[at-l] More Global Warming ahead (Long)

[shellydhale at earthlink.net (Shelly Hale)]

It's going from extreme hot to extreme cold in here just reading this
exchange!  ;-)

Shelly Hale
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim and/or Ginny Owen" <spiriteagle99@hotmail.com>
To: <sloetoe@yahoo.com>; <jeanpaul@comcast.net>
Cc: <at-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:56 PM
Subject: [at-l] More Global Warming ahead (Long)


> Sloetoe wrote:
> >--- Jim and/or Ginny Owen <spiriteagle99@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > wisperlight wrote:
> > > > i thought global warming ment higher overall tempurature with
> > > greater swings from cold to hot. so colder colds and much
> >hotter hots.
> >### Correct.
> >http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/web_page/article/aree_page3.html
>
> Yeah, I know about it, Toey - but it doesn't support your "###Correct"
(i.e.
> - "colder colds and hotter hots").  Nor does the actual atmospheric data
> over the last 20 years support the "colder colds and hotter hots" concept.
>
> Now go read your own reference, Toey.  You'll find it liberally laced with
> words and phrases like: possible changes due to human activity; remaining
> scientific uncertainties are significant; A conceptual difficulty; none of
> the current observational tests can definitively address the issue; major
> source of uncertainty; We are not sure; it is not likely this
> cloud-radiation uncertainty will be sharply reduced within the next 5
years;
> Efforts to reduce the current uncertainty are limited by inadequate
> measurements; Another key uncertainty; ................ ad nauseum.
>
> You still wanta stick with "###Correct"?
>
>
> >But then JimO impunes:
> > > No.  There are some pseudo-scientific folks who claim that any
> >deviation from "normal" weather is proof of global warming.  And
> >that "[c]older colds and hotter hots" are direct evidence of
> >global warming. Fortunately or otherwise, the "colder colds and
> >hotter hots" that we've been experiencing rank as nothing more
> >than "weather" and rarely even set new record highs or lows.
> >### You watch different news than than the rest of the world,
> >Jim. Like the July 4th rainfall that blew out the back of my
> >house, setting an all time *month* record in a 3 day period, or
> >the 2-3 "Hundred Year" storms that hit New England shores a
> >couple of years ago (in a one *month* period) taking out my
> >parent's porch on the first shot (a porch at least as old as me
> >-- got the photos! I was short then.)...
>
> Yeah, Toey - that's called "weather".  I said "rarely even set new record
> highs or lows."  I DID NOT say "never.  So what's your point?  If we never
> set new records, then the world would be static - it's not.  So what?
>
>
> > > In fact, real "classical" global warming theory says that the
> > > weather would moderate, with the largest increase in temps
> >occurring at night and in the colder (arctic) regions.
> >### I don't know what "classical" theory to which you're
> >referring, but that ain't what I was taught a quarter century
> >ago.
>
> For the most part, what Weary presents is "classical" global warming
theory
> - that CO2 is THE one and only major culprit, that we don't know enough
and
> don't have the ability to learn what REALLY makes the world work and that
> those who oppose any part of that viewpoint are "skeptics" who should be
> isolated and ignored.  And in spite of the political clout that's been
used
> to sell that viewpoint, it's constantly being chewed away by recent
science.
>   Worse, it's never been successfully used to predict anything.   As
Hawking
> said, that makes it a failed theory in need of  either modification or the
> trash can.
>
>
> >### But then after questioning the observations, JimO curiously
> >quotes Hawking regarding scientific method, and then predicts
> >his own behavior.
> > > (At least that is what is supposed to happen.  In practice,
> >people often question the accuracy of the observations and the
> >reliability and moral character of those making the
> >observations.)
> > >           From ?The Universe in a Nutshell? by Stephen Hawking
>
> I did no such thing, Toey.  Go read what I wrote.
>
> >Well dang it:
> >In the last two months, you've proposed:
> >1) Use of hiking poles is inefficient (physiologic energy
> >budget).
>
> I said no such thing.  I DID say that the use of hiking poles is more
> efficient in terms of weight loss (increased energy usage) and overall
> conditioning.  You should read more carefully.
>
> >2) You can't walk and think at the same time (mental energy
> >budget).
>
> Once more, I said no such thing, Toey.  I DID say that you can't be "in
the
> moment" and engage in "deep thought."   But let's define the "in the
moment"
> thing - it means specifically that you're HERE, NOW - that you're seeing
the
> bees and the ants - and the trees and the moose. Not solving partial
> differential equations or solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem or
> contemplating Thoreau.   I can't do both - and neither can Weary - and
> neither can you.  If you're a male, you ain't wired like that.  And if you
> are wired like that, I'd have to speculate about your cross-dressing,
cause
> only females are even remotely close to being wired like that.
>
> >3) "Global Warming" is a farce (global solar energy budget).
>
> I said no such thing, Toey.  I DID say the the global warming that Weary
> presents is so old that it's moldering in the grave.  I DID NOT say not
that
> it's entirely untrue, but I DO say that it's entirely incomplete and out
of
> date with respect to recent scientific developments.  As Weary said
> (actually paid lip service to): "Global warming is an evolving study, with
> constantly refined data."  Which, by the way , is sonething he learned
from
> me on TA.  Unfortunately, he still keeps on using the same simplistic
> words/concepts that he did 18 months ago with no apparent realization that
> they've become a mantra to him.  For example, he says: "Glaciers have
begun
> melting."  Yup - they began melting about 15,000 years ago (or more).  The
> glacial meltoff is not evidence that supports his theory.
>
>
> >I can help you with this budgeting thing, JimO.
>
> I seriously doubt it, Toey, cause I'm not the one with the problem.  <G>
>
>
> >Really. I can. Here: watch this:
> >1) Borrow my heart rate monitor at the Ruck and do a repeated
> >time trial with poles and without. When your heart rate doesn't
> >increase with use of the poles, retire Hypothesis 1.
>
> Heart rate wasn't the question, Toey - it was energy expenditure.  And
> that's already been proven by others.
>
> >2) Whilst walking the time trials (on the WITHPOLES or
> >WITHOUTPOLES run), consider the semi-closed system with constant
> >solar input and increasing (wet/dry adiabatic) internal
> >reflectance of the now infrared thermal energy. When you can
> >draw up an energy budget that does no violation to
> >thermodynamics, you've dun some thinkin', and can retire
> >Hypothesis 2.
>
> No - if you're doing that kind of thinking, then you're NOT "in the
moment"
> and you WILL miss seeing the moose.  As for thermodynamics - go teach your
> grandmother to suck eggs, babe.  <G>
>
>
> >3) Before you return to the hostel, turn and note the condition
> >of the sky: cloudy? or clear? Which would be the warmer night to
> >sleep out in? If you conclude "cloudy", then you can retire
> >Hypothesis 3, relying on your own lifetime of observations, made
> >without fear or embarrassment every night.
>
> No, because "global solar energy budget" is neither constant nor is it the
> sole factor involved in Hypothesis 3.
>
>
> >No charge, man.
> >(Unless you want to make payment in Guinness...)
> >sloetoe
> >(who turns to go back to work, evaluating billions of Indiana
> >dollars worth of investment in equipment to reduce greenhouse
> >gas emissions, knowing it's mirrored all over the USA/CSA, even
> >furthered in a Republican President's "Clear Skies" proposal...,
> >knowing the utilities fight the distribution of the burden, but
> >not the science.... Hoo-boy.)
>
> Yah - keep on keepin' on, babe - but keep in mind that it won't stop the
> effects of continually increasing solar output or the increasing solar
> energy absorption due to a weakening magnetic field or the carbon
deposition
> due to forest fires or the albedo change due to increased urbanization or
> ................ any of a dozen other factors.  CO2 is only ONE
(count'em -
> ONE) factor in climate change.  It's not the only or even "the" major
player
> in the equation.  OTOH - reducing CO2 emissions is not a bad thing - so do
a
> good job for us.
>
> Now - I'm gonna go back to work trying to find ways to get more and better
> data so we can  reduce the multiple uncertainties in the science that you
> apparently think is set in stone.  But that ain't stone, love - it's
jello.
>
> And for cryin' out loud, learn to actually READ what I write, so you can
> quit wasting my time with this inane nonsense.
> Walk softly,
> Jim
>
>
> As a matter of fact, I AM a rocket scientist.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips
here.
> http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04