[lit-ideas] Re: Shadows, Fog, and Money

  • From: Robert Paul <guimbarde9@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT)

-Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Paul Stone wrote:

> At 02:05 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:
> X = what WAS some kind of weighted average of all
KNOWN temperature 
> sampling from a bunch of different points on the
Earth 100 > years ago, Y = what is NOW a HIGHLY
> calculated average, based on much more 
> "accurate" temperature measuring devices and a much
>  more voluminous amount oF data.
> X-Y = < 1. This is NOT global warming. This is
amazingly >stable.
> The ERROR alone of switching from something which 
>  could only arguably be  said to be accurate to 1
> (the thermometers of days of old) and 
> today's measuring devices, which are probably at
> accurate to a tenth 
> of a degree is by itself, enough to account for the
full RISE
>  in 'global temperature"

Are these your surmises or do you have some references
or sources (not that we don't trust you) which support
them?  I wonder how you know that thermometers used in
scientific experiments in 1905 were 'only accurate to
one degree' (within one degree?), the year in which
Einstein was doing work on the kinetic theory of heat.

> In MANY places, the OPPOSITE 'effects' of global
warming > a seen: the temperature has gone down, water
levels have > gone up?

Indeed they have, and they will increasingly go if the
polar ice caps continue to melt. Do you have any
examples of the phenomena you're talking about? (Some
people in the American West might be inclined to think
that mudflats don't lie.)

> and cities, which?

The effect of heat retaining buildings, paved spaces,
etc., is well known, but you might explain (1) why
this phenomenon doesn't contribute to a general
warming of the atmosphere (there are not two kinds of
air, 'city,' and 'country') and (2) why cities are
'heating up' (if not from human activities).

> All this muddle actually makes temperature
measurement, > collection and 
> number crunching completely invalid for any real
analysis > to conclude "THE 

There are die hards who don't believe the earth is
'warming up,' however this is understood. They have
yet to explain the melting of the polar ice caps and
the general retreat of mountain glaciers throughout
the world. (There has been over time cyclical advances
and retreats of glaciers locally, of course.)
> More than 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from 
> NATURAL sources (i.e. 
> not man-made) Climate change is primarily influenced

> by water vapour, 
> NOT CO2 levels.

'U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are mostly (98.5
percent) accounted for by the combustion of fossil
fuels , such as coal, natural gas , and petroleum .
Because fossil fuels are of considerable economic
value and their consumption is carefully monitored,
energy-related carbon dioxide emissions can be
estimated more reliably than any other emissions
source. Table 4 shows trends in U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions estimated in million metric tons of carbon.
Carbon units can be converted to carbon dioxide (at
full molecular weight) by multiplying by 3.667.'
[US Department of Energy; data from 1998.]

(This does not conflict with PS's earlier claim; it
does suggest that CO2 levels are increased by the
processes mentioned above. And those processes are not
being meaningfully controlled, and are, in fact,
globally increasing.) 

> The sentence "global warming is caused by increased
levels of CO2 in the 
> atmosphere" is nonsense. The term 'global warming'
is a scare tactic to 
> make people behave in a certain way. Anyone who
actually studies the data 
> available would be foolish to believe in such at
thing and 'believe' it you 
> must, because there's no REASON to agree with it.

What motive(s) would NASA, the National Academy of
Sciences, and the DOE, have in common? And what is
meant by 'behave in a certain way?' Exactly what sort
of behaviour do you have in mind? Burning coal in my
fireplace? Trading in my car for a Hummer?
Disconnecting my sewer line and putting a cesspool in
the backyard?

Robert Paul
Reed College


Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: