to another form of media, the "debunking" media. This has allowed those of us who would like the truth to actually get it, because in order to be a successful debunking media agent, fact is actually required.

The attitude of the Global Warmists is one of "we have ours, now you can't have yours".

I would love to see these people go into China and tell an extremely poor family that they don't need heat because burning coal is bad for the environment. Or tell a farmer in Africa he can't use his 40 year old truck to farm his land because it is a gross polluter. Global warming activists haven't helped the environment, they have simply helped themselves to American's pocketbooks, driving up the cost of goods sold so companies are forced to raise prices to maintain solvency. Try maintaining your "green" attitude when you are struggling to support your family because the price of gas has gone to 4.50 a gallon.

There is nothing like having your 3 year old tell you he's hungry while having to collect all the change in the house to get some bread to get you to re-evaluate your position on what laws should be forced on you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karly, nocalgolfer ... and the rest ...

I lived through the hysteria of ARGH! NEW ICE AGE!! Life as we know it is dooooomed!! in the 70's. I attended the first Earth Day while at college listening to the prof, sitting outside the Math hall, singing about his peaceful country home, extolling the dangers of polution, what man could do to end the world. Pretty much the same crap we hear now for Man Made Global Warming ... same type of idiot in the professor. At the same time he's going on and on with his gathering of disciples, he unwrapped a candybar, dropped the wrapper on the ground (uh, he was 3 feet from a trash container) and kept on, telling how we had to protect this world. Okay, I admit, I made a major point of walking over, standing right in front of him, picking up the wrapper, looking at him and walking it to the trash can. I've always been difficult.

But, then, why did things move to Man Made Global Warming (horrors! Fear@! Panic!) -- well, gee, the temperatures started getting warmer. Duh! So, out came the grant seekers, nay-sayers, panic mongers touting Man Made Global Warming! Life as we know it is dooooomed!! And, then, oops, just as things were heating up ( Wink ) for the Warmers, the temperatures began dropping again. See, that's what climate does -- it changes. That's why we have meteorologists and weather channels. Otherwise, we'd all know what the weather was going to be like tomorrow, because it would have been exactly the same a year ago or 3 years or 18 months -- whatever the known cycle is.

So, now, the cry has changed again MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, 'cause well it just gets embarrassing when the climate doesn't go along with the fools and they have to change the name of the phenom -- especially when the name change is the polar (I am just full of them today!) opposite.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't catch this when the issue first came out:
http://www.washingtonspectator.org/message.cfm?msg=0notsubs1&CGI_script_name=/articles/20090801climatelegislation.cfm&PageName=%2Farticles%2F20090801climatelegislation%2Ecfm
If that link doesn't work, here is the Washington Spectator home page:
http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.cfm
Click on the August 1 article "Passing Gas".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
norcalgolfer



Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 38
Location: Ranch Cordova, CA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those under the mistaken impression that most scientists believe in global warming, check this out:

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group