A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE

On Nov 19, 1:40*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:42*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
LIFE
by Andre Jute

Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
creation scheme in the history of the world.

Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in *similar fashion
as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse manure.
People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport business
out of a job.
A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.

So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
bull****.

Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.

BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
got underway in the 20th century.

You should get the facts before you start on this sort of argument,
Patrick. CO2 concentrations have been ten times (10x !) higher than
they are now, and the earth didn't burn. At the beginning of the
industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.

Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
however made. In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2, and
the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
a tiny, tiny increment. Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.

The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html


So whatever caused the MWP and LIA may have had nothing whatsoever to
do with CO2 IMHO.

Today, mankind's pollution activities including CO2 is hundreds or
more times the levels of 1850.

I have heard several pll say that the world is now buring in the
eqivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil a second, or a super tanker full
every 20 minutes, presumably including coal burning.

A barrel of oil is 158 litres. So that's ( 1,000 x 158L x 86,400
seconds ) litres per day.

Or roughly 13.6 billion litres per day.

Since there are about 6.2 billion ppl on the planet, *each person uses
2.2 Litres of fuel daily.

Its very difficult to see how 2.2L per day by everyone is causing GW,
but each year it becomes 803L, or about 600Kg and the weight of CO2
produced is about 1,200Kg. *( C + O2 = CO2 ).

The weight of the atmosphere is 5.3 E18 Kg, or 5.3 x
1,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
If we divide this by 6.2 x 1,000,000,000 people we get 0.86 x
1,000,000 tonnes of air per person.

So everyone has 860,000 tonnes of air in which to fart in any way they
want to.

At present weight of CO2 per person at 380PPM = 325 tonnes.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...h-co2-by-weigh...

If each person is adding 1.2 tonnes a year, it is adding 0.37% of what
is already there.

Before 1850 when the world population may have been 2 billion, the CO2
per person was MUCH less because there was at least 3 times the weight
of air per person, and the amount of CO2 each person produced maybe
120Kg per year, not 1,200Kg as it may be now, so each man sent up
0.012 of what was already there, assuming the CO2 % was around 250PPM.

Its difficult to see how a 0.37% CO2 increase each year could make any
change to temperature.

But I ain't no expert on the air, but there is a formula for finding
out the temperature of a given amount of air exposed to solar
radiation and with a given amount of CO2 present and water vapour
etc.

But after another 100 years we look like increasing CO2 despite the
word fests and C trading and population will grow and the CO2 increase
compounds and maybe we could easily double what's already there now.

If what we send up mainly stays up there then are we not in huge
trouble?

The problem with CO2 is that its like **** that won't rot, and nobody
wants to stop ****ting or carry the can.

Patrick Turner.



The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
deep in the trough.

So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.

So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
looking for ways of "getting rid of" the *Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
"global warming" were at stake.

The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.

The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
undo.

You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
"climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.

It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
(who should get the Nobel Prize ...

read more »

Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:40 pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:42 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
LIFE
by Andre Jute

Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive
job creation scheme in the history of the world.

Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in similar fashion
as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse
manure. People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport
business out of a job.
A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.

So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
bull****.

Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.

BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
got underway in the 20th century.

You should get the facts before you start on this sort of argument,
Patrick. CO2 concentrations have been ten times (10x !) higher than
they are now, and the earth didn't burn.

**Where did Patrick (or anyone else) suggest that the Earth was going to
burn due to excessive CO2 levels? Be precise in your answer.

At the beginning of the
industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.

**********.


Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
however made.

**Strawman.

In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2

**30% is NOT a small fraction. It is a considerable fraction.

, and
the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
a tiny, tiny increment.

**Does it? Let's see your proof of that. Solid scientific evidence will be
adequate.

Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.

**As above. Supply your proof. Good, solid scientific or experimental data
(peer-reviewed, of course) will be suitable.


The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.

**Indeed it is. Your posts have been, thus far, completely devoid of
science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Nov 22, 2:57*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:40*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:





On Nov 18, 1:42*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
LIFE
by Andre Jute

Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
creation scheme in the history of the world.

Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in *similar fashion
as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse manure.
People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport business
out of a job.
A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.

So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
bull****.

Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.

BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
got underway in the 20th century.

You should get the facts before you start on this sort of argument,
Patrick. CO2 concentrations have been ten times (10x !) higher than
they are now, and the earth didn't burn. At the beginning of the
industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.

I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
global warming. The last book about GW was by James Lovelock and he
said nothing about temperatures being low while CO2 was at say 4,500
PPM, ie, ten times more than now.

Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
however made. In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2, and
the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
a tiny, tiny increment. Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.

So you say, but there are many would disagree, and from what I see
happening right before my very eyes there is global warming, and the
rate of CO2 increase is huge, and man-made compared to times when CO2
rose or fell naturally.

It would be smart for our species to drop our addiction to carbon
burning. But there's a price to make the change, and once people learn
the price, they'll be much less enthusiastic, and many will just say
"**** it all, me first, and **** anyone else tells me what to do."
Noble logic and altruism will be junked in favour of just trying to
survive with no regard for the future generations.

But many will back some investments in alternatives to carbon. If
electric cars become viable because of Peak Oil and its resulting high
oil prices, then we'll be forced off carbon for transport. But high
oil prices also mean high food prices.

Some of the research into solar power plants look promising at the ANU
right now. They have a cheaply constucted experimental dish there
about 25 metres in dia which focuses the sun onto a pod above the dish
and maximum power output is about 50kW. The heat at 1,200C is high
enough to disassociate N and H in amonia, and the H can be burnt to
drive a turbine. Or you can just boil wated for a turbine. Overall
efficiency is 45% and much higher than solar voltaic cells. So if I
need 1kW/hr every hour to live, then the dish would support about 23
people. If the dish cost is $230,000, then 23 people can pay $10,000
each for one.
Oz is BIG, and there is room for millions of dishes like this one.
I see the alternative technology right before my very eyes and I like
what I see.


The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.

You can always dismiss the figures I mentioned.

I like to boil global issues down into what is the the average
individual personal effect of our own activities upon "our own bit of
the world". I wish the experts on the subject would present their
findings it to make it clearer for us to understand.
I happen to think that when you do divide the world up into 6.2
billion parts so that you have 1 part per person, it becomes easier to
visualize our own individual impact. But because our own slice of the
world appears to be so ****ing huge, then many will say it just
doesn't matter if we clear all the forrest and burn all the fossil
fuel under our feet. They will ignore the facts and figures which are
inconvenient truths.

Anyone is free to dismiss the figures. The maths irk them. But were
you to confine a given amount of air within an experimental greenhouse
and you add CO2 to that air, then the average temperature of that air
+ added CO2 will rise.

Much investigation has been done on this phenomena and some maths
develeoped for the relationship between % of CO2 and the average T.

In the distant past I believe man had an insignificant effect on CO2
levels and resulting climate changes. And this includes 60,000 years
of aboriginal occupation of Oz where they often started bushfires to
clear out forests to prevent major high intensity fires. Vast amounts
of CO2 would have been generated. Now the aboriginals have a
negligible effect compared to the much greater natural bushfires which
occur. But the natural big fires always did occur, started by
lightning strikes. Nobody was around to video those aboriginals caught
in the wrong place at the wrong time when a major bushfire burnt them
to a cinder like the rest of the many animals caught when bushfires
rage fiercely as they did last season. The present bushfire caused CO2
is much less than the perpetual other output of fossil fuel use. I
percieve man's effect on CO2 levels is greater than nature's effects
when measured when there were not many men around.

Anyway, who is right about this issue remains to be seen, and I won't
be around for longer than 40 years maximum.

Perhaps we should ride our bikes to a cafe somewhere in Canberra in
2049 and we can discuss matters further.

By then we might both look back and see that we were both wrong on the
issue, and that some other set of problems have become the scientific-
political issues of the day.
I might bet a schooner that the cafe might need good air conditioning
because it would be very warm outside, maybe like Dubai is now.
And maybe 1/2 the trees which have recently been planted in Canberra's
gardens and streets and at the new arboterium have died due to heat
stress and that bushfires have much reduced forest in surrounding
ranges. I might bet a schooner the Australian ski season has become
much shorter and that the snow line has risen several hundred meters
so in some years almost no snow falls.

BTW, trying to win any argument with dear Trevor is somewhat
pointless.

In fact trying to win any argument about global warming here could be
pointless because it has almost nothing to do with tubecraft. Its
almost worse than arguing about religion. But using tubes is
greenhouse unfriendly, and the International Greenhouse Police Force
which might be established soon with a branch office in a bunker near
you soon might knock on your door late one evening to smash your
vacuum tubes. So in the future, hide your amps well. People in police
forces can be a bit dumb. The rotating/sliding bookcase would be a
good investment, and no doubt you have a lot of books.

Cordially, and angst free,

Patrick Turner.


Andre Jute
*Visit Andre's books at
*http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html



So whatever caused the MWP and LIA may have had nothing whatsoever to
do with CO2 IMHO.

Today, mankind's pollution activities including CO2 is hundreds or
more times the levels of 1850.

I have heard several pll say that the world is now buring in the
eqivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil a second, or a super tanker full
every 20 minutes, presumably including coal burning.

A barrel of oil is 158 litres. So that's ( 1,000 x 158L x 86,400
seconds ) litres per day.

Or roughly 13.6 billion litres per day.

Since there are about 6.2 billion ppl on the planet, *each person uses
2.2 Litres of fuel daily.

Its very difficult to see how 2.2L per day by everyone is causing GW,
but each year it becomes 803L, or about 600Kg and the weight of CO2
produced is about 1,200Kg. *( C + O2 = CO2 ).

The weight of the atmosphere is 5.3 E18 Kg, or 5.3 x
1,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
If we divide this by 6.2 x 1,000,000,000 people we get 0.86 x
1,000,000 tonnes of air per person.

So everyone has 860,000 tonnes of air in which to fart in any way they
want to.

At present weight of CO2 per person at 380PPM = 325 tonnes.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...h-co2-by-weigh...

If each person is adding 1.2 tonnes a year, it is adding 0.37% of what
is already there.

Before 1850 when the world population may have been 2 billion, the CO2
per person was MUCH less because there was at least 3 times the weight
of air per person, and the amount of CO2 each person produced maybe
120Kg per year, not 1,200Kg as it may be now, so each man sent up
0.012 of what was already there, assuming the CO2 % was around 250PPM.

Its difficult to see how a 0.37% CO2 increase each year could make any
change to temperature.

But I ain't no expert on the air, but there is a formula for finding
out the temperature of a given amount of air exposed to solar
radiation and with a given amount of CO2 present and water vapour
etc.

But after another 100 years we look like increasing CO2 despite the
word fests and C trading and population will grow and the CO2 increase
compounds and maybe we could easily double what's already there now.

If what we send up mainly stays up there then are we not in huge
trouble?

The problem with CO2 is that its like **** that won't rot, and nobody
wants to stop ****ting or carry the can.

Patrick Turner.

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
deep in the trough.

So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.

So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
looking for ways of "getting rid of" the *Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
"global warming" were at stake.

The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.

The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
undo.

You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
"climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.

It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
(who should get the Nobel Prize ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 22, 8:27*am, Patrick Turner wrote:
I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
global warming.

Taking care of the environment isn't about opinion, it is about
science. And the science is absent. You've been deliberately lied to
about CO2 and global warming, Patrick.

You can download the conspiracies of the so-called "scientists" who
lied to you. Download these files and read their e-mails as they plot
to lie to you:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

On Nov 22, 4:45*am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:40 pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:42 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
LIFE
by Andre Jute

Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive
job creation scheme in the history of the world.

Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in similar fashion
as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse
manure. People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport
business out of a job.
A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.

So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
bull****.

Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.

BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
got underway in the 20th century.

You should get the facts before you start on this sort of argument,
Patrick. CO2 concentrations have been ten times (10x !) higher than
they are now, and the earth didn't burn.

**Where did Patrick (or anyone else) suggest that the Earth was going to
burn due to excessive CO2 levels? Be precise in your answer.

*At the beginning of the

industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.

**********.



Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
however made.

**Strawman.

*In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2

**30% is NOT a small fraction. It is a considerable fraction.

, and

the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
a tiny, tiny increment.

**Does it? Let's see your proof of that. Solid scientific evidence will be
adequate.

*Read this again: Virtually all the damage that

CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.

**As above. Supply your proof. Good, solid scientific or experimental data
(peer-reviewed, of course) will be suitable.



The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.

**Indeed it is. Your posts have been, thus far, completely devoid of
science.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

One can lead a horse to water; one cannot make him drink. -- Andre Jute

On Nov 22, 10:01*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:27*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
global warming.

Taking care of the environment isn't about opinion, it is about
science. And the science is absent. You've been deliberately lied to
about CO2 and global warming, Patrick.

So you keep saying.
I find rather difficult to not accept that so many scientists have
agreed global warming here now and being caused by CO2 from men and
their wives.

You can download the conspiracies of the so-called "scientists" who
lied to you. Download these files and read their e-mails as they plot
to lie to you:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

I'l have a look at that but I am not likely to take notice of what i
conclude might be a conspiracy theory.

The religious of the world might say I have committed at least
thousands of mortal sins and if I die now without declaring faith to
God the father, son and holy ghost and seeking their forgiveness with
grovelling to a priest about all the roots outside marriage that I
have had and paying with donations to the Church I am SURE to burn in
Hell for Eternity.

But God, whatever he, she or it is put me here with a set of uncaring
chances that goverrn my life. I seek to do good WITHOUT FEARING DIVINE
punishment which I believe is a total nonsense or utterly purified
bull****. In other words, religion is a con, a means of domination of
most by a few, just like nationalism, or communism etc. I will still
try to treat men and women around me well WITHOUT all the bull**** of
ideology or religion.

Ideas about Gobal warming due to men's activities could be a complete
con with no more validity than a heaven and hell theory for life after
death. And to be sure some ideas about GW would be utter BS. Just
which ideas is open to conjecture. I don't think its a black and white
issue. There is still much outright denial amoung many ppl than
warming is occuring, and the scientific modelling is not perfect at
all. We sis think the universe we observe was expanding but at a rate
which was reducing so that eventually it would come to a stand still
in billions of years then reverse its motion due to gravity then
collapse back into itself again.
The the scientists discovered that the rate of universe expansion s
INCREASING which means all we observe is moving further apart and we'd
have no chance of visiting anywhere outside our tiny speck of a place
in space unless we develop rockets capable of speeds exceeding the
speed of light. Who cares what the universe is like when none of
those ideas about the universe affect crop production yields down here
on terra firma?

Well, we know scientists can agree to be be quite wrong about
something until someone discovers enough evidence which prooves
otherwise.

What I do know is what I see around me and there's no sign of global
cooling. There is plenty of evidence that mankind's increased presense
on Earth at an ever higher standard of living involving a HUGE
increase of energy inputs and raw materials will strain **** out of
the natural environment and huge numbers of species will become
extinct much much sooner than if mankind had never evolved. Global
warming is only one problem EVERY species faces. Loss of natural
habitat is another.

At the present rate of so called "progress" in mankind's lifestyle and
population growth, how long do you believe un-checked "progress" can
contunue?

Do you think that in 1,000 years the Earth could support 6,200 billion
people?

What policy changes would governments have to make to facilitate
"business as usual" for the next 1,000 years?

Do you think any policy changes should be made NOW? ( And no need to
include policies of shooting disagreeable ppl)

Thought and questions are what religions and conspiracists seek to
supress. Mao said democracy grows from the barrel of a gun. What a
******* Mao was. Of course Bhudda sat around fatly and told us to
contemplate. he had a good following without shooting anyone, so his
ideas are somewhat benign and tolerable.

While contemplation is underway, truth is obscure; it truth was so
obvious contemplation would not be necessary. In life there are many
uncertainties, so there is plenty to question and contemplate.

Are you at peace within yourself when faced with so many
uncertainties?

Can you be serene while knowing the infinite information of the
universe cannot be fully understood because you have only a finite
number of brain cells?

Today I rode 83km in warm humid weather with 8 good men between 20 and
75 and two extraordinary young women.

We all naturally know humour is the key to our differences of opinion.
Not a single sour word was heard for 4 hours on hilly terrain and in
the cafe.

I remain serene while knowing the infinite possibilities of divine
intercourse with either of the two beautiful young women will not be
experienced by this declining finite body of mine.

Beauty has been uncaringly spattered around in my own little part of
the universe. That I see it, and enjoy its presence sustains me more
than knowing if I am right or not about global warming.

I like being stressed like our ancestors were during a hunt or trek
across unknown lands left free after an ice age and for survival of my
tribe. I like heightened senses while knowing the slightest error or
lack of concentration might send me hurtling down a mountain side with
a broken neck. Or that unless I watch myself I electrocute myself on a
triode amp. I'd prefer the scientists get something right sometime,
and maybe if they are not turned on by the excitement of their
activities they come to all sorts of stupid conclusions.

To me it remains very possible we hasten the Earth to respond to us
and all other flora and fauna by making it much hotter than we'd like.
There could be a trend in the opposite direction where the Earth tries
to freeze life to a minimum with an ice age but to me that looks like
a much less likely outcome for the next 1,000 years.

If each of us SOON spends a years's wages of our 45 years of earnings
from work in trying to wean ourselves off carbon is benign over the
longer term of say 1,000 years. Do you honestly believe that we have
another 1,000 years where we can burn fossil fuels at the same or
increasing rates with no problems?

Its difficult to get anyone to agree to spending for the future
because they see it as wastefulness. Nobody likes paying taxes either.
Many people don't believe in paying for superannuation and life
insurance. They don't like putting something aside for the future. I
am one such person because my wages are 1/5 of average weekly
earnings. But wealthy people on AWE or 50 grand a year can live like a
fat king AND easily afford super and insurance and taxes and carbon
fibre bicycles worth $7,000. But after the global financial crisis
many super funds crashed and people's nest eggs for their lifestyle
after retirement were wiped out. Had opportunities for green
expenditure on solar plants and greening of their housing been more
available they'd have been considered more seriously and ppl would
still have what they'd spent, and they'd save having to pay big bills
in retirement for energy.

I might be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I don't mind.

BTW, the file size at
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
seems to be a 61MB download.

I expect the answer to the question whether or not greenhouse warming
is anthropcentric should be answerable in 10 pages of plain text.

Meanwhile I can think for myself a bit as time allows.


Patrick Turner.

On Nov 22, 8:26*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

I expect the answer to the question whether or not greenhouse warming
is anthropcentric should be answerable in 10 pages of plain text.

Fewer than that. But the conclusion would be the same whatever the
cause - the environment we presently live and require to thrive is in
trouble. Irrespective of the source of causes. But, you are looking
for common sense - which isn't.

Meanwhile I can think for myself a bit as time allows.

A dangerous activity, a threat to all and sundry and one that requires
a considerable strength of will.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 2009-11-22, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 22, 10:01*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:27*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
global warming.

Taking care of the environment isn't about opinion, it is about
science. And the science is absent. You've been deliberately lied to
about CO2 and global warming, Patrick.

So you keep saying.
I find rather difficult to not accept that so many scientists have
agreed global warming here now and being caused by CO2 from men and
their wives.

You can download the conspiracies of the so-called "scientists" who
lied to you. Download these files and read their e-mails as they plot
to lie to you:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

I'l have a look at that but I am not likely to take notice of what i
conclude might be a conspiracy theory.

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory, but nor does one get the
impression of an objective open-minded scientific community seeking the
truth.

I don't know if you remember Paul Hudson's article on BBC news which we
flamed each other about a bit here at the time. The climate scientists
were having rather similar exchanges,

Someone apparently doing a PhD at Stanford writes:

"You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on
climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since
1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next
20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views."

Some of them rubbish the article, others engage with it a bit more
intelligently. This is all fine, and interesting to read-- at least
they're discussing global warming (but I'm afraid I do get the feeling
many of them are just searching for excuses).

Then the notorious Michael Mann responds with:

"extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat
at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
might ask Richard Black what's up here?"

WTF is that all about? Why is it any of Michael Mann's business what the
BBC reports, or the Met Office says?

It's not that the article was naive or just plain stupid (as some RBTers
also cast it at the time). Look at this exchange:

"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are
the physical processes? Where did the heat go? [...]"

Mann responds:

"Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent
shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in
terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e.
the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we
can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there
something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is
inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to
similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure
that this has been addressed--has it?"

Right, there clearly is a discussion, so why can't we have it in public?
Why the outrage? Why the need to ask Richard Black what's up, or to get
the Met Office to say something?

It's pretty obvious the "scientific consensus" is a clique and, from the
media response to the whole leaked email story, who works for the clique
and who doesn't.

Patrick Turner wrote:
On Nov 22, 2:57 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:40 pm, Patrick Turner wrote:





On Nov 18, 1:42 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
LIFE
by Andre Jute
Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
creation scheme in the history of the world.
Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in similar fashion
as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse manure.
People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport business
out of a job.
A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.
So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
bull****.
Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.
BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
got underway in the 20th century.
You should get the facts before you start on this sort of argument,
Patrick. CO2 concentrations have been ten times (10x !) higher than
they are now, and the earth didn't burn. At the beginning of the
industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.

I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
global warming. The last book about GW was by James Lovelock and he
said nothing about temperatures being low while CO2 was at say 4,500
PPM, ie, ten times more than now.
Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
however made. In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2, and
the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
a tiny, tiny increment. Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.

So you say, but there are many would disagree, and from what I see
happening right before my very eyes there is global warming, and the
rate of CO2 increase is huge, and man-made compared to times when CO2
rose or fell naturally.

It would be smart for our species to drop our addiction to carbon
burning. But there's a price to make the change, and once people learn
the price, they'll be much less enthusiastic, and many will just say
"**** it all, me first, and **** anyone else tells me what to do."
Noble logic and altruism will be junked in favour of just trying to
survive with no regard for the future generations.

But many will back some investments in alternatives to carbon. If
electric cars become viable because of Peak Oil and its resulting high
oil prices, then we'll be forced off carbon for transport. But high
oil prices also mean high food prices.

Some of the research into solar power plants look promising at the ANU
right now. They have a cheaply constucted experimental dish there
about 25 metres in dia which focuses the sun onto a pod above the dish
and maximum power output is about 50kW. The heat at 1,200C is high
enough to disassociate N and H in amonia, and the H can be burnt to
drive a turbine. Or you can just boil wated for a turbine. Overall
efficiency is 45% and much higher than solar voltaic cells. So if I
need 1kW/hr every hour to live, then the dish would support about 23
people. If the dish cost is $230,000, then 23 people can pay $10,000
each for one.
Oz is BIG, and there is room for millions of dishes like this one.
I see the alternative technology right before my very eyes and I like
what I see.

The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.

You can always dismiss the figures I mentioned.

I like to boil global issues down into what is the the average
individual personal effect of our own activities upon "our own bit of
the world". I wish the experts on the subject would present their
findings it to make it clearer for us to understand.
I happen to think that when you do divide the world up into 6.2
billion parts so that you have 1 part per person, it becomes easier to
visualize our own individual impact. But because our own slice of the
world appears to be so ****ing huge, then many will say it just
doesn't matter if we clear all the forrest and burn all the fossil
fuel under our feet. They will ignore the facts and figures which are
inconvenient truths.

Anyone is free to dismiss the figures. The maths irk them. But were
you to confine a given amount of air within an experimental greenhouse
and you add CO2 to that air, then the average temperature of that air
+ added CO2 will rise.

Much investigation has been done on this phenomena and some maths
develeoped for the relationship between % of CO2 and the average T.

In the distant past I believe man had an insignificant effect on CO2
levels and resulting climate changes. And this includes 60,000 years
of aboriginal occupation of Oz where they often started bushfires to
clear out forests to prevent major high intensity fires. Vast amounts
of CO2 would have been generated. Now the aboriginals have a
negligible effect compared to the much greater natural bushfires which
occur. But the natural big fires always did occur, started by
lightning strikes. Nobody was around to video those aboriginals caught
in the wrong place at the wrong time when a major bushfire burnt them
to a cinder like the rest of the many animals caught when bushfires
rage fiercely as they did last season. The present bushfire caused CO2
is much less than the perpetual other output of fossil fuel use. I
percieve man's effect on CO2 levels is greater than nature's effects
when measured when there were not many men around.

Anyway, who is right about this issue remains to be seen, and I won't
be around for longer than 40 years maximum.

Perhaps we should ride our bikes to a cafe somewhere in Canberra in
2049 and we can discuss matters further.

By then we might both look back and see that we were both wrong on the
issue, and that some other set of problems have become the scientific-
political issues of the day.
I might bet a schooner that the cafe might need good air conditioning
because it would be very warm outside, maybe like Dubai is now.
And maybe 1/2 the trees which have recently been planted in Canberra's
gardens and streets and at the new arboterium have died due to heat
stress and that bushfires have much reduced forest in surrounding
ranges. I might bet a schooner the Australian ski season has become
much shorter and that the snow line has risen several hundred meters
so in some years almost no snow falls.

BTW, trying to win any argument with dear Trevor is somewhat
pointless.

In fact trying to win any argument about global warming here could be
pointless because it has almost nothing to do with tubecraft. Its
almost worse than arguing about religion. But using tubes is
greenhouse unfriendly, and the International Greenhouse Police Force
which might be established soon with a branch office in a bunker near
you soon might knock on your door late one evening to smash your
vacuum tubes. So in the future, hide your amps well. People in police
forces can be a bit dumb. The rotating/sliding bookcase would be a
good investment, and no doubt you have a lot of books.

Cordially, and angst free,

Patrick Turner.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html



So whatever caused the MWP and LIA may have had nothing whatsoever to
do with CO2 IMHO.
Today, mankind's pollution activities including CO2 is hundreds or
more times the levels of 1850.
I have heard several pll say that the world is now buring in the
eqivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil a second, or a super tanker full
every 20 minutes, presumably including coal burning.
A barrel of oil is 158 litres. So that's ( 1,000 x 158L x 86,400
seconds ) litres per day.
Or roughly 13.6 billion litres per day.
Since there are about 6.2 billion ppl on the planet, each person uses
2.2 Litres of fuel daily.
Its very difficult to see how 2.2L per day by everyone is causing GW,
but each year it becomes 803L, or about 600Kg and the weight of CO2
produced is about 1,200Kg. ( C + O2 = CO2 ).
The weight of the atmosphere is 5.3 E18 Kg, or 5.3 x
1,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
If we divide this by 6.2 x 1,000,000,000 people we get 0.86 x
1,000,000 tonnes of air per person.
So everyone has 860,000 tonnes of air in which to fart in any way they
want to.
At present weight of CO2 per person at 380PPM = 325 tonnes.
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...h-co2-by-weigh...
If each person is adding 1.2 tonnes a year, it is adding 0.37% of what
is already there.
Before 1850 when the world population may have been 2 billion, the CO2
per person was MUCH less because there was at least 3 times the weight
of air per person, and the amount of CO2 each person produced maybe
120Kg per year, not 1,200Kg as it may be now, so each man sent up
0.012 of what was already there, assuming the CO2 % was around 250PPM.
Its difficult to see how a 0.37% CO2 increase each year could make any
change to temperature.
But I ain't no expert on the air, but there is a formula for finding
out the temperature of a given amount of air exposed to solar
radiation and with a given amount of CO2 present and water vapour
etc.
But after another 100 years we look like increasing CO2 despite the
word fests and C trading and population will grow and the CO2 increase
compounds and maybe we could easily double what's already there now.
If what we send up mainly stays up there then are we not in huge
trouble?
The problem with CO2 is that its like **** that won't rot, and nobody
wants to stop ****ting or carry the can.
Patrick Turner.
The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
deep in the trough.
So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
"global warming" were at stake.
The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
undo.
You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
"climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.
It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
(who should get the Nobel Prize ...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Your 'electric car' uses power made from coal oil and gas
(despite Ms Pelosi's belief, natural gas is indeed a
hydrocarbon. Really).

Not only that, but inherent energy conversion and
transmission losses mean you're using more energy overall
hence more pollution than just burning gasoline AEBE.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Nov 22, 12:57*pm, AMuzi wrote:

Not only that, but inherent energy conversion and
transmission losses mean you're using more energy overall
hence more pollution than just burning gasoline AEBE.

But AE isn't E. There are efficiencies of scale at large power
plants.

Do you dispute the claims of higher efficiency at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_R...rgy_efficiency
?

Tom Ace