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
...



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.

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."

"Freewheeling" wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).

You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology

Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.

Jon Meinecke

"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
...





major prunage

Death is good. Without death, life would have no meaning.

Death to the hominids! Death to ALL!


That's a scary thought. Without death it would just be TAXES!




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109771963.e8f6cbc4cac64c5dfbb50a14b323ae92@t eranews...
"Freewheeling" wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).

You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out
what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology

Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.

I find this comment somewhat amusing in context. Zuniga is hardly a pariah
with the anti-Bush crowd. He's fairly mainstream, though a good deal more
raw than, say, Josh Marshall. Mainstream Democrats publish ads on his blog,
for instance. Strictly speaking I have no idea whether Tom follows Zuniga,
but I sure wouldn't be shocked to find that he does. You may be surprised
at the contention that Tom feels some of us our duped, or remain willfully
ignorant, of how "bad things really are," but this is actually doctrinaire
Marxism. It's called "alienation leading to false consciousness." I don't
know where he picked it up, and for all I know he doesn't know it's Marxism,
but there it is.

"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.

Jon Meinecke wrote:

"Freewheeling" wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).


You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out what
it means.


What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology


Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.


And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.

In his own mind, Scott Talkington is a great debater. That is why he is
always announcing that he has won the argument. Sheesh!

I agree with Ed Dolan. Off-topic discussions should be dragged into the
mud and made so unpleasant that no one wants to start them up any more.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

Freewheeling wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109771963.e8f6cbc4cac64c5dfbb50a14b323ae92@t eranews...

"Freewheeling" wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).


You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out
what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology


Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.


I find this comment somewhat amusing in context. Zuniga is hardly a pariah
with the anti-Bush crowd. He's fairly mainstream, though a good deal more
raw than, say, Josh Marshall. Mainstream Democrats publish ads on his blog,
for instance. Strictly speaking I have no idea whether Tom follows Zuniga,
but I sure wouldn't be shocked to find that he does. You may be surprised
at the contention that Tom feels some of us our duped, or remain willfully
ignorant, of how "bad things really are," but this is actually doctrinaire
Marxism. It's called "alienation leading to false consciousness." I don't
know where he picked it up, and for all I know he doesn't know it's Marxism,
but there it is.

I came up with it based on my own observations, thank you. I have no
need to behave like an academic and throw out all sorts of names.

It is just like all the academics that try to quantify quality of life,
but have no idea how much of a hell hole [1] many of the workplaces in
the US are, how middle class suburban society isolates people from
proper human relationships, and how the lack of a social safety net
causes many to feel that they are in an enforced economic servitude,
with their existence at the whim of the privileged.

Get out of the damn ivory tower and experience the real world!

[1] I have worked in several of these, and have the long-term repetitive
motion injuries to show for it.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

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?

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

Jon Meinecke wrote:

Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Scott wrote:
Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

Jon wrote
And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.


Tom Sherman wrote
In his own mind, Scott Talkington is a great debater. That is why he is
always announcing that he has won the argument. Sheesh!

Then point out the obvious and subtle weaknesses of his arguments,
humor him, ignore him, debate him, don't debate him, etc...

I agree with [D*l*n]. Off-topic discussions should be dragged into the
mud and made so unpleasant that no one wants to start them up any more.

As I said, interesting tango.... There's no reason it need be unpleasant,
in my opinion, as that has its own destructive effect as civil discourse
suffers.

No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed
away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory
were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were;
any man's death diminisheth me because I am involved in
Mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the
bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
John Donne (1571-1631)

Jon Meinecke