Global Warming

Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
However, Kunich's programmer informs me that upper management is more
willing to fund work on the invective module than the new-evidence-
and-argument module, so we'll be stuck with this old argument at least
until after the 2009 TdF.

The evidence-and-argument module core dumps all the time which has
lead to the old dining philosophers sample being re-programmed as a
dumping philosophers problem with the TOM9000 getting a permanent
lock on the pot mutex.

Core dumping improves the output, so that puts it
on the bottom of the development priority list.

The fact that people still attempt to reason with
Tom is a source of endless amusement.

Bob Schwartz

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:26:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"ST" wrote in message ...
On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article , "Kyle
Legate" wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....

What's more they have a small population on an island with a large volcanic
nature. Absolutely nothing like conditions in the USA and only someone
without the capacity to think would have suggested such a comparison.

Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
like France because???? Anyone??

We could be like France. All we'd have to do is build a hundred nuclear
power plants and allow oil drilling anywhere within US territories.

Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on
very
undependable wind power?!?!

I work in a state with the largest investment in alternate energy per capita
and the return on the dollar is tiny.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

Bob Schwartz wrote:

The fact that people still attempt to reason with
Tom is a source of endless amusement.

It's sort of like having a knock-up by yourself in a squash court. It's
great for working out the kinks in your strokes, running drills, or
loosening up before a match, but completely futile in a sense of achieving
anything if you hope to win since the wall will return anything you hit at
it.

I wrote this post only to be able to use the phrase "having a knock-up by
yourself in a squash court."

--
Bill Asher

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:26:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

"ST" wrote in message ...
On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article ,
"Kyle
Legate" wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....

What's more they have a small population on an island with a large
volcanic
nature. Absolutely nothing like conditions in the USA and only someone
without the capacity to think would have suggested such a comparison.

Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot
be
like France because???? Anyone??

We could be like France. All we'd have to do is build a hundred nuclear
power plants and allow oil drilling anywhere within US territories.

Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on
very
undependable wind power?!?!

I work in a state with the largest investment in alternate energy per
capita
and the return on the dollar is tiny.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

"taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses
sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on
an emotional level rather than an intellectual level."

Sort of the same crowd here as well. Imagine Henry talking about wind power
or BJ telling us about the composition of the atmosphere.

On Apr 14, 6:16*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Sort of the same crowd here as well. Imagine Henry talking about wind power
or BJ telling us about the composition of the atmosphere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Tom
Don't know about eother's credentials on windpower, but "BJ" is
incredibly careful to make his arguments based on well respected
scientists, and authorities. We all know you can pay an "expert" to
testify to anything, but Mike Farrell is the first person to say "I'm
not the expert on this and I don't understand all the details, but
x,y,and z tell me it's this." and x,y, and z are folks from places
like Cal Tech, MIT, and the Ivies. I've been folloeing him for a long
time in his "activist" mode.
He knows and admits that things can be viewed differently by
different people, and the fastest way to lose credibility is to spout
unsupported, or really questionable BS. He doesn't do that. This isn't
Rosie O' Donnell's nutcase ravings, everything Farrell says is
supported, and backed by seriously credible people, and he doesn't go
stretching things beyond what is considered solid.
It's easy to disagree with a lot of his positions, it's a lot harder
to dispute his evidence and reasoning for coming to those positions.
Bill C

On Apr 14, 12:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message

...



We've already explained to him several times that
CO2 absorption is not saturated because much of
it is in the upper atmosphere at low temp and
pressu

Just because the literature says that the vast majority of CO2 is in the
lower atmosphere doesn't seem to impact on the ideas of BJ in the least.
Can't say that I'm surprised.

The majority of CO2 is in the lower atmosphere, just
as the majority of the atmosphere is in the lower
atmosphere. However, the CO2 absorption bands in
the lower atmosphere are close to saturated. Remember,
that was your previous argument. This means that
the upper atmosphere, where CO2 bands are not saturated
in absorption, is what controls how much IR radiation
can escape. Small changes in the CO2 content up there
influence the temperature of the upper, radiating layer.
The layers of the atmosphere are in thermal contact,
and the boundary condition is the upper, radiating
layer. So changing the conditions up there influences
the temperature at sea level.

Saturated absorption can be confusing. If I ever
teach a class in radiative processes, I'll let you
know in case you want to audit it.

Ben

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

"BJ" is
incredibly careful to make his arguments based on well respected
scientists, and authorities.

Sure, as long as they hold the opinion he wants to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural
sources, and over 95% percent of total CO2 emissions would occur even if
humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic
material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the
release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon
dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans."

Moreover, CO2 is a heavy gas - one of the heaviest in the atmosphere. While
there is enough mixing of gases so that you can detect CO2 anyplace in the
atmosphere, some 90% of it is in the Troposphere. What that means is that it
is concentrated enough and under sufficient pressure to be at or very near
maximum absorbance.

The problem is that whackos are listening to whackos - the sky is falling
and they're intent on scaring anyone, especially children, with their own
fears. BJ does know better but he is more than willing to suspend educated
disbelief if he can get to be one of the cool guys on the group. He wasn't
like that in the past but he's really grown hasn't he?

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing at
knowledge they don't have.

On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing at
knowledge they don't have.

OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing
at
knowledge they don't have.

OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

Not nearly as amusing as watching you though.

In article
,
wrote:

On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing at
knowledge they don't have.

OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

As a Canadian, I would like to heartily endorse whatever root cause is
responsible for that temperature trend.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...id=f5fecf8e-61
6e-4fb1-852c-1dd2ebf5810f&k=59121

If there is anything I could personally do to accelerate the process,
please let me know.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."