Re: Good news from Antarctica

On May 7, 7:43 pm, wsnel...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 4, 7:37 pm, mommycal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On May 4, 9:40 am, wsnel...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 4, 10:26 am, mommycal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 4, 8:50 am, wsnel...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 24, 10:26 am, mommycal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:55 am, wsnel...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:37 am, mommycal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 24, 4:31 am, wsnel...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 24, 12:28 am, "ATM2020" <2...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<wsnel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:19a83982-84d6-4351-82bd-2f59dbb2fb97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, minoxidil <minoxidilul...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 17, 5:34 pm, "S. Caro" <sc...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-11949,00....

You have to look at the long term behaviour, from 1979 the ice has
actually  been shrinking

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure3.png

1979-2009 isn't long-term behavior.   1979 BC -2009 AD  or 101979
BC-2009 AD or 1001979 BC-2009 AD, that would be long term behavior.

Look idiot...there was no shrinkage in the time before 1979..so put 2 and 2
together

Look imbecile... there is no hard data about exactly what the world
average temperatures were even two centuries ago and data about
retreat of glaciers and sea ice is incomplete and anecdotal.

Do you have a clue? I suggest taking the time to read the papers
describing the methodology, accuracy, duration and coverage of global
temperature records. You can easily be find with googlescholar a large
number of well written papers that describe the global temperature
record.  As an example the Jesuits require their novices to keep a
daily diary. Entries in that daily diary must include the high and low
temperatures for the day as well as narrative on the weather. Those
records go back more that 200 years in the US and much longer
elsewhere in the world. Your statements indicate just how little you
know, how poorly educated you are and how unwilling you are to learn

You need temperature data going back much earlier than a couple of
hundred years ago and it needs to cover most of the Earth including
the oceans and the upper atmosphere.  Obviously this data doesn't
exist.  The best you can do is infer what happened indirectly.  There
were no direct eyewitness accounts of conditions in Antarctica until
the last century or so, and there are few records of Arctic conditions
either.

Before you can make your claims, you need to first demonstrate that
anything unusual is even occuring.

You persist in your stupidity! A simple example. The ratio of oxygen
16  to oxygen 18 isotopes is very temperature dependent and well
defined. The temperature derived from the O16/O18 is a better measure
of temperatures than can be had using a common thermeter. An ice core
from the arctic and antarctic  has millions of bubbles that have been
isolated from the surrounding air by the surrounding ice. Given a core
I can compare the temperature measured by a thermometer and the O16/
O18 ratio for the period over which both are available. The
temperatures match EXTREMELY closely (small fraction of a degree) and
more importantly the trends are the same. Given an ice core I can
MEASURE the temperature for those times when there are no
observations.

BS

Yes this is what is known as an indirect measurement of

temperature.

Then let's use only data obtained in that way; no satellite data, no
data from weather stations, only from ice cores.

On the other hand so is the speed shown on the
speedometer in your car,  any measurement of height that is more than
100 feet or so. Most measurement that a non-scientist get are indirect
measurements.

What is perfectly clear is that you are politically and selfishly
driven and have no interest in anything except what makes you feel
good.

You speak of selfishness WRT to "climate change" yet you rent cars
when you travel to cities which have public transportation.  I would
call you a hypocrite.

I honestly didn't know that Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina-Faso) or Woja
(Kwajallein Islands) or Ji'Parana (Brazil), or Huancayo (Peru) had
public transportation! I always walked or took a Pedicab (Huancayo)
where I needed to go. Maybe that's why I couldn't carry that 10000"
dob that only takes 30 milliseconds to setup when I had to time to do
some observing

What about Boston, New York, Chicago or Washington?  Those cities have
public transportation.  You shouldn't be renting cars in those cities
or anywhere else.

After having the TSA destroy an instrument because they didn't know
what it was (therefore it's a bomb) I try not to travel by plane,

You should have brought your Questar because TSA would have recognized
what it was.

but
rather take a train.

Trains use fossil fuel too, even those trains that are electrified.
Maybe the travel isn't necessary.

In New York , Chicago, Boston and Washington the
main train station is close to where I need to go so I walk or in the
case of Washington and New York ride the metro/subway.

Be thankful that so many people in those cities live and work in areas
other than those you need to visit, otherwise it would be very crowded
and your expenses much greater.

You don't want
a car in either place.

I'd probably want to rent a car if I wanted or needed to visit some
outlying area or just to save time.  I'm sure that you drive or ride
in cars when it suits your purposes.

Why would you want a scope in Washington?

I'm sure there are a few amateur astronomers who own and use scopes in
Washington.  I might like to have a small scope with me if there was
an opportunity to drive to a dark-sky site during the trip.

On
the other Woja is a 1km by 500m island that is 10 hours away by LST
from its nearest populated neighbor. Makes for very dark skies and you
do want a scope.

How do you get to Woja by train?  I'm sure that you must get on a
plane for some part of the trip.

Once again your ignorance shows, You have no idea
where I HAVE to travel to or why.

Actually, I don't really care, but that is indifference, not
ignorance.

You see, if you are going to be an alarmist about Global Warming, it
is to be assumed that you should be doing everything possible to
reduce your carbon footprint.  No travel, no luxury items, simple,
basic diet.  "Warmingistas" should be careful to set a good example at
all times.  Very few of them actually do.

Not an alarmist, nor someone from planet wingnutta either. Just a
scientist who has taken the time to verify as best as I am able to
verify the results of others. The only people claiming that we should
give up are lifestyles are those repeating the LIES from a very
small cadre of people. People like Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch
McConnell who have been spreading the LIE that an MIT study says cap-
and-trade legislation is a $3100 per year tax when the author of the
MIT study said it would cost $34 per year. The author is still waiting
for a an apology by the way, but I doubt he will ever get it.
Economists don't see the gloom and doom that planet wingnutta do, for
instance Terry Baker and Paul Ekins wrote in "The Costs of Kyoto for
the US Economy" The Energy Journal (2004) 25(3): 53.

The high costs for the US economy of mitigating climate change were
often cited as a reason for rejecting US ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol. This paper organizes some of the quantitative information on
costs of greenhouse gas mitigation for the US published before the US
rejection of Kyoto. Important lesons can be drawn for how costs can be
reduced in any future international commitment by the US. Provided
policies are expected, gradual, and well designed, the net costs for
the US of mitigation required under the Kyoto Protocol would likely
have been insignificant, that is within the range +1% of GDP.

Please note a COST ABOUT 1% GDP

Cutting Carbon Emissions at a Profit
Florentin Krause, Stephen J. DeCanio, J. Andrew Hoerner and Paul Baer
Part I: Contemporary Economic Policy (2002) 20(4): 339-365.
Part II: Contemporary Economic Policy (2003) 21(1): 90-105.

This article identifies and corrects shortcomings in the available
modeling studies on the costs of the Kyoto Protocol for the U.S. Each
of the best-known studies omits one or several of four major cost-
reducing policy options, resulting in cost estimates that are far too
pessimistic. Integrated evaluation of all major cost-cutting policy
options — a national carbon cap and trading program, productivity-
enhancing market reforms and technology programs, recycling of permit
auction revenues into tax cuts, and integration with international
emissions trading — shows that the least-cost strategy for mitigation
would produce annual net output gains reaching 0.9% of GDP by 2020.
Part I presents national estimates; Part II examines impacts on
competitiveness and employment in specific economic sectors.

Please note a GAIN OF 0.9% Then again there is

Reflections on the Stern Review: a robust case for strong action to
reduce the risks of climate change.
Simon Dietz, Chris Hope, Nicholas Stern and Dimitri Zenghelis
World Economics (2007) 8(1): 121-168.

Those who deny the importance of strong and urgent action on climate
change essentially offer one of, or a combination of, the following
arguments. First, there are those who deny the scientific link between
human activities and global warming; most people, and the vast
majority of scientists, would find that untenable given the weight of
evidence. Second, there are those who, while accepting the science of
anthropogenic climate change, argue that the human species is very
adaptable and can make itself comfortable whatever the climatic
consequences; given the scale of the outcomes that we now have to
regard as possible or likely under business-as-usual (BAU), this must
be regarded as reckless. Finally, there are those who accept the
science of climate change and the likelihood that it will inflict
heavy costs, but simply do not care much for what happens in the
future beyond the next few decades; most would regard this as
unethical. This paper deals primarily with the latter two arguments.

It looks like you fall into the "simply do not care much for what
happens in the future beyond the next few decades" category especially
since you state "Actually, I don't really care, but that is
indifference" and keep repeating the Boehner's McConnell's
Limbaugh's, Beck's and Hannity's
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Good news from Antarctica
    ... number of well written papers that describe the global temperature ... The high costs for the US economy of mitigating climate change were ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
    ... million but preserving the current temperature costs $100 billion, ... It's kinda a no-brainer to suggest that that's the cost of global ... nothing costs X and doing something costs Y net and Y> X then it makes ...
    (alt.sysadmin.recovery)
  • Re: Setting a programmable thermostat
    ... A setting of 68-70 in winter will save on heating costs while a setting of 76-78 in summer will save on cooling cost. ... Is the "heat setpoint" the temperature when the heater goes on? ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Good news from Antarctica
    ... The high costs for the US economy of mitigating climate change were ... often cited as a reason for rejecting US ratification of the Kyoto ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The Independent this morning...
    ... studying ice core data relating to CO2 & temperature for my PhD. ... His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already ... > warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
Quantcast