Discussion:
"After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’"
(too old to reply)
Lynn McGuire
2017-11-27 21:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
‘Apocalypse’"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/

"Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"

Wake me up when something real happens.

Lynn
Titus G
2017-11-28 03:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 28/11/17 10:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
> ‘Apocalypse’"
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>
>
> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>
> Wake me up when something real happens.

We will certainly try but suspect that your swimming dream in Egypt will
ensure your nap will continue.
J. Clarke
2017-11-28 04:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:32:17 +1300, Titus G <***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 28/11/17 10:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
>> ‘Apocalypse’"
>>
>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>
>>
>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
>> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
>> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
>> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>>
>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>
>We will certainly try but suspect that your swimming dream in Egypt will
>ensure your nap will continue.

Nobody in a position to bring about the drastic reductions in CO2
emissions that the IPCC says are required is interested in doing so.
So if you honestly believe that global warming is going to end the
world then you may as well give up whining about it and go have all
the fun you can before the world ends.
Titus G
2017-11-28 06:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 28/11/17 17:16, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:32:17 +1300, Titus G <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28/11/17 10:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
>>> ‘Apocalypse’"
>>>
>>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>>
>>>
>>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
>>> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
>>> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
>>> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>>>
>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>
>> We will certainly try but suspect that your swimming dream in Egypt will
>> ensure your nap will continue.
>
> Nobody in a position to bring about the drastic reductions in CO2
> emissions that the IPCC says are required is interested in doing so.
> So if you honestly believe that global warming is going to end the
> world then you may as well give up whining about it and go have all
> the fun you can before the world ends.

I do not recall whining. Given the average age of boring old farts on
newsgroups, I doubt whether any life here is threatened by climate
change. Some people may have concerns about their family tree. I do not
recall whining. I am going to have all the fun I can before I end which
I believe will be before the world ends and before dear Lynn McGuire
wakes up unless he ends before I end but I am confident we will both end
before the world ends.

Titus G Methuselah
Whose Delaney impressionist sig would read: Will live longer for fun.

P.S. Yes, Your Honour, I solemnly swear I dishonestly believe that what
I said was the truth.
Greg Goss
2017-11-28 06:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Titus G <***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>... before I end but I am confident we will both end
>before the world ends.

But will it be before this sentence ends
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
D B Davis
2017-11-28 05:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming "Apocalypse"
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>
> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had "as little as eight years left to
> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more."
>
> Wake me up when something real happens.

The thirty years suggested for mass media's promotion of a global
warming apocalypse is erroneous and far too short. Mass media first
promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.

Thank you,

--
Don
Quadibloc
2017-12-01 13:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
> Mass media first
> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.

That would have been in 1874.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2017-12-01 13:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 6:37:41 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
> > Mass media first
> > promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.

> That would have been in 1874.

Ah, here we are:

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_global_warming_hoax_of_1874

https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/6_great_science_hoaxes/global_warming_hoax_of_1874.html

John Savard
D B Davis
2017-12-01 15:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 6:37:41 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
>> > Mass media first
>> > promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
>
>> That would have been in 1874.
>
> Ah, here we are:
>
> http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_global_warming_hoax_of_1874
>
> https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/6_great_science_hoaxes/global_warming_hoax_of_1874.html

Your first link is more informative than the second. My favorite
part of the 1874 Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is the Velikovsky
celestial mechanics suggested by the science of the day.

Thank you,

--
Don
Scott Lurndal
2017-12-01 16:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
>> Mass media first
>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
>
>That would have been in 1874.

Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>

>
D B Davis
2017-12-01 16:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
>>> Mass media first
>>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
>>
>>That would have been in 1874.
>
> Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
>

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman

Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
activity could alter climate.

"I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is
absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths
of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.
You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical
models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate
scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed
into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts
poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to evaluate
the models' long-range predictive ability, he answers with another
question: "Do you believe a five-day forecast?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20070508023151/http://wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Thank you,

--
Don
Quadibloc
2017-12-01 17:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
At least one global warming heretic isn't paid by the oil companies. This is one
of the few dissenting voices that I am willing to take seriously.

Of course, the last time that I looked, the Earth's atmosphere extends for more
than 30 feet from the Earth's surface.

John Savard
William Hyde
2017-12-01 21:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5, D B Davis wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
> >>> Mass media first
> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
> >>
> >>That would have been in 1874.
> >
> > Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
> >
>
> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
>
> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson

First, show a little respect. This is Reid Bryson, professor of meteorology and old-school climatologist at U of Wisconsin.

Seriously, it's not Bill Bryson.

stood before the American Association
> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
> activity could alter climate.

> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

This would be about 1968. As Manabe had already (1965) published the first modern estimates of global warming due to a doubling of CO2 I don't think he was laughed at for that. As Manabe recalled it:

"In the early 1960's, we developed a radiative-convective model of the atmosphere, and explored the role of greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in maintaining and changing the thermal structure of the atmosphere. This was the beginning of the long-term research on global warming..."

Bryson, with many achievements to his credit, did have a tendency to spout "facts" which were a bit dubious, as seen below. A few of those before the wrong audience, and yes, he might be laughed at.


> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
> proposition.

The facts show otherwise.

But nowadays things have turned almost in the
> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
> figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
> human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
> Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...
>
> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>
> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
> Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
> the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
> 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>
> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is
> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...

And here we have the first "fact". A highly prized quote, it's all over the internet. It' also quite irrelevant. (I also suspect it's just plain wrong, but as nobody ever gives a source for it it's hard to check).

As I've explained before, saturation simply does not matter. The mean free path of the photon does. Shorten that, and the insulating effect increases.

And as Gilbert Plass showed in the 1950s (without being laughed off any podium) the upper atmosphere, whence our IR escapes to space, is very far from saturated, and increasing CO2 there can warm the planet, even without the water-vapor feedback effect.

(For the technically able: how big a problem is IR absorption for infrared cameras? If 80% of the signal was absorbed - and re-emitted - within 30 feet I'd expect problems, but I've no idea how far these things can see in the lower atmosphere.)

> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths
> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.

Our second "fact". Again, not true or relevant, again because the atmosphere is not well characterized by its bottom 30 feet.

> You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
> doubling carbon dioxide.

Third "fact", also untrue. And shows a strange, for a meteorologist, ignorance of the different physical properties of CO2 and H2O. The latter undergoes a number of phase transitions in the atmosphere, and excess is removed quickly, while CO2 is removed by a far slower process, with much of it hanging around for centuries. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, H2O does not.

>
> This begs questions

First, that's not what question-begging means. The previously high standards of the Wisconsin Cooperative Energy News seem to be slipping.

about the widely publicized mathematical
> models researchers run through supercomputers

Well, first we create them. And what we put into them is also well known, available for criticism by the community. The passage of IR through the atmosphere is calculated via equations that have been known for over a century. The same equations used everywhere in our wireless world. Maybe that's why you get those dropped calls? The Global Warming Conspiracy has the telephone companies using it's Fake Equations!

to generate climate
> scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed
> into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide

Let's be kind and say that it was the reporter's incompetence here, not Bryson's.

and accounts
> poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to evaluate
> the models' long-range predictive ability, he answers with another
> question: "Do you believe a five-day forecast?"

Actually, seven day forecasts around here are now pretty good.

But Bryson, weirdly, fails to note the difference between climate and weather. The latter is chaotic, the former not. The accuracy or otherwise of longer range weather forecasting has nothing to do with the accuracy of climate models.

I attended one of Bryson's seminars long ago. It was quite reasonable (though I doubt one of the facts he used, especially now). This exploitative interview with a very old Bryson did him no favours.

William Hyde
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-01 21:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:83bb1f5d-6386-44c1-bd84-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5, D B Davis
> wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis
>> >>wrote:
>> >>> Mass media first
>> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years
>> >>> ago.
>> >>
>> >>That would have been in 1874.
>> >
>> > Well, 1896 anyway
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
>> >
>>
>> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard
>> Feynman
>>
>> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson
>
> First, show a little respect. This is Reid Bryson, professor of
> meteorology and old-school climatologist at U of Wisconsin.
>
> Seriously, it's not Bill Bryson.
>
> stood before the American Association
>> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying
>> human activity could alter climate.
>
>> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
>> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>
> This would be about 1968. As Manabe had already (1965)
> published the first modern estimates of global warming due to a
> doubling of CO2 I don't think he was laughed at for that. As
> Manabe recalled it:
>
> "In the early 1960's, we developed a radiative-convective model
> of the atmosphere, and explored the role of greenhouse gases
> such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in maintaining and
> changing the thermal structure of the atmosphere. This was the
> beginning of the long-term research on global warming..."
>
> Bryson, with many achievements to his credit, did have a
> tendency to spout "facts" which were a bit dubious, as seen
> below. A few of those before the wrong audience, and yes, he
> might be laughed at.
>
>
>> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
>> proposition.
>
> The facts show otherwise.
>
> But nowadays things have turned almost in the
>> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some
>> authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens
>> to be doing, human activity must be part of the
>> explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the
>> conventional wisdom. ...
>>
>> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant
>> impact
>> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>>
>> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30
>> feet of
>> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from
>> the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how
>> much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water
>> vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>>
>> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the
>> surface is
>> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
>
> And here we have the first "fact". A highly prized quote, it's
> all over the internet. It' also quite irrelevant. (I also
> suspect it's just plain wrong, but as nobody ever gives a source
> for it it's hard to check).
>
> As I've explained before, saturation simply does not matter.
> The mean free path of the photon does. Shorten that, and the
> insulating effect increases.
>
> And as Gilbert Plass showed in the 1950s (without being laughed
> off any podium) the upper atmosphere, whence our IR escapes to
> space, is very far from saturated, and increasing CO2 there can
> warm the planet, even without the water-vapor feedback effect.
>
> (For the technically able: how big a problem is IR absorption
> for infrared cameras? If 80% of the signal was absorbed - and
> re-emitted - within 30 feet I'd expect problems, but I've no
> idea how far these things can see in the lower atmosphere.)
>
>> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight
>> hundredths
>> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water
>> vapor.
>
> Our second "fact". Again, not true or relevant, again because
> the atmosphere is not well characterized by its bottom 30 feet.
>
>> You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
>> doubling carbon dioxide.
>
> Third "fact", also untrue. And shows a strange, for a
> meteorologist, ignorance of the different physical properties of
> CO2 and H2O. The latter undergoes a number of phase transitions
> in the atmosphere, and excess is removed quickly, while CO2 is
> removed by a far slower process, with much of it hanging around
> for centuries. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, H2O does not.
>
>>
>> This begs questions
>
> First, that's not what question-begging means. The previously
> high standards of the Wisconsin Cooperative Energy News seem to
> be slipping.
>
> about the widely publicized mathematical
>> models researchers run through supercomputers
>
> Well, first we create them. And what we put into them is also
> well known, available for criticism by the community. The
> passage of IR through the atmosphere is calculated via equations
> that have been known for over a century. The same equations
> used everywhere in our wireless world. Maybe that's why you get
> those dropped calls? The Global Warming Conspiracy has the
> telephone companies using it's Fake Equations!
>
> to generate climate
>> scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the
>> data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide
>
> Let's be kind and say that it was the reporter's incompetence
> here, not Bryson's.
>
> and accounts
>> poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to
>> evaluate the models' long-range predictive ability, he
>> answers with another question: "Do you believe a five-day
>> forecast?"
>
> Actually, seven day forecasts around here are now pretty good.
>
> But Bryson, weirdly, fails to note the difference between
> climate and weather. The latter is chaotic, the former not.
> The accuracy or otherwise of longer range weather forecasting
> has nothing to do with the accuracy of climate models.
>
> I attended one of Bryson's seminars long ago. It was quite
> reasonable (though I doubt one of the facts he used, especially
> now). This exploitative interview with a very old Bryson did
> him no favours.
>
I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
Not a climate question, as such, but one dependent on climate
change.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Paul Colquhoun
2017-12-02 03:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:29:21 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:

| I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
| uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
| thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
| before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
| Not a climate question, as such, but one dependent on climate
| change.


I can't recall hearing about this at all, but it sounds interesting.
Do you remember where this happened?

My google search has found reports of forests being uncovered in
Switzerland and Alaska, and lots of artifacts & bodies that presumably
fell down crevases, but no ruins. (Well, there was one page about
4000 year old ruins in Antarctica, but other reference in the
article point to it being an April Fools gag.)


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-02 02:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Paul Colquhoun <***@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote in
news:***@andor.dropbear.id.au:

> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:29:21 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>| I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>| uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>| thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>| before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial
>| age. Not a climate question, as such, but one dependent on
>| climate change.
>
>
> I can't recall hearing about this at all, but it sounds
> interesting. Do you remember where this happened?

It was mentioned in one of the articles linked to in this thread.
Not in any great detail.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070508023151/http://wecnmagazine.com/
2007issues/may/may07.html

https://tinyurl.com/ycsz654u

Here's the meat of it:

"Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for
current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat,
in the Alps?”

"We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and
agricultural water-management structures had been discovered
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in
thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

"“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they
were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the
snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now.
It’s just getting back to normal.”"

There's also a well documented history of the first few centuries
of human habitation of Greenland, also mentioned.

> My google search has found reports of forests being uncovered in
> Switzerland and Alaska,

That, too, suggests that glaciers have advanced and retreated in
the past, well before the industrial age.


--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Scott Lurndal
2017-12-04 14:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> writes:
>Paul Colquhoun <***@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote in
>news:***@andor.dropbear.id.au:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:29:21 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>| I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>>| uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>>| thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>>| before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial
>>| age. Not a climate question, as such, but one dependent on
>>| climate change.
>>
>>
>> I can't recall hearing about this at all, but it sounds
>> interesting. Do you remember where this happened?
>
>It was mentioned in one of the articles linked to in this thread.
>Not in any great detail.
>
>https://web.archive.org/web/20070508023151/http://wecnmagazine.com/
>2007issues/may/may07.html
>
>https://tinyurl.com/ycsz654u
>
>Here's the meat of it:
>
>"Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for
>current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat,
>in the Alps?”

It's understood that the Alpine glaciers retreated
during the MWP and advanced again during the LIA.
William Hyde
2017-12-02 21:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:83bb1f5d-6386-44c1-bd84-***@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5, D B Davis
> > wrote:
> >> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> >> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>> Mass media first
> >> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years
> >> >>> ago.
> >> >>
> >> >>That would have been in 1874.
> >> >
> >> > Well, 1896 anyway
> >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
> >> >
> >>
> >> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard
> >> Feynman
> >>
> >> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson
> >
> > First, show a little respect. This is Reid Bryson, professor of
> > meteorology and old-school climatologist at U of Wisconsin.
> >
> > Seriously, it's not Bill Bryson.
> >
> > stood before the American Association
> >> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying
> >> human activity could alter climate.
> >
> >> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
> >> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
> >
> > This would be about 1968. As Manabe had already (1965)
> > published the first modern estimates of global warming due to a
> > doubling of CO2 I don't think he was laughed at for that. As
> > Manabe recalled it:
> >
> > "In the early 1960's, we developed a radiative-convective model
> > of the atmosphere, and explored the role of greenhouse gases
> > such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in maintaining and
> > changing the thermal structure of the atmosphere. This was the
> > beginning of the long-term research on global warming..."
> >
> > Bryson, with many achievements to his credit, did have a
> > tendency to spout "facts" which were a bit dubious, as seen
> > below. A few of those before the wrong audience, and yes, he
> > might be laughed at.
> >
> >
> >> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
> >> proposition.
> >
> > The facts show otherwise.
> >
> > But nowadays things have turned almost in the
> >> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some
> >> authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens
> >> to be doing, human activity must be part of the
> >> explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the
> >> conventional wisdom. ...
> >>
> >> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant
> >> impact
> >> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
> >>
> >> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30
> >> feet of
> >> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from
> >> the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how
> >> much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water
> >> vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
> >>
> >> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the
> >> surface is
> >> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
> >
> > And here we have the first "fact". A highly prized quote, it's
> > all over the internet. It' also quite irrelevant. (I also
> > suspect it's just plain wrong, but as nobody ever gives a source
> > for it it's hard to check).
> >
> > As I've explained before, saturation simply does not matter.
> > The mean free path of the photon does. Shorten that, and the
> > insulating effect increases.
> >
> > And as Gilbert Plass showed in the 1950s (without being laughed
> > off any podium) the upper atmosphere, whence our IR escapes to
> > space, is very far from saturated, and increasing CO2 there can
> > warm the planet, even without the water-vapor feedback effect.
> >
> > (For the technically able: how big a problem is IR absorption
> > for infrared cameras? If 80% of the signal was absorbed - and
> > re-emitted - within 30 feet I'd expect problems, but I've no
> > idea how far these things can see in the lower atmosphere.)
> >
> >> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight
> >> hundredths
> >> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water
> >> vapor.
> >
> > Our second "fact". Again, not true or relevant, again because
> > the atmosphere is not well characterized by its bottom 30 feet.
> >
> >> You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
> >> doubling carbon dioxide.
> >
> > Third "fact", also untrue. And shows a strange, for a
> > meteorologist, ignorance of the different physical properties of
> > CO2 and H2O. The latter undergoes a number of phase transitions
> > in the atmosphere, and excess is removed quickly, while CO2 is
> > removed by a far slower process, with much of it hanging around
> > for centuries. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, H2O does not.
> >
> >>
> >> This begs questions
> >
> > First, that's not what question-begging means. The previously
> > high standards of the Wisconsin Cooperative Energy News seem to
> > be slipping.
> >
> > about the widely publicized mathematical
> >> models researchers run through supercomputers
> >
> > Well, first we create them. And what we put into them is also
> > well known, available for criticism by the community. The
> > passage of IR through the atmosphere is calculated via equations
> > that have been known for over a century. The same equations
> > used everywhere in our wireless world. Maybe that's why you get
> > those dropped calls? The Global Warming Conspiracy has the
> > telephone companies using it's Fake Equations!
> >
> > to generate climate
> >> scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the
> >> data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide
> >
> > Let's be kind and say that it was the reporter's incompetence
> > here, not Bryson's.
> >
> > and accounts
> >> poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to
> >> evaluate the models' long-range predictive ability, he
> >> answers with another question: "Do you believe a five-day
> >> forecast?"
> >
> > Actually, seven day forecasts around here are now pretty good.
> >
> > But Bryson, weirdly, fails to note the difference between
> > climate and weather. The latter is chaotic, the former not.
> > The accuracy or otherwise of longer range weather forecasting
> > has nothing to do with the accuracy of climate models.
> >
> > I attended one of Bryson's seminars long ago. It was quite
> > reasonable (though I doubt one of the facts he used, especially
> > now). This exploitative interview with a very old Bryson did
> > him no favours.
> >
> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.

There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example. And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP there have been several such glacial advances in this time.

Many reconstructions of this advance/retreat history will be found via google. Mostly on skeptical sites, which feel this aids their case, but the source is often reliable and usually cited.

Plant matter uncovered by retreating glaciers is routinely dated. Some years ago a date of 5500 BP was found by Lonnie Thompson for Quelccaya in the Andes. He's found six thousand year old ice melting in Tibet. There are reports 4000 year old wood being found in the Swiss alps, recently uncovered by glacial melting, which seems reasonable to me.

The world cooled - but not uniformly in time or space - from the Holocene Maximum about six thousand years ago. We'd expect glaciers to have expanded, covering high altitude valleys which were previously ice free - or even inhabited.

There was a lesser warm period in Roman times, even warmer than in the Medieval Climate Optimum (probably, anyway). As the Romans were usually desperate for precious metals, I've no doubt their alpine mines went as close to the glaciers as possible, so that when the world cooled, they'd have rapidly been covered with ice and remained so to the present day. Or uncovered and re-glaciated in Medieval/LIA times.

One of the controversies surrounding the establishment of an ice age chronology involved advances and retreats in the Swiss Alps. The evidence of the great glacial advances going back millions of years is mixed up with smaller, more recent advances and retreats. Evidence of a recent advance was confused with the ice age cycle proper, until further work discovered Roman tools in the "ice age" sediments.

Whereupon the Great Global Warming Conspiracy hushed the whole thing up. I'm letting you in on it now because my November cheque did not arrive.

All of this is fascinating, but I like real sources, and I'm afraid that an interview with Professor Bryson isn't one.

William Hyde
David Johnston
2017-12-02 21:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
>
> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example. And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
>

My thought is immediate skepticism. How the hell could could remains of
building survive having glaciers flow over them?
Dimensional Traveler
2017-12-02 23:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/2/2017 1:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
>>
>> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without
>> human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example.
>> And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP
>> there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
>>
>
> My thought is immediate skepticism.  How the hell could could remains of
> building survive having glaciers flow over them?

They couldn't.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
D B Davis
2017-12-03 00:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 1:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
>>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>>>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>>>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>>>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>>>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
>>>
>>> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without
>>> human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example.
>>> And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP
>>> there have been several such glacial advances in this time.

>>> All of this is fascinating, but I like real sources, and I'm afraid
>>> that an interview with Professor Bryson isn't one.

Do you feel that way about all AGW dissenters? If not, please name
the dissenters that you consider real sources.

>>>
>>
>> My thought is immediate skepticism.\xc2\xa0 How the hell could could remains of
>> building survive having glaciers flow over them?
>
> They couldn't.
>

The old ruins (tools) were found deep underground at the face of a
silver mine.

Thank you,

--
Don
Dimensional Traveler
2017-12-03 01:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/2/2017 4:10 PM, D B Davis wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 12/2/2017 1:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
>>>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>>>>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>>>>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>>>>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without
>>>> human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example.
>>>> And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP
>>>> there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
>
>>>> All of this is fascinating, but I like real sources, and I'm afraid
>>>> that an interview with Professor Bryson isn't one.
>
> Do you feel that way about all AGW dissenters? If not, please name
> the dissenters that you consider real sources.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> My thought is immediate skepticism.\xc2\xa0 How the hell could could remains of
>>> building survive having glaciers flow over them?
>>
>> They couldn't.
>>
>
> The old ruins (tools) were found deep underground at the face of a
> silver mine.
>
That I have no problem with. Tools and other relatively small objects
can end up IN the glacier and be carried along with it or, as you say,
if they are underground so never have contact with the glacier.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Robert Carnegie
2017-12-03 00:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 23:28:48 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 1:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
> >> Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >
> >>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
> >>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
> >>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
> >>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
> >>
> >> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without
> >> human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example.
> >> And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP
> >> there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
> >>
> >
> > My thought is immediate skepticism.  How the hell could could remains of
> > building survive having glaciers flow over them?
>
> They couldn't.

How far do glaciers grow and shrink annually?

Proper ones scrub down to bedrock IIRC.

Mountain climbers get frozen into them and pop out at the bottom
after a hundred years or so.

You can dig tunnels in them. So you could build artificial
caves inside a glacier, charge admission, which mean putting
a ticket office and turnstile in there. That might leave
signs visible in the days of the newer flood.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-12-03 05:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:14:25 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 2 December 2017 23:28:48 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 12/2/2017 1:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> > On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> >> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
>> >> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> >
>> >>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>> >>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>> >>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>> >>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
>> >>
>> >> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without
>> >> human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example.
>> >> And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP
>> >> there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
>> >>
>> >
>> > My thought is immediate skepticism.  How the hell could could remains of
>> > building survive having glaciers flow over them?
>>
>> They couldn't.
>
>How far do glaciers grow and shrink annually?

That's hugely variable. You might want to check out the history of
Glacier Bay in Alaska for an example of a fast-moving (in both
directions) one.

>Proper ones scrub down to bedrock IIRC.

Often, but not invariably. Again, check out Glacier Bay, which
scrubbed the Tlingit community away but did NOT go clear to bedrock --
it left a thin film of soil and debris where villages had been.

>Mountain climbers get frozen into them and pop out at the bottom
>after a hundred years or so.
>
>You can dig tunnels in them. So you could build artificial
>caves inside a glacier, charge admission, which mean putting
>a ticket office and turnstile in there. That might leave
>signs visible in the days of the newer flood.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml
J. Clarke
2017-12-03 05:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:44:21 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:14:25 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
><***@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, 2 December 2017 23:28:48 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2017 1:31 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> > On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> >> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
>>> >> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>>> >>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>>> >>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>>> >>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without
>>> >> human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example.
>>> >> And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP
>>> >> there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > My thought is immediate skepticism.  How the hell could could remains of
>>> > building survive having glaciers flow over them?
>>>
>>> They couldn't.
>>
>>How far do glaciers grow and shrink annually?
>
>That's hugely variable. You might want to check out the history of
>Glacier Bay in Alaska for an example of a fast-moving (in both
>directions) one.
>
>>Proper ones scrub down to bedrock IIRC.
>
>Often, but not invariably. Again, check out Glacier Bay, which
>scrubbed the Tlingit community away but did NOT go clear to bedrock --
>it left a thin film of soil and debris where villages had been.

And now it's turning out that glaciers can entomb objects as large as
upright trees in such a manner that they are not destroyed by the
passage of the glacier.

<https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html>

>>Mountain climbers get frozen into them and pop out at the bottom
>>after a hundred years or so.
>>
>>You can dig tunnels in them. So you could build artificial
>>caves inside a glacier, charge admission, which mean putting
>>a ticket office and turnstile in there. That might leave
>>signs visible in the days of the newer flood.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-03 05:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote in
news:3e8061d2-61d8-490d-8cca-***@googlegroups.com:

> You can dig tunnels in them. So you could build artificial
> caves inside a glacier, charge admission,

Yes. You can.

https://intotheglacier.is/

> which mean putting
> a ticket office and turnstile in there.

They take credit cards online.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-03 05:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ovv638$1rho$***@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless
>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial
>>> age.
>>
>> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate
>> without human interference, the little ice age being the most
>> recent example. And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC
>> to at least 6600 BP there have been several such glacial
>> advances in this time.
>>
>
> My thought is immediate skepticism. How the hell could could
> remains of building survive having glaciers flow over them?

The article doesn't say buildings, nor does it give enough detail to
track down any details.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
William Hyde
2017-12-03 21:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 4:31:29 PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2017-12-02 2:18 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
> >> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
> >> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
> >> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
> >> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial age.
> >
> > There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate without human interference, the little ice age being the most recent example. And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC to at least 6600 BP there have been several such glacial advances in this time.
> >
>
> My thought is immediate skepticism. How the hell could could remains of
> building survive having glaciers flow over them?

Well, in the case I am thinking of we only have the deep workings of the mine. Any surface structures are long gone. Mind you, I don't know if this mine was ever covered in ice. But the claim is that others were, and while I don't know that for a fact, I don't find it implausible.

If the climate cools sharply, snow will cover the ground and form ice long before ice will actually flow over the site. The land surface will still be affected by the flow, but perhaps to a lesser degree.

The activity at the base of a glacier or ice sheet can be of various types depending on the local temperature (thick ice sheets have liquid at the base), slope and nature of the ground, and so on.

William Hyde
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-03 05:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e4bb1712-95af-4acb-98c0-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:83bb1f5d-6386-44c1-bd84-***@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5, D B Davis
>> > wrote:
>> >> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> >> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>> >> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B
>> >> >>Davis wrote:
>> >> >>> Mass media first
>> >> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years
>> >> >>> ago.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That would have been in 1874.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, 1896 anyway
>> >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" -
>> >> Richard Feynman
>> >>
>> >> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson
>> >
>> > First, show a little respect. This is Reid Bryson, professor
>> > of meteorology and old-school climatologist at U of
>> > Wisconsin.
>> >
>> > Seriously, it's not Bill Bryson.
>> >
>> > stood before the American Association
>> >> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper
>> >> saying human activity could alter climate.
>> >
>> >> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he
>> >> told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>> >
>> > This would be about 1968. As Manabe had already (1965)
>> > published the first modern estimates of global warming due to
>> > a doubling of CO2 I don't think he was laughed at for that.
>> > As Manabe recalled it:
>> >
>> > "In the early 1960's, we developed a radiative-convective
>> > model of the atmosphere, and explored the role of greenhouse
>> > gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in
>> > maintaining and changing the thermal structure of the
>> > atmosphere. This was the beginning of the long-term research
>> > on global warming..."
>> >
>> > Bryson, with many achievements to his credit, did have a
>> > tendency to spout "facts" which were a bit dubious, as seen
>> > below. A few of those before the wrong audience, and yes, he
>> > might be laughed at.
>> >
>> >
>> >> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a
>> >> radical proposition.
>> >
>> > The facts show otherwise.
>> >
>> > But nowadays things have turned almost in the
>> >> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some
>> >> authority figure claiming that whatever the climate
>> >> happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the
>> >> explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the
>> >> conventional wisdom. ...
>> >>
>> >> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most
>> >> significant impact
>> >> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>> >>
>> >> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30
>> >> feet of
>> >> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation
>> >> from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to
>> >> affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is
>> >> absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80
>> >> percent, okay?
>> >>
>> >> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the
>> >> surface is
>> >> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
>> >
>> > And here we have the first "fact". A highly prized quote,
>> > it's all over the internet. It' also quite irrelevant. (I
>> > also suspect it's just plain wrong, but as nobody ever gives
>> > a source for it it's hard to check).
>> >
>> > As I've explained before, saturation simply does not matter.
>> > The mean free path of the photon does. Shorten that, and the
>> > insulating effect increases.
>> >
>> > And as Gilbert Plass showed in the 1950s (without being
>> > laughed off any podium) the upper atmosphere, whence our IR
>> > escapes to space, is very far from saturated, and increasing
>> > CO2 there can warm the planet, even without the water-vapor
>> > feedback effect.
>> >
>> > (For the technically able: how big a problem is IR absorption
>> > for infrared cameras? If 80% of the signal was absorbed -
>> > and re-emitted - within 30 feet I'd expect problems, but I've
>> > no idea how far these things can see in the lower
>> > atmosphere.)
>> >
>> >> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight
>> >> hundredths
>> >> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as
>> >> water vapor.
>> >
>> > Our second "fact". Again, not true or relevant, again
>> > because the atmosphere is not well characterized by its
>> > bottom 30 feet.
>> >
>> >> You can go outside and spit and have the same effect
>> >> as doubling carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> > Third "fact", also untrue. And shows a strange, for a
>> > meteorologist, ignorance of the different physical properties
>> > of CO2 and H2O. The latter undergoes a number of phase
>> > transitions in the atmosphere, and excess is removed quickly,
>> > while CO2 is removed by a far slower process, with much of it
>> > hanging around for centuries. CO2 accumulates in the
>> > atmosphere, H2O does not.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This begs questions
>> >
>> > First, that's not what question-begging means. The previously
>> > high standards of the Wisconsin Cooperative Energy News seem
>> > to be slipping.
>> >
>> > about the widely publicized mathematical
>> >> models researchers run through supercomputers
>> >
>> > Well, first we create them. And what we put into them is
>> > also well known, available for criticism by the community.
>> > The passage of IR through the atmosphere is calculated via
>> > equations that have been known for over a century. The same
>> > equations used everywhere in our wireless world. Maybe
>> > that's why you get those dropped calls? The Global Warming
>> > Conspiracy has the telephone companies using it's Fake
>> > Equations!
>> >
>> > to generate climate
>> >> scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the
>> >> data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon
>> >> dioxide
>> >
>> > Let's be kind and say that it was the reporter's incompetence
>> > here, not Bryson's.
>> >
>> > and accounts
>> >> poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to
>> >> evaluate the models' long-range predictive ability, he
>> >> answers with another question: "Do you believe a
>> >> five-day forecast?"
>> >
>> > Actually, seven day forecasts around here are now pretty
>> > good.
>> >
>> > But Bryson, weirdly, fails to note the difference between
>> > climate and weather. The latter is chaotic, the former not.
>> > The accuracy or otherwise of longer range weather forecasting
>> > has nothing to do with the accuracy of climate models.
>> >
>> > I attended one of Bryson's seminars long ago. It was quite
>> > reasonable (though I doubt one of the facts he used,
>> > especially now). This exploitative interview with a very old
>> > Bryson did him no favours.
>> >
>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial
>> age.
>
> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate
> without human interference, the little ice age being the most
> recent example. And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC
> to at least 6600 BP there have been several such glacial
> advances in this time.
>
> Many reconstructions of this advance/retreat history will be
> found via google. Mostly on skeptical sites, which feel this
> aids their case, but the source is often reliable and usually
> cited.
>
> Plant matter uncovered by retreating glaciers is routinely
> dated. Some years ago a date of 5500 BP was found by Lonnie
> Thompson for Quelccaya in the Andes. He's found six thousand
> year old ice melting in Tibet. There are reports 4000 year old
> wood being found in the Swiss alps, recently uncovered by
> glacial melting, which seems reasonable to me.
>
> The world cooled - but not uniformly in time or space - from
> the Holocene Maximum about six thousand years ago. We'd expect
> glaciers to have expanded, covering high altitude valleys which
> were previously ice free - or even inhabited.
>
> There was a lesser warm period in Roman times, even warmer than
> in the Medieval Climate Optimum (probably, anyway). As the
> Romans were usually desperate for precious metals, I've no doubt
> their alpine mines went as close to the glaciers as possible, so
> that when the world cooled, they'd have rapidly been covered
> with ice and remained so to the present day. Or uncovered and
> re-glaciated in Medieval/LIA times.
>
> One of the controversies surrounding the establishment of an ice
> age chronology involved advances and retreats in the Swiss Alps.
> The evidence of the great glacial advances going back millions
> of years is mixed up with smaller, more recent advances and
> retreats. Evidence of a recent advance was confused with the ice
> age cycle proper, until further work discovered Roman tools in
> the "ice age" sediments.
>
> Whereupon the Great Global Warming Conspiracy hushed the whole
> thing up. I'm letting you in on it now because my November
> cheque did not arrive.
>
> All of this is fascinating, but I like real sources, and I'm
> afraid that an interview with Professor Bryson isn't one.
>
Sadly, *nothing* in the press - on any side of the issue - is any
more credible.

And the people who should be act like cult leaders, pretty much all
the time.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-12-01 23:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Infra-red cameras are a red herring.

They take pictures with short-wave infrared light. It's long-wave
infrared the differential absorption of which leads to the greenhouse
effect.
David DeLaney
2017-12-02 06:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-12-01, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Infra-red cameras are a red herring.

... an infrared herring, surely?

Dave, sometimes one just has to take a shot of the fish in the barrel
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
William Hyde
2017-12-03 22:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 6:28:44 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> Infra-red cameras are a red herring.
>
> They take pictures with short-wave infrared light.

Apparently they use three ranges, and the longer range is in the atmospheric window. My source comments that this allows for greater detail than mid range, which use wavelengths at 3-5 microns. For much of that range absorption is strong. I'm still not clear on their range.

In any event, it's indeed irrelevant to Bryson's claim.

William Hyde
Peter Trei
2017-12-03 08:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:54:04 AM UTC-8, D B Davis wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
> >>> Mass media first
> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
> >>
> >>That would have been in 1874.
> >
> > Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
> >
>
> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
>
> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association
> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
> activity could alter climate.
>
> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>
> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
> proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
> figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
> human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
> Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...
>
> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>
> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
> Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
> the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
> 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

No, not OK. I’m going to need to see some justification for this claim.
If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
...and yet, the sun feels warm.

I call shenanigans on Reid Bryson

As to his qualities as a prognosticator, I call your attention to his bullshit
predictions from 1976:

https://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/reid-bryson-zmaz76mazraw

Pt
Peter Trei
2017-12-03 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:59:21 AM UTC-8, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:54:04 AM UTC-8, D B Davis wrote:
> > Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> > >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
> > >>> Mass media first
> > >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
> > >>
> > >>That would have been in 1874.
> > >
> > > Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
> > >
> >
> > "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
> >
> > Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association
> > for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
> > activity could alter climate.
> >
> > "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
> > Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
> >
> > In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
> > proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
> > opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
> > figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
> > human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
> > Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...
> >
> > Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
> > and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
> >
> > A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
> > the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
> > Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
> > the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
> > 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>
> No, not OK. I’m going to need to see some justification for this claim.
> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.
>
> I call shenanigans on Reid Bryson
>
> As to his qualities as a prognosticator, I call your attention to his bullshit
> predictions from 1976:
>
> https://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/reid-bryson-zmaz76mazraw
>
> Pt

Just to clarify: if Bryson were correct, then climbing a 300 foot hill should result in a million-fold
Increase in the heat of sunlight.

Pt
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-03 12:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Trei wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:59:21 AM UTC-8, Peter Trei wrote:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:54:04 AM UTC-8, D B Davis wrote:
>>> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
>>>>>> Mass media first
>>>>>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would have been in 1874.
>>>>
>>>> Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
>>>
>>> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association
>>> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
>>> activity could alter climate.
>>>
>>> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
>>> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>>>
>>> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
>>> proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
>>> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
>>> figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
>>> human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
>>> Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...
>>>
>>> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
>>> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>>>
>>> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
>>> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
>>> Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
>>> the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
>>> 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>>
>> No, not OK. I’m going to need to see some justification for this claim.
>> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
>> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.
>>
>> I call shenanigans on Reid Bryson
>>
>> As to his qualities as a prognosticator, I call your attention to his bullshit
>> predictions from 1976:
>>
>> https://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/reid-bryson-zmaz76mazraw
>>
>> Pt
>
> Just to clarify: if Bryson were correct, then climbing a 300 foot hill should result in a million-fold
> Increase in the heat of sunlight.


Did he claim that the change was linear, or is it logarithmic?
Quadibloc
2017-12-03 16:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 1:59:21 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:

> No, not OK. I’m going to need to see some justification for this claim.
> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.

Well, _that's_ easy enough to explain.

Whenever energy gets absorbed, it doesn't just disappear. It becomes heat.

The question is really what kind of absorption is taking place. Is it the kind
of absorption, followed by re-emission in the same direction and with the same
wavelength, that happens to light in a transparent medium... or is the IR really
heating up the air, with the air later emitting IR due to its own temperature?

I suspect that he may have made the mistake of mixing the two up, so that his
figure of how much is absorbed is not so much wrong as misleading.

John Savard
Greg Goss
2017-12-03 22:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 1:59:21 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
>
>> No, not OK. I’m going to need to see some justification for this claim.
>> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
>> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.
>
>Well, _that's_ easy enough to explain.
>
>Whenever energy gets absorbed, it doesn't just disappear. It becomes heat.
>
>The question is really what kind of absorption is taking place. Is it the kind
>of absorption, followed by re-emission in the same direction and with the same
>wavelength, that happens to light in a transparent medium... or is the IR really
>heating up the air, with the air later emitting IR due to its own temperature?

Absorbtion to heat would cause IR to be emitted omnidirectionally. So
basking in the shade would pick up the re-radiated heat, and the sun
wouldn't have the same warm feeling.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
William Hyde
2017-12-03 21:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 3:59:21 AM UTC-5, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:54:04 AM UTC-8, D B Davis wrote:

> > "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
> >
> > Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association
> > for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
> > activity could alter climate.
> >
> > "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
> > Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
> >
> > In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
> > proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
> > opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
> > figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
> > human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
> > Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...
> >
> > Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
> > and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
> >
> > A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
> > the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
> > Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
> > the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
> > 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>
> No, not OK. I’m going to need to see some justification for this claim.

I agree. Unfortunately most experimental results I've been able to find focus on CO2 or vaporized cocaine (no, I'm not kidding).


> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.

Prof Bryson made a number of doubtful claims, but there's no contradiction here. The sun heats us by solar, not IR.

Even for IR the above reasoning does not apply. About 12% of IR from the surface is at wavelengths not absorbed even by pressure-broadend H20 at current concentrations. So at 300 feet at least that 12% would be getting out.

Which points to another way his comments are misleading. CO2 does absorb IR at those wavelengths. Thus a tiny amount of absorption of IR by CO2 has a disproportionate effect - it narrows the choke point, so to speak - and it is meaningless to compare the addition of a tiny bit more water and a tiny bit more CO2. They don't do the same thing.


> I call shenanigans on Reid Bryson

Well, yeah.
>
> As to his qualities as a prognosticator, I call your attention to his bullshit
> predictions from 1976:
>
> https://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/reid-bryson-zmaz76mazraw

Well, he's right about particulate matter resulting in cooling. In fact we can't account for 20th century climate change without including this factor, which continues today to keep the planet cooler (IIRC about .5C cooler) than it would be. Aerosols, in fact, are rather good at suppressing tropical storms and convection in general.

But by 1976 climate modellers had concluded that the CO2 effect would be larger, in part because aerosols fall out of the atmosphere, while CO2 lingers for centuries.

In his 1986 talk he was still going on about how close we were to an ice age, but IIRC he was open to the idea that CO2 warming would stave that off. Perhaps his ideas filtered through to Niven and Pournelle.

William Hyde
Greg Goss
2017-12-03 22:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:


>> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
>> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.
>
>Prof Bryson made a number of doubtful claims, but there's no contradiction here. The sun heats us by solar, not IR.

I think you meant to say "at optical wavelengths". Whatever
wavelengths made it through to a sunbathing Davis would be "solar"
rays.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
William Hyde
2017-12-03 23:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-5, Greg Goss wrote:
> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> If 30 feet of air absorb 80% of IR, then 300 feet absorb 99.9999% of IR.
> >> ...and yet, the sun feels warm.
> >
> >Prof Bryson made a number of doubtful claims, but there's no contradiction here. The sun heats us by solar, not IR.
>
> I think you meant to say "at optical wavelengths". Whatever
> wavelengths made it through to a sunbathing Davis would be "solar"

True, that was tautological. It's a shorhand used in the field but I really should drop it.

William Hyde
h***@gmail.com
2017-12-03 14:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 3:54:04 AM UTC+11, D B Davis wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:
> >>> Mass media first
> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
> >>
> >>That would have been in 1874.
> >
> > Well, 1896 anyway <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
> >
>
> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
>
> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association
> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human
> activity could alter climate.
>
> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>
> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
> proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority
> figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing,
> human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again,
> Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom. ...
>
> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact
> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>
> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the
> Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of
> the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first
> 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>
> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is
> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
>
> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths
> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.
> You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
> doubling carbon dioxide.
>
> This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical
> models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate
> scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed
> into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts
> poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to evaluate
> the models' long-range predictive ability, he answers with another
> question: "Do you believe a five-day forecast?"
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20070508023151/http://wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html


Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't all that together than that he's right and everybody else is wrong...
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-03 19:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com wrote in
news:2fb51905-a817-42f7-9f15-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 3:54:04 AM UTC+11, D B Davis
> wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B Davis
>> >>wrote:
>> >>> Mass media first
>> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years
>> >>> ago.
>> >>
>> >>That would have been in 1874.
>> >
>> > Well, 1896 anyway
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
>> >
>>
>> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard
>> Feynman
>>
>> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American
>> Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a
>> paper saying human activity could alter climate.
>>
>> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told
>> Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>>
>> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical
>> proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the
>> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some
>> authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens
>> to be doing, human activity must be part of the
>> explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the
>> conventional wisdom. ...
>>
>> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant
>> impact
>> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>>
>> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30
>> feet of
>> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from
>> the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how
>> much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water
>> vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
>>
>> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the
>> surface is
>> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
>>
>> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight
>> hundredths
>> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water
>> vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same
>> effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
>>
>> This begs questions about the widely publicized
>> mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers
>> to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the
>> future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers
>> overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the
>> effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to evaluate the
>> models' long-range predictive ability, he answers with
>> another question: "Do you believe a five-day forecast?"
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20070508023151/http://wecnmagazine.c
>> om/2007is
> sues/may/may07.html
>
>
> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
> and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be
> ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't
> all that together than that he's right and everybody else is
> wrong...

That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so I'm
going to attack him on a personal level."

Which is why so many people dismiss climate change as a hoax.

It's cult behavior.

Lie down with dogs . . .

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-12-05 12:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote in
>> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
>> and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be
>> ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't
>> all that together than that he's right and everybody else is wrong...
>
> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so I'm
> going to attack him on a personal level."

Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly on-topic Arthur C.
Clarke quote.

Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not certain Bryson is
'distinguished' tho
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 15:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1IOdnV0qp-GyFrvHnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

> On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com wrote in
>>> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
>>> and explain why literally every other climate scientist would
>>> be ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old
>>> isn't all that together than that he's right and everybody
>>> else is wrong...
>>
>> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so
>> I'm going to attack him on a personal level."
>
> Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly on-topic
> Arthur C. Clarke quote.
>
> Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not certain
> Bryson is
> 'distinguished' tho

QED.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
D B Davis
2017-12-05 16:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com wrote in
>>> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
>>> and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be
>>> ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't
>>> all that together than that he's right and everybody else is wrong...
>>
>> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so I'm
>> going to attack him on a personal level."
>
> Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly on-topic Arthur C.
> Clarke quote.
>
> Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not certain Bryson is
> 'distinguished' tho

And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet another
Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a distinguished
AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.

Thank you,

--
Don
Peter Trei
2017-12-05 18:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:47:34 AM UTC-5, D B Davis wrote:
> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ***@gmail.com wrote in
> >>> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
> >>> and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be
> >>> ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't
> >>> all that together than that he's right and everybody else is wrong...
> >>
> >> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so I'm
> >> going to attack him on a personal level."
> >
> > Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly on-topic Arthur C.
> > Clarke quote.
> >
> > Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not certain Bryson is
> > 'distinguished' tho
>
> And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet another
> Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a distinguished
> AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.

...and you're arguing by appeal to authority. Neither one is how science
works.

Bryson has made a testable claim: that 80% of IR light reflected from the
ground is absorbed by the water vapor in just 30 feet of air.

That's what I want to see a justification of. The average temperature of the
Earth is around 61F/16C/289K, which puts the peak emission around 10 um, in
the mid-infrared.

10 um IS near a peak of water vapor absorption of IR, but what I want to see
is the numbers that prove the at average humidity, 80% of BBR is absorbed in
30 feet of sea level air.

Of course, the 'average' temp and humidity doesn't model things entirely
accurately. Deviations from average matter - while air over the ocean and
damp parts of the earth is often saturated, that over the deserts and poles
deviate from the average in both humidity (very low) and temperature (way
above or below).

Bryson has made a verifiable claim. I'd like to see someone verify it.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 18:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5912aafe-05d4-4356-b98f-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:47:34 AM UTC-5, D B Davis
> wrote:
>> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> ***@gmail.com wrote in
>> >>> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his
>> >>> figures and explain why literally every other climate
>> >>> scientist would be ignoring it it seems much more likely
>> >>> that an 87 year old isn't all that together than that he's
>> >>> right and everybody else is wrong...
>> >>
>> >> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so
>> >> I'm going to attack him on a personal level."
>> >
>> > Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly
>> > on-topic Arthur C. Clarke quote.
>> >
>> > Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not
>> > certain Bryson is 'distinguished' tho
>>
>> And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet
>> another
>> Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a
>> distinguished AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.
>
> ...and you're arguing by appeal to authority. Neither one is how
> science works.
>
> Bryson has made a testable claim: that 80% of IR light reflected
> from the ground is absorbed by the water vapor in just 30 feet
> of air.

And all that has been presented of it is a clueless reporter's
write-up of an interview. I suspect what he actually said, in
context, is not even close to what you've latched on to.

> Bryson has made a verifiable claim. I'd like to see someone
> verify it.
>
I'd like to see the actual claim, in context, first, to insure
you're not arguing with a straw man, just to complete the set of
logical errors.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-12-05 19:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:

> And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet another
> Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a distinguished
> AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.

There are no AGW dissenters, distinguished or otherwise, that are acceptable to me
for the same reason that no creationists, no Flat Earthers, no contactees, no Moon
Hoax advocates, and so on, are acceptable to me.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2017-12-05 19:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:09:41 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:

> > And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet another
> > Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a distinguished
> > AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.

> There are no AGW dissenters, distinguished or otherwise, that are acceptable to me
> for the same reason that no creationists, no Flat Earthers, no contactees, no Moon
> Hoax advocates, and so on, are acceptable to me.

...and before you say that this means I don't have an open mind, I should note
the following:

If I had a degree in climatology, then I would know enough to distinguish good
ideas from bad in that field.

So I could keep my mind open just enough to let possibly good new ideas in, but
keep out the silly ones.

If, though, I don't know enough about the field to distinguish worthy new ideas
from quackery... then I should let the recognized professionals in the field do
the thinking about the subject, and gratefully accept the fruits of their
labor.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 18:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:0828f01a-6ebc-4924-87ba-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:09:41 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, D B Davis
>> wrote:
>
>> > And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers
>> > yet another
>> > Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a
>> > distinguished AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.
>
>> There are no AGW dissenters, distinguished or otherwise, that
>> are acceptable to me for the same reason that no creationists,
>> no Flat Earthers, no contactees, no Moon Hoax advocates, and so
>> on, are acceptable to me.
>
> ...and before you say that this means I don't have an open mind,

That is *exactly* what it means.

> I should note the following:
>
> If I had a degree in climatology, then I would know enough to
> distinguish good ideas from bad in that field.

But since you don't, you assume that anyone who disagrees with your
fantasy must be wrong.

Act like a cult, you get treated like a cult.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-12-05 19:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a long
time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 20:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

>
> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a
> long time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?

Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.

(I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a computer game.
I could try that.)

Any suggestions?

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-12-05 22:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:55:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
>org:
>
>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a
>> long time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
>
>Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.
>
>(I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a computer game.
>I could try that.)
>
>Any suggestions?

Alas, no. I don't think I have the right mind-set.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 22:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:55:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:***@reader80.eternal-septembe
>>r. org:
>>
>>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for
>>> a long time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
>>
>>Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.
>>
>>(I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a computer
>>game. I could try that.)
>>
>>Any suggestions?
>
> Alas, no. I don't think I have the right mind-set.
>
And you a professional word smith, and all. I am dissapointed.

Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This *is*
the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort of thing.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-12-05 23:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-12-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This *is*
> the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort of thing.

Screaming Microwaveable-Kitten Smith?

Worse Than Your Bite, Boy?

There's always the classic Your Brain Is Full Of Spiders, or its companion
You Have Garlic in Your Soul...

Dave, Idiot-Sensitive Creative Misspellor?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 23:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:auOdnTeag80lr7rHnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

> On 2017-12-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>> of thing.
>
> Screaming Microwaveable-Kitten Smith?
>
> Worse Than Your Bite, Boy?
>
> There's always the classic Your Brain Is Full Of Spiders, or its
> companion You Have Garlic in Your Soul...
>
> Dave, Idiot-Sensitive Creative Misspellor?

You have no poetry in your soul whatsoever, do you?

How does Toenail Fungus sound? Flaming Diarrhea is a bit obvious.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-06 05:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:auOdnTeag80lr7rHnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:
>
>> On 2017-12-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>>> of thing.
>>
>> Screaming Microwaveable-Kitten Smith?
>>
>> Worse Than Your Bite, Boy?
>>
>> There's always the classic Your Brain Is Full Of Spiders, or its
>> companion You Have Garlic in Your Soul...
>>
>> Dave, Idiot-Sensitive Creative Misspellor?
>
> You have no poetry in your soul whatsoever, do you?
>
> How does Toenail Fungus sound? Flaming Diarrhea is a bit obvious.


Flaming Diarrhea is but one side effect of taking Metformin, which
is the original provider of weaponized crap flinging!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-12-06 07:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:13:52 -0500, Michael A Terrell
<***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:auOdnTeag80lr7rHnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> On 2017-12-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>>>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>>>> of thing.
>>>
>>> Screaming Microwaveable-Kitten Smith?
>>>
>>> Worse Than Your Bite, Boy?
>>>
>>> There's always the classic Your Brain Is Full Of Spiders, or its
>>> companion You Have Garlic in Your Soul...
>>>
>>> Dave, Idiot-Sensitive Creative Misspellor?
>>
>> You have no poetry in your soul whatsoever, do you?
>>
>> How does Toenail Fungus sound? Flaming Diarrhea is a bit obvious.
>
> Flaming Diarrhea is but one side effect of taking Metformin, which
>is the original provider of weaponized crap flinging!

Hey! I like metformin! It's served me well this past decade.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-06 07:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:13:52 -0500, Michael A Terrell
> <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>> news:auOdnTeag80lr7rHnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-12-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>>>>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>>>>> of thing.
>>>>
>>>> Screaming Microwaveable-Kitten Smith?
>>>>
>>>> Worse Than Your Bite, Boy?
>>>>
>>>> There's always the classic Your Brain Is Full Of Spiders, or its
>>>> companion You Have Garlic in Your Soul...
>>>>
>>>> Dave, Idiot-Sensitive Creative Misspellor?
>>>
>>> You have no poetry in your soul whatsoever, do you?
>>>
>>> How does Toenail Fungus sound? Flaming Diarrhea is a bit obvious.
>>
>> Flaming Diarrhea is but one side effect of taking Metformin, which
>> is the original provider of weaponized crap flinging!
>
> Hey! I like metformin! It's served me well this past decade.


When I first started taking it, I cursed everyone who developed it,
manufactured it, and prescribed it for being sadistic SOBs. It took six
months before my body could handle it, even at 1/4 of the prescribed dose.
Quadibloc
2017-12-06 07:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:42:45 AM UTC-7, Michael A Terrell wrote:

> When I first started taking it, I cursed everyone who developed it,
> manufactured it, and prescribed it for being sadistic SOBs. It took six
> months before my body could handle it, even at 1/4 of the prescribed dose.

Presumably you must have been prescribed a rather high dosage - or you
have a sensitivity to it. For most Type II diabetics, it is a vast
improvement on taking insulin, which has serious risks and which is
nearly ineffective for that condition.

John Savard
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-06 09:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:42:45 AM UTC-7, Michael A Terrell wrote:
>
>> When I first started taking it, I cursed everyone who developed
>> it, manufactured it, and prescribed it for being sadistic SOBs. It
>> took six months before my body could handle it, even at 1/4 of the
>> prescribed dose.
>
> Presumably you must have been prescribed a rather high dosage - or
> you have a sensitivity to it. For most Type II diabetics, it is a
> vast improvement on taking insulin, which has serious risks and which
> is nearly ineffective for that condition.


It was one 500mg tablet a day. Over the last 15 years it has
progressed to two 1000mg tablets a day, two 10mg tablets of Glipizide
and two 40 unit shots of Lantus Insulin as my ability to spend time on
my feet has decreased. I used to spend up to 16 hours a day on my feet.
Now it's painful to spend more than 15 minutes at a time, before I have
to sit for a couple hours. Going to the grocery can put me in bed for a
day. After a quick trip, it's all I an do to bring in the perishable
food, and put it away. Sometimes it takes several more days to carry in
the other items.
Peter Trei
2017-12-06 14:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 4:54:42 AM UTC-5, Michael A Terrell wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:42:45 AM UTC-7, Michael A Terrell wrote:
> >
> >> When I first started taking it, I cursed everyone who developed
> >> it, manufactured it, and prescribed it for being sadistic SOBs. It
> >> took six months before my body could handle it, even at 1/4 of the
> >> prescribed dose.
> >
> > Presumably you must have been prescribed a rather high dosage - or
> > you have a sensitivity to it. For most Type II diabetics, it is a
> > vast improvement on taking insulin, which has serious risks and which
> > is nearly ineffective for that condition.
>
>
> It was one 500mg tablet a day. Over the last 15 years it has
> progressed to two 1000mg tablets a day, two 10mg tablets of Glipizide
> and two 40 unit shots of Lantus Insulin as my ability to spend time on
> my feet has decreased. I used to spend up to 16 hours a day on my feet.
> Now it's painful to spend more than 15 minutes at a time, before I have
> to sit for a couple hours. Going to the grocery can put me in bed for a
> day. After a quick trip, it's all I an do to bring in the perishable
> food, and put it away. Sometimes it takes several more days to carry in
> the other items.

I note that some people are claiming it has significant life-extending
properties; the mechanism seems to be simulating the effect of calorie
restriction, which is know to extend the lives of animals.

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(16)30229-7.pdf

(there are tons of more colorful popular articles)

pt
Quadibloc
2017-12-06 15:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:54:42 AM UTC-7, Michael A Terrell wrote:

> It was one 500mg tablet a day.

In that case - as that is a very low dosage, almost placebo level - you
must have had an unusual sensitivity to the drug.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2017-12-06 16:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:54:42 AM UTC-7, Michael A Terrell wrote:
>
>> It was one 500mg tablet a day.
>
>In that case - as that is a very low dosage, almost placebo level - you
>must have had an unusual sensitivity to the drug.

Low dosage for what? Typical dosage for prophylactic ASA is 81mg.
Typical dosage for Lisinopril is 5 to 10mg/day.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-06 15:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael A Terrell <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:g0LVB.26965$***@fx19.iad:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:auOdnTeag80lr7rHnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> On 2017-12-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>>>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>>>> of thing.
>>>
>>> Screaming Microwaveable-Kitten Smith?
>>>
>>> Worse Than Your Bite, Boy?
>>>
>>> There's always the classic Your Brain Is Full Of Spiders, or
>>> its companion You Have Garlic in Your Soul...
>>>
>>> Dave, Idiot-Sensitive Creative Misspellor?
>>
>> You have no poetry in your soul whatsoever, do you?
>>
>> How does Toenail Fungus sound? Flaming Diarrhea is a bit
>> obvious.
>
>
> Flaming Diarrhea is but one side effect of taking Metformin,
> which
> is the original provider of weaponized crap flinging!
>
My experience has been the exact opposite, but one cannot
consistenly be full of shit without a little constipation.

(Light sensitivity, however, is another issue.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-06 05:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
> org:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:55:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:***@reader80.eternal-septembe
>>> r. org:
>>>
>>>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for
>>>> a long time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
>>>
>>> Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.
>>>
>>> (I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a computer
>>> game. I could try that.)
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> Alas, no. I don't think I have the right mind-set.
>>
> And you a professional word smith, and all. I am dissapointed.
>
> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This *is*
> the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort of thing.


No. This is Usenet, which predates the internet by years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet


BTW, I've been wondering just how many Sissies a Gutless Umbrella
can carry? ;-)
Moriarty
2017-12-06 05:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 4:10:57 PM UTC+11, Michael A Terrell wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
> > org:
> >
> >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:55:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> >> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>> news:***@reader80.eternal-septembe
> >>> r. org:
> >>>
> >>>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for
> >>>> a long time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
> >>>
> >>> Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.
> >>>
> >>> (I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a computer
> >>> game. I could try that.)
> >>>
> >>> Any suggestions?
> >>
> >> Alas, no. I don't think I have the right mind-set.
> >>
> > And you a professional word smith, and all. I am dissapointed.
> >
> > Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This *is*
> > the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort of thing.
>
>
> No. This is Usenet, which predates the internet by years.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
>
> BTW, I've been wondering just how many Sissies a Gutless Umbrella
> can carry? ;-)

According to the originator of the nickname, one would suffice.

-Moriarty
Quadibloc
2017-12-06 06:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 10:10:57 PM UTC-7, Michael A Terrell wrote:

> BTW, I've been wondering just how many Sissies a Gutless Umbrella
> can carry? ;-)

However I might feel about Terry, I think this is a horrible insult to the
British people. Of course, John Steed being only a fictional character, he
cannot really be cited as a counterexample...

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-06 05:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael A Terrell <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:yZKVB.8082$***@fx33.iad:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@reader80.eternal-septemb
>> er. org:
>>
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:55:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:***@reader80.eternal-septe
>>>> mbe r. org:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>>>> for a long time now. Have you considered changing to a new
>>>>> name?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.
>>>>
>>>> (I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a
>>>> computer game. I could try that.)
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>
>>> Alas, no. I don't think I have the right mind-set.
>>>
>> And you a professional word smith, and all. I am dissapointed.
>>
>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>> of thing.
>
>
> No. This is Usenet, which predates the internet by years.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

ped·ant

/'pednt/

noun

noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants

a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules
or with displaying academic learning.


dumb-ass

/'d?m?as/

adjective
North Americaninformal

adjective: dumbass

stupid; brainless.
"dumb-ass politicians"
>
>
> BTW, I've been wondering just how many Sissies a Gutless
> Umbrella
> can carry? ;-)
>
As many as it takes.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-06 07:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Michael A Terrell <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:yZKVB.8082$***@fx33.iad:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:***@reader80.eternal-septemb
>>> er. org:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:55:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>>> Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:***@reader80.eternal-septe
>>>>> mbe r. org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>>>>> for a long time now. Have you considered changing to a new
>>>>>> name?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody has come up with any entertaining insults lately.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I was called a sperm guzzling penis leech once, in a
>>>>> computer game. I could try that.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Alas, no. I don't think I have the right mind-set.
>>>>
>>> And you a professional word smith, and all. I am dissapointed.
>>>
>>> Maybe you need some lessons in being petty and childish. This
>>> *is* the internet, after all. There are rules about this sort
>>> of thing.
>>
>>
>> No. This is Usenet, which predates the internet by years.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
> ped·ant
>
> /'pednt/
>
> noun
>
> noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants
>
> a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules
> or with displaying academic learning.
>
>
> dumb-ass
>
> /'d?m?as/
>
> adjective
> North Americaninformal
>
> adjective: dumbass
>
> stupid; brainless.
> "dumb-ass politicians"


No need to brag! :)


>> BTW, I've been wondering just how many Sissies a Gutless
>> Umbrella
>> can carry? ;-)
>>
> As many as it takes.


Hopefully, I'll never meet one.
Robert Carnegie
2017-12-06 07:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 19:54:30 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a long
> time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?

Won't that upset a lot of kill files?
Michael A Terrell
2017-12-06 07:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 19:54:30 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a long
>> time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
>
> Won't that upset a lot of kill files?

Kill files are free for the asking. I had to use over 100 on a
nymshifter on the Sci.Electronics.xxx newsgroups.:)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-12-06 08:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:28:07 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 19:54:30 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a long
>> time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
>
>Won't that upset a lot of kill files?

You say that like it's a bad thing.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml
Robert Carnegie
2017-12-06 09:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 08:09:54 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:28:07 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <***@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 19:54:30 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a long
> >> time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
> >
> >Won't that upset a lot of kill files?
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yes: because it is.

I easily could be a very annoying troll if I changed my name
frequently.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-06 15:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote in
news:d9401500-0a7b-4328-9d31-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 08:09:54 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:28:07 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>> <***@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 19:54:30 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans
>> >wrote:
>> >> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> >> for a long time now. Have you considered changing to a new
>> >> name?
>> >
>> >Won't that upset a lot of kill files?
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> Yes: because it is.
>
> I easily could be a very annoying troll if I changed my name
> frequently.
>
You that *that* like it's a bad thing.

(And you already are.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-06 15:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote in
news:322a6104-2714-4f1e-9431-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 19:54:30 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> wrote:
>> Hey, Terry -- you've been Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy for a
>> long time now. Have you considered changing to a new name?
>
> Won't that upset a lot of kill files?

Only for people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 18:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:67d5a5cf-bb6e-4121-aa92-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, D B Davis
> wrote:
>
>> And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet
>> another
>> Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a
>> distinguished AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.
>
> There are no AGW dissenters, distinguished or otherwise, that
> are acceptable to me

Which says far, far more about you than it does about AGW dissenter,
or anything else. You've just admitted that you aren't interested in
facts or science, only in propaganda that fits your fantasy.

Which is why so many people don't take AGW scare tactics seriously.

Act like a cult, you get treated like a cult.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 18:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
D B Davis <***@crcomp.net> wrote in news:***@crcomp.net:

>
> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ***@gmail.com wrote in
>>>> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his
>>>> figures and explain why literally every other climate
>>>> scientist would be ignoring it it seems much more likely that
>>>> an 87 year old isn't all that together than that he's right
>>>> and everybody else is wrong...
>>>
>>> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so
>>> I'm going to attack him on a personal level."
>>
>> Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly on-topic
>> Arthur C. Clarke quote.
>>
>> Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not certain
>> Bryson is 'distinguished' tho
>
> And so it goes. Yet another rasw AGW enthusiast offers yet
> another
> Bryson ad hominem. If you don't like Bryson, please name a
> distinguished AGW dissenter that's acceptable to you.
>
It would be more convincing to actually refute his claims.

I don't expect a lot in that area.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
William Hyde
2017-12-05 19:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:04:09 AM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2017-12-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ***@gmail.com wrote in
> >> Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
> >> and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be
> >> ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't
> >> all that together than that he's right and everybody else is wrong...
> >
> > That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so I'm
> > going to attack him on a personal level."
>
> Well, no, it actually sounds more like a particularly on-topic Arthur C.
> Clarke quote.
>
> Dave, you know the one, elderly but distinguished, not certain Bryson is
> 'distinguished' tho

I would say that he was. He wrote or co-wrote five books and 230 articles. I can't be sure that all of the latter were peer-reviewed, but scanning the (truncated) list I can see that some at least were in Science.

I didn't know the NASA/GSFC crowd well at the time, but my impression from his 1986 talk was that he was regarded as a serious and accomplished researcher, if a bit eccentric. Certainly there was no such disturbance as when William Gray came to talk about nuclear winter.

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2017-12-05 19:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 1:27:16 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote in
> news:2fb51905-a817-42f7-9f15-***@googlegroups.com:

> > Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his figures
> > and explain why literally every other climate scientist would be
> > ignoring it it seems much more likely that an 87 year old isn't
> > all that together than that he's right and everybody else is
> > wrong...

> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so I'm
> going to attack him on a personal level."

Someone claims the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. I don't know anything about
him on a personal level - but given all the geologists who studied the lunar
samples, all the people involved in the Apollo project, I think it's likelier
that he is either lying or nuts than that he is right.

That is an _ad hominem_ attack? If so, you must be using a definition of that
with which I am not familiar.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-05 18:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:98d857ed-67c5-491f-8243-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 1:27:16 PM UTC-7, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:2fb51905-a817-42f7-9f15-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> > Unless you can point to actual evidence supporting his
>> > figures and explain why literally every other climate
>> > scientist would be ignoring it it seems much more likely that
>> > an 87 year old isn't all that together than that he's right
>> > and everybody else is wrong...
>
>> That sounds suspiciously like "I don't like what he says, so
>> I'm going to attack him on a personal level."
>
> Someone claims the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. I don't know
> anything about him on a personal level - but given all the
> geologists who studied the lunar samples, all the people
> involved in the Apollo project, I think it's likelier that he is
> either lying or nuts than that he is right.

The evidence to support such a claim, and the rather thorough
debunking of that evidence, is readily available and understandable
by the average person.

And doesn't require any namecalling at all.
>
> That is an _ad hominem_ attack?

Yes, it is.

> If so, you must be using a
> definition of that with which I am not familiar.
>
There are a *lot* of words you are unfamiliar with the definition
of.

Act like a cult, you get treated like a cult.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Richard Hershberger
2017-11-28 13:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
> ‘Apocalypse’"
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>
> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>
> Wake me up when something real happens.
>
> Lynn

Neither has civilization collapsed such that a cabin in Idaho with a large stash of food and firearms turns out to be a good investment.

Richard R. Hershberger
Juho Julkunen
2017-11-28 15:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@gmail.com
says...
>
> Wake me up when something real happens.

That is when people will wake up.

Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

--
Juho Julkunen
Lynn McGuire
2017-11-29 21:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/28/2017 9:19 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@gmail.com
> says...
>>
>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>
> That is when people will wake up.
>
> Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

If so, we humans will do what we have always done, adapt to the new
conditions.

Lynn
David Johnston
2017-11-29 22:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-11-29 2:23 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 9:19 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>> In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@gmail.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>
>> That is when people will wake up.
>>
>> Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
>
> If so, we humans will do what we have always done, adapt to the new
> conditions.
>
> Lynn
>
>

Those who survive, that is.
Lynn McGuire
2017-11-29 23:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/29/2017 4:07 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2017-11-29 2:23 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/28/2017 9:19 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>>> In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@gmail.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>>
>>> That is when people will wake up.
>>>
>>> Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
>>
>> If so, we humans will do what we have always done, adapt to the new
>> conditions.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>
> Those who survive, that is.

Yup. I am a very old 57 (severe heart issues) so I doubt that I will
survive any truly eventful change.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2017-12-01 00:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 8:23:53 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 9:19 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> > In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@gmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> Wake me up when something real happens.
> >
> > That is when people will wake up.
> >
> > Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
>
> If so, we humans will do what we have always done, adapt to the new
> conditions.
>
Which on all economic modelling will be far more costly than reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the situation would be.

It will also have massive health costs and a huge impact on plants and animals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-01 01:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com wrote in
news:d388c1f3-565c-429d-ac04-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 8:23:53 AM UTC+11, Lynn
> McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/28/2017 9:19 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>> > In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> > ***@gmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> Wake me up when something real happens.
>> >
>> > That is when people will wake up.
>> >
>> > Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about
>> > it.
>>
>> If so, we humans will do what we have always done, adapt to the
>> new conditions.
>>
> Which on all economic modelling will be far more costly than
> reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the situation would
> be.

Of course, the only consistent property of economic models is that
they're wrong.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2017-12-01 03:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/30/2017 7:39 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote in
> news:d388c1f3-565c-429d-ac04-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 8:23:53 AM UTC+11, Lynn
>> McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2017 9:19 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>>>> In article <ovi1pg$1kso$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>> ***@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>>>
>>>> That is when people will wake up.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> If so, we humans will do what we have always done, adapt to the
>>> new conditions.
>>>
>> Which on all economic modelling will be far more costly than
>> reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the situation would
>> be.
>
> Of course, the only consistent property of economic models is that
> they're wrong.

+1

Lynn
nuny@bid.nes
2017-11-30 20:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:58:13 PM UTC-8, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
> ‘Apocalypse’"
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>
> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>
> Wake me up when something real happens.

Maybe it's like Clean Fusion Power- always 30 years away?


Mark L. Fergerson
Lynn McGuire
2017-11-30 23:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/30/2017 2:57 PM, ***@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:58:13 PM UTC-8, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
>> ‘Apocalypse’"
>>
>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>
>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
>> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
>> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
>> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>>
>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>
> Maybe it's like Clean Fusion Power- always 30 years away?
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

Do we have Dirty Fusion Power working already ... for more than a second ?

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2017-12-01 16:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:

>Do we have Dirty Fusion Power working already ... for more than a second ?

What do you think created all that oil you like to burn?
Quadibloc
2017-12-01 17:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:23:29 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:

> >Do we have Dirty Fusion Power working already ... for more than a second ?

> What do you think created all that oil you like to burn?

Clean fusion power, which presumably is something different from dirty fusion
power. That the sun shines is not necessarily proof that our efforts to get
tokamaks working will be crowned with success. Or internal confinement fusion.

It only proves that *gravitational* confinement fusion works well.

Of course, there is other encouraging evidence that finally some tangible
progress with fusion has been made.

John Savard
h***@gmail.com
2017-12-01 00:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
> ‘Apocalypse’"
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>
> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"

And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely - note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.

The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be fine.
>
> Wake me up when something real happens.

You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.
J. Clarke
2017-12-01 01:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:00 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
>> ‘Apocalypse’"
>>
>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>
>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
>> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
>> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
>> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>
>And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely - note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.
>
>The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
>
>If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be fine.
>>
>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>
>You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
>You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.

Either something is going to happen or it is not going to happen.

If something happens it may be what you expect or may be something
else.

In any case, nothing is going to be done about it no matter how many
insults you hurl at Lynn, so why are you wasting everyone's time with
it?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-12-01 01:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:00 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire
>>wrote:
>>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global
>>> Warming ‘Apocalypse’"
>>>
>>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-
>>> still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>>
>>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite
>>> decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert
>>> disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as
>>> little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average
>>> rise of 2C or more.”"
>>
>>And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely
>>- note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so
>>the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.
>>
>>The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going
>>to happen.
>>
>>If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive
>>when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be
>>fine.
>>>
>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>
>>You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
>>You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.
>
> Either something is going to happen or it is not going to
> happen.
>
> If something happens it may be what you expect or may be
> something else.
>
> In any case, nothing is going to be done about it no matter how
> many insults you hurl at Lynn, so why are you wasting everyone's
> time with it?
>
If he (or the other alarmists) actually wanted something to be
done, they would adopt a more convincing approach to presenting the
problem. But instead, they continue to act in a way that is
indistinguishable from the average low-skill con artist, knowing
full well it will confince *no* *one*. It's clearly their goal is
to not only not convince the skeptics, but to actively drive them
away.

This is typical cult behavior, as explaine by Eric Hoffer in The
True Believer: Set impossible (literally *cannot* be achieved)
goals, and alienate the mainstream in order to isolate the cult
members (so they don't wise up). This is how cult leaders get gold
plated, diamond studded Rolls Royces (or mansions that use
$30,000/month in electricity, while extolling the virtues - of
everybody else - literally shivering in the cold and dark to save
the environment).

It *can't* be unintentional any more. It's been too many decades of
the same cult game for those who do this to not realize that what
they achieve is the exact opposite of what they claim they want.
They *can't* be so fucking *stupid* as to have not realized it, and
still be able to walk and breath at the same time.

Though they *are* stupid enough to make you, of all people, look
like the smart one.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2017-12-01 18:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/30/2017 7:45 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:00 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire
>>> wrote:
>>>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global
>>>> Warming ‘Apocalypse’"
>>>>
>>>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-
>>>> still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>>>
>>>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite
>>>> decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert
>>>> disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as
>>>> little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average
>>>> rise of 2C or more.”"
>>>
>>> And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely
>>> - note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so
>>> the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.
>>>
>>> The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going
>>> to happen.
>>>
>>> If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive
>>> when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be
>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>>
>>> You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
>>> You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.
>>
>> Either something is going to happen or it is not going to
>> happen.
>>
>> If something happens it may be what you expect or may be
>> something else.
>>
>> In any case, nothing is going to be done about it no matter how
>> many insults you hurl at Lynn, so why are you wasting everyone's
>> time with it?
>>
> If he (or the other alarmists) actually wanted something to be
> done, they would adopt a more convincing approach to presenting the
> problem. But instead, they continue to act in a way that is
> indistinguishable from the average low-skill con artist, knowing
> full well it will confince *no* *one*. It's clearly their goal is
> to not only not convince the skeptics, but to actively drive them
> away.
>
> This is typical cult behavior, as explaine by Eric Hoffer in The
> True Believer: Set impossible (literally *cannot* be achieved)
> goals, and alienate the mainstream in order to isolate the cult
> members (so they don't wise up). This is how cult leaders get gold
> plated, diamond studded Rolls Royces (or mansions that use
> $30,000/month in electricity, while extolling the virtues - of
> everybody else - literally shivering in the cold and dark to save
> the environment).
>
> It *can't* be unintentional any more. It's been too many decades of
> the same cult game for those who do this to not realize that what
> they achieve is the exact opposite of what they claim they want.
> They *can't* be so fucking *stupid* as to have not realized it, and
> still be able to walk and breath at the same time.
>
> Though they *are* stupid enough to make you, of all people, look
> like the smart one.

I wonder if they will all drink the Koolaid soon ? Or, start throwing
virgins into volcanoes ?

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2017-12-01 02:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:44:49 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:00 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
> >> ‘Apocalypse’"
> >>
> >> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
> >>
> >> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
> >> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
> >> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
> >> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
> >
> >And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely - note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.
> >
> >The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
> >
> >If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be fine.
> >>
> >> Wake me up when something real happens.
> >
> >You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
> >You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.
>
> Either something is going to happen or it is not going to happen.

So do you look before crossing the road?
>
> If something happens it may be what you expect or may be something
> else.

Ah, so when crossing the road you may be hit by a car or a falling toilet seat from a space station may hit you.
Does that mean you don't look for cars before crossing the road?

>
> In any case, nothing is going to be done about it no matter how many
> insults you hurl at Lynn, so why are you wasting everyone's time with
> it?

Why are you wasting everybody's time by telling me that in your opinion I'm wasting everybody's time by addressing Lynn?
It's a public newsgroup, I'll comment on what I want to comment on.

In this case I think I've made some valid points addressing the issues raised in Lynn's posts.
J. Clarke
2017-12-01 04:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:47:31 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:44:49 PM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:00 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
>> >> ‘Apocalypse’"
>> >>
>> >> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>> >>
>> >> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
>> >> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
>> >> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
>> >> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>> >
>> >And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely - note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.
>> >
>> >The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
>> >
>> >If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be fine.
>> >>
>> >> Wake me up when something real happens.
>> >
>> >You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
>> >You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.
>>
>> Either something is going to happen or it is not going to happen.
>
>So do you look before crossing the road?
>>
>> If something happens it may be what you expect or may be something
>> else.
>
>Ah, so when crossing the road you may be hit by a car or a falling toilet seat from a space station may hit you.
>Does that mean you don't look for cars before crossing the road?

Does that logic actually work on a judge? If so, God help the justice
system.

>> In any case, nothing is going to be done about it no matter how many
>> insults you hurl at Lynn, so why are you wasting everyone's time with
>> it?
>
>Why are you wasting everybody's time by telling me that in your opinion I'm wasting everybody's time by addressing Lynn?
>It's a public newsgroup, I'll comment on what I want to comment on.

We're all free to make asses of ourselves. Doesn't mean that we are
obligated to do so.

>In this case I think I've made some valid points addressing the issues raised in Lynn's posts.

You can make all the valid points you want to. The thing you don't
get is that IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. I seriously doubt
that Trump or Putin or anybody else who actually has the power to
bring about the changes you want is reading any of this.
Lynn McGuire
2017-12-01 03:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/30/2017 7:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:00 -0800 (PST), ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming
>>> ‘Apocalypse’"
>>>
>>> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
>>>
>>> "Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of
>>> predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years
>>> ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to
>>> avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”"
>>
>> And now we're at a situation where a 2C rise is extremely likely - note that many countries have taken action to reduce impact so the 8 years might have been pushed out by that action.
>>
>> The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
>>
>> If you jump from 10,000 feet the fact that you're still alive when you hit 2000 feet doesn't mean that you're going to be fine.
>>>
>>> Wake me up when something real happens.
>>
>> You have no interest at all in whether anything happens with it.
>> You're in a complete state of denial about the issue.
>
> Either something is going to happen or it is not going to happen.
>
> If something happens it may be what you expect or may be something
> else.
>
> In any case, nothing is going to be done about it no matter how many
> insults you hurl at Lynn, so why are you wasting everyone's time with
> it?

I blocked Hamish a long while back so I do not see this claptrap. He
really needs to get back on his meds but, I doubt that he will do so.

Lynn
Loading...