A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Freewheeling wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Freewheeling wrote:





"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...





skip wrote:






"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...






"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
.. .






No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they
are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal
human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only
a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue
real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by
economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you
create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed
and avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or
wonder how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And
he won't budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any
success in moving him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards
the cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true
understanding of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but
then some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending
the illusion. At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after
the bovines have returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than
a century. People are better educated, better fed, better
entertained, more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests
actually smarter, than they ever have been before. There is less
poverty and misery with each passing year, not more, except in
those places where the left still has its totalitarian
demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is
already happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving
the Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The
same is true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting
their policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.


Last I heard there was close to a consensus that the climate shift
that has taken place since the beginning of industrialization is well
within the bounds of natural climate change. This isn't tough to
verify.

Have you had your hearing checked?



For complete figures and graphs go to:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032403B.html

Excerpt from *Is the Arctic Melting?* by Willie Soon:

quote
The Basic Data



Figure 1: Arctic-wide temperature anomalies (in ?C) from 1875-2001
relative to the mean of 1961-1990 interval, with the number of stations
producing the temperature set in each decade. (Courtesy of Igor Polyakov
of IARC at the University of Alaska)



Figure 1 shows the annual time series of the Arctic surface air
temperature from 1875 to 2001 as it was recently reconstructed by Igor
Polyakov and colleagues at the International Arctic Research Center
(IARC) in Fairbanks, Alaska and the Arctic and Antarctic Research
Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia.



The sources of this new temperature record include measurements from
land stations, floating buoys on the ocean and even drifting stations on
sea ice. Detailed documentations of the methodology and spatial sampling
strategy had been published in papers that appear in Geophysical
Research Letters, Journal of Climate and the American Geophysical
Union's EOS.



Figure 2: Distribution of surface air temperature stations on land,
ocean or sea-ice for the composite Arctic-wide temperature record in
Figure 1. (Courtesy of Igor Polyakov of IARC at the University of
Alaska)



Figure 2 shows you all the locations poleward of about 62?N (with the
Arctic circle defined as the zonal ring around 66?N) where the air
temperatures are sampled to produce the Arctic-wide temperature history
shown in Figure 1.



What's Happening?



So what do we see in Figure 1?



First note that the maximum annual Arctic-wide temperature anomaly - the
difference from the mean temperature for 1961-90 as plotted by the blue
dash line - reached a maximum of 1.7?Celsius in 1938. That compares with
a maximum of 1.5?C in 2000.



Next, notice the blue solid curvy line. It gives a 6-year running
average of the annual temperature anomalies plotted as a dotted blue
line. This line helps focus on the climatic changes of longer
time-scales, instead of year-to-year weather "noise" in the dash-line.



Now, for a more interesting part: Just for the sake of discussion,
contrast two views of the record. Compare the red curve that was drawn
by a straight line from 1875 to 2001 versus the four green lines drawn
over four intervals in Figure 1.



The red curve describes the longest-term temperature variation
resolvable in this Arctic record, and it shows a change over the period
of about 1?C per century.



What does the trend mean? Some people take it and argue, "See, the
Arctic climate is warming; it's warmer today than 125 years ago. As CO2
from the burning of fossil fuels has increased during that period, that
likely has contributed to that warming."



But there's another way to look at the record than a relatively straight
line. That is to consider multi-decadal shifts of the temperature, as
seen in the four green lines, from a cooler condition in 1875-1920, to a
warmer condition in the period1921-1955, then returning to a cooler
condition for the years 1956-1985 and finally a warmer phase from the
mid-to-late 1980s onward.



This latter view is considered more natural. More than that, it is also
considered more consistent with our current understanding of how the sea
ice, ocean temperature, salinity and circulation, air circulation and
temperature, as well as many important land processes, including river
runoff and snow, interact and produce the responses of the Arctic
climate system.



From this perspective, one finds an Arctic climate that has a preferred
tendency to produce variability that oscillates in decadal and
multi-decadal periods. Several careful analyses of the sea ice changes
over the Arctic also point to the dominant role played by atmospheric
circulation. That component affecting the climate appears to be locked
in a 50-80 year cycle - a natural see-saw - that is both large in
amplitude and persistent in its timing. During these 50-80 years cycle,
certain regions in the Eastern Arctic will warm a lot (as in the 1990s),
while parts in the Western Arctic will cool, and vice-versa with the
alternating phases of the oscillation./quote



So basically the temperature oscillations are within the normal range
and periodicy.

A clever statistical analysis of one set of data that ignores many other
things that are happening.

I will be happy to laugh at the upcoming disasters and tell everyone, "I
told you so."



Right, it'll prove nature was on your side all along right? And this
doesn't strike you as even remotely perverse? You must be considerably
younger than I took you to be. Again, from the article:

quote
The association of the observed warming trend of about 1?C over 100-years
for the Arctic temperature, as seen in Figure 1, to CO2-global warming is
implausible for two important reasons.

First, 70 to 80 percent of the rise of man-made CO2 in the air to date
came after the 1960s. Yet, Figure 1 clearly shows that a large part of
the 100-year warming trend was contributed by a pre-1960s increase in
temperature. That was at a time when the air's CO2 content was still low.

Secondly, and this is a somewhat surprising fact for scientists, when the
long-term temperature trend was calculated in Figure 3 using at least the
100-year long record, both the Arctic- and Northern-Hemisphere-wide
warming trends have similar values.

What is so surprising about that? Well, it contradicts all the known
predictions in the amplification of the polar warming. Those predictions
from climate models that consider anthropogenic greenhouse gases -
primarily CO2 from burning fossil fuels - to be forcing global warming
say that the Arctic should warm by 1.5 to 4.5 times the global mean
warming. And that is not happening.

And there's no explanation for why it is not. One explanation typically
invoked to argue why there has been less rapid warming in the
mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere (Asia, Europe and America) in
previous decades is so-called man-made sulfate aerosols - soot and smog -
put out by industry provided a cooling factor. (Don't ask why or how the
greenhouse-warming promoters are so sure of this aerosol cooling
possibility while considering only one particular kind of aerosols out of
many more.) But that effect is expected to be minimal, and it isn't
present in the remote Arctic, thus offering no explanation to the lack of
warming amplification there.

The complaint the "Arctic is melting" as a result of fossil fuel use thus
has no basis from the climate records of that region and that for the
Northern Hemisphere. So, it is no wonder that reports purporting to prove
that are confusing and contradictory./quote

By the way, did you check out Owsley's site? His discussion is about a
non-human-produced global warming trend that could lead to a huge
ecological disaster, of global proportions... ironically producing
mega-cyclones that usher in an ice age. It has nothiing to do with human
pollution. And there are other purely natural disasters that dwarf
anything man can produce. So even if there is an ecological disaster,
that doesn't mean that we produced it.

What I want to know is what your agenda is in trying to discredit the
general consensus on global warming? Practicing for job interviews as a
right-wing pundit?

What I want to know is what difference my "agenda" makes? For all you know
I might very well be a leftist, concerned about the way the left is
undermining its own credibility by insisting on political correctness. The
point is that the "consensus" is manufactured out of that PC-ness, which if
you know anything about history you'll know is a legacy of Stalinism. I
think that in the wake of the delegitimation of the left that took place
after the fall of the Berlin Wall they settled on environmentalism as their
new religion. This, in spite of the fact that the biggest polluters on the
planet were in left-oriented economic systems.

Plus, I'm just an empiricist. If someone claims there's a tight correlation
between CO2 and global warming and the actual correlation is either small,
zero, or even negative then I can't help thinking that's relevant. There is
clearly a warming trend, but there's little evidence that it's related to
anything man is doing. And if the Owsley scenario is plausible, what we
need to do is completely different from what the global warming advocates
demand... because there's nothing we can do to stop the trend. What we need
to do is prepare to meet it. (This assumes that he's right, and that the
threat is imminent, which are both a long way from being proved.)