Global Warming

Quoted message said:

Bill:

Where can I find a time series of Emanuel's PDI?

This is also a nice summary of hurricanes and climate:

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

(As a side note, the first reference in that document is Bosart and Bartlo,
Bartlo being *the* Bartlo of sci.geo.meteorology and other usenet weather
groups.)

--
Bill Asher

On Oct 30, 3:48 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

For one:

http://tinyurl.com/33fjej

Steve

That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."

Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.

Want to try again?

Scott said:

That article is about partical matter pollution and from what I can
tell, it doesn't really include carbon emissions. For example, the
article states, ""Particulate matter," also known as particle
pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles."

Doesn't say anything about carbon emissions, does it? My guess is
that if carbon emissions has anything to do with this, it's very small
as they don't even bother to mention it in the article.

Want to try again?

This took me 10 seconds. After this you're on your own self-delusional
trip--be my guest.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35332

Steve

On Oct 30, 12:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

If the left & right weren't so anxious to battle each
other, we'd be a lot better off. But danged few
politicians are doing much to seek a middle ground
these days.

...

My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the
basis of her beliefs either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives
have an easier time not knowing what they believe, because
in general they prefer things not to change or progress.
Thus "conservative."

I suppose there is a presumption in there that conservativism is
"right wing." I can assure you that leftists are generally no more
aware than rightists regarding the ideological origins of their
beliefs, although I would agree the nature of the source is not the
same. The left is more dangerous in its facade of intellectualism and
false rationalism. In point of fact, so-called progressives
(leftists) aren't progressing at all. They haven't had a new idea in
at least 80 years. It is same-old-same-old socialism, although fresh
faces like Obama give the old movement new makeup. "Conservatives"
have recently provided leftist acts like No Child Left Behind and
medicare prescription drug benefits. Hayek was decidely correct when
he wrote that conservative movements will absorb anything: the only
criteria is simply that the practices have been around for awhile so
that the conservative becomes comfortable with it. (And that agrees
with what you wrote.)

So really, there is no call to find a middle ground, since the middle
is a muddle headed affair. Things like federal (really national now)
involvement in health, medicare, social security, education, and on
and on, are all frankly illegal -- they are flatly unconstitutional.
The government does not obey its own laws; it does not follow its own
sharp restrictions on what it may do via the few enumerated powers it
was granted over 200 years past. The rule of five, in practice,
became an anti-constitutional force. The US government has rendered
itself illegitimate.

I actually blame the left for paving the road for the neo-cons. They
did that; they made everything wrong Bush did possible under the guise
of "legality." People became rightly disenchanted with the left, they
gave neo-cons a chance. Both are morally and intellectually bankrupt
movements. The margin of badness goes to the left, since they
politically dominated the 20th century. You want a middle ground
between these two? Whoa!

Only a radical change, which casts off the middle, can improve the
outlook for peace and prosperity. I do not think radical change is
now politically or practically possible. Therefore I am am sadly
pessimistic. I think there will be a gradual and increasing gnashing
of teeth. The tension will continue to rise through time until it
finally snaps, like the plates under the earth's surface. Then there
will be bloody violence, perhaps a revolution. People won't
understand why things are so hard, they'll just know they are, and
want change -- any change. Politicians will make even worse
unfulfillable promises based on their own misunderstandings, and even
dishonesty. I fear for the people of the future. Global warming,
even if true, is nothing compared to what people can do to each other.
What is the most pressing problem of our times?

William Asher said:

This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the ones
there were didn't kill white people.

In your own defense, I suppose that was funnier before you wrote it,
since it wasn't funny when you did.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

What is the most pressing problem of our times?

Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
eventually, right?

Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
that even comes close to your ideals?

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

William Asher said:

Tom Kunich said:

Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?

Quoted message said:

I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
beloved leftists.

Doubting Thomas:

Here is a link to Emmanuel's Nature paper on the relationship between
hurricane *intensity* and a warming planet. Note that the link is not in
storm frequency, but on storm intensity. In other words, what the model
says is that of the storms that do occur, more will be bigger.

Dumbasses -

Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Fennell said:

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

What is the most pressing problem of our times?

Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
eventually, right?

Hah! We're pretty much past peak birthrate now. Global peak birthrate.

Quoted message said:

Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
that even comes close to your ideals?

Sealand. It burned. Next, probably Nevada.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Mark Fennell said:

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

What is the most pressing problem of our times?

Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
eventually, right?

Hey, I can concoct doomsday just as well as the next scaremonger.

Quoted message said:

Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
that even comes close to your ideals?

I don't know, I've mostly been trying to understand the ones (fed,
state, local) I already have. Since I was brought up and lived my
entire life in what can roughly be called American Culture, that is
where I feel most comfortable, regardless of its comparative strengths
or weaknesses when it comes to the associated governance.

I have trouble discovering my ideals, even within myself. I don't
know -- I haven't found a grand unifying theory for social
organization (interpersonal rules of conduct), and I really don't
think there is such a thing. But I think I can say that if there must
be government, "it" should be a good deal more restrained than our
current federal and state governments are.

For all its problems, people are still trying to get into the US. On a
comparative basis, it is still a relatively free society. To the
extent we deal with reality, the US is still one of the better places
to be on the planet.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Thank you very much, but know that Bob S will be unhappy with that.
He'll think I feel somehow encouraged to let loose with my ascii. If
I could get control of that personal issue, as much as I wish the
guvmint could get itself under control, well then I think I could
support a few more primates with all the newly found time. I might
even have time to ride/train!

Quoted message said:

Markhttp://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

> Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
> was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?

> I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
> ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
> absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
> beloved leftists.

But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act
like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would
want anyway.

Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".

Tom: If we want to solve problems, letting words get in the way isn't
going to help. At some point it makes sense to accept that there are
reasonable connections between "conservationism" and "environmentalism."\

No, Mike, there isn't. Environmentalism is a twisted leftist idea used
purely to garner more power. Conservationism was an individual movement by
concerned INDIVIDUALS. And individuals too smart to believe anything Al Gore
had to lie about. Remember that Hillary claims that it takes a village?
Please don't think of that as just some catch words. She, like all good
little communists, believes that the state should raise your children and
not you.

If you think that you're going to compare conservationism with
environmentalism you're simply going to fail.

Quoted message said:

If the left & right weren't so anxious to battle each other, we'd be a lot
better off.

The problem is that I'm middle of the road circa 1965 which to people these
days means that I'm about a mile to the left of the John Birch Society. Not
that anyone today even has a clue who they were and what they stood for.
Look, I've watched true communism fail completely. I've watched Socialism in
Europe tear them to pieces and it wasn't until they undid a great deal of
the stupid socialist [censored] that they began to dig themselves out and now the
leftists here are telling us what wonderful lives socialists live.

Mike, I believe you have kids. You'd better start being concerned about what
the leftists intend for your children.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.

My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the basis of her beliefs
either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives have an easier time not knowing
what they believe, because in general they prefer things not to change or
progress. Thus "conservative."

So you think of change as progress? Maybe you'd better start there. A
conservative is someone that requires a reason to change something. Liberals
simply believe that EVERYTHING is wrong and has to be changed.

I'm hoping that a REAL(tm) Presidential candidate will appear pretty quick.

"Mark Fennell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

What is the most pressing problem of our times?

Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
eventually, right?

You've that right. I figure that by 2050 or so the new generation is going
to be damned fed up with supporting all you old jackasses in the manner
you've demanded to become accustomed - at someone else's expense. At that
point there is going to be another night of the long knives and a whole new
government will dawn. Hopefully one that is able to move on after totally
evening the score.

Quoted message said:

Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
that even comes close to your ideals?

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.

Singapore and Thailand are in practice good government though in detail
pretty creepy.

"Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

For one:

http://tinyurl.com/33fjej

Steve, you really ought to try to understand what's being discovered. Really
what they're saying is that diseased lungs show more particulate matter than
non-diseased lungs. That is SIGNIFICANT and means absolutely nothing about
the effects of particulate matter itself.

Scott said:

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

The resultant technology of not burning fossil fuels for various
purposes will allow us to exist at current levels of civilization after
the fossil fuels run out.

Oil is much to valuable as natural resource to burn up. It's the basis
of an entire family of useful materials but it sure isn't too useful
after being expelled in an oxidized form out of your tailpipe.

Scott said:

Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?

The resultant technology of not burning fossil fuels for various
purposes will allow us to exist at current levels of civilization after
the fossil fuels run out.

Oil is much to valuable as natural resource to burn up. It's the basis
of an entire family of useful materials but it sure isn't too useful
after being expelled in an oxidized form out of your tailpipe.

"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
than a small fortune.

They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
able to cope with rising tides!

That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
decommissioned.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.

Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always wanted
to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is and always has
been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that looking at a 20 year
period of the earth's history and proclaiming you've found a pattern
demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've come to expect from Asher and
his ideals.

William Asher said:

Tom Kunich said:

Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?

Quoted message said:

I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
beloved leftists.

Doubting Thomas:

Here is a link to Emmanuel's Nature paper on the relationship between
hurricane *intensity* and a warming planet. Note that the link is not in
storm frequency, but on storm intensity. In other words, what the model
says is that of the storms that do occur, more will be bigger.

ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

Now, cut to the 2007 hurricane season. There were two cat 5 hurricanes out
of a total of 4 storms, which is a fraction of 0.5 (not to mention that
both cat 5's followed essentially the same track, which is unprecedented in
the history of observations (plus you had Humberto, which intensified
faster than any storm even so close to landfall (go to the NHC website
archives and find the forecasters comments on Humberto if you don't believe
me, which you don't, but you won't check, but you should, because I am
right and it will save you from looking foolish when you call me names and
I then provide the link from the NHC website))). If you go back through
the archives and calculate the fraction of major hurricanes to total
hurricanes each season back to 1980 or so, you will find a fairly steady
increase in this fraction. This is Emmanuel's point, in a warming climate,
the total number of cyclones that form is still a function of vertical
shear and tropospheric forcing, but *if* you form a cyclone, it has a
better chance of turning into a major storm.

Interestingly, if you do the same exercise for typhoons, you find the same
thing. Total typhoon number from 1980 through 2006 is highly variable,
with frequency not really correlating from year to year. However, the
fraction of all typhoons that become super typhoons (equivalent to a cat 3
or bigger hurricane) increases steadily from about 0.2 in 1980 to double
that 0.4 in 2006. Again, maybe not more storms, but of the storms that do
form, more are bigger.

Dumbass,

You lying scientists just can't accept the real truth that
the surge is working and that we are winning the War on
Hurricanes. You want America to lose. Why do you
hate our nation, and its beach houses? Let's stop and thank
General Petraeus and the Second Fleet for fighting the
hurricanes off our shores so we don't have to fight them
here.

Remember, Mark Twain said "Everybody talks about
the weather, but nobody does anything about it." And
that's how you can tell Mark Twain was a born appeaser,
French-speaking, freedom-hating Commie.

When barometers are outlawed,
only outlaws will have barometers,
Ben

Quoted message said:

Mike, I believe you have kids. You'd better start being concerned about
what the leftists intend for your children.

I don't know what they "intend" for my children, but I *do* know what the
school system is teaching. And it's nothing "liberal" or "environmental"
whatsoever. My kids seem to be learning little more than how to be good
consumers. I would *love* for them to come home from school some day, filled
with all manner of silly radical ideas, and have a real discussion. That's
how it was when I was in Jr. High. I'd learn every day how my parents
generation was destroying the planet (this was the 60s) and come home angry
at them. And then my dad would sit me down and have a rational conversation
about how things work, how you learn for yourself what's going on, and the
importance of not accepting everything you hear at face value.

How I would love to have such conversations with my own kids!!! But no.
Everything is focused on passing tests these days, and those tests do not
include anything resembling critical/independent thought. If it doesn't help
a school look better than other schools, or get more state aid, it's not
taught anymore.

Quoted message said:

No, Mike, there isn't. Environmentalism is a twisted leftist idea used
purely to garner more power. Conservationism was an individual movement by
concerned INDIVIDUALS. And individuals too smart to believe anything Al
Gore had to lie about. Remember that Hillary claims that it takes a
village? Please don't think of that as just some catch words. She, like
all good little communists, believes that the state should raise your
children and not you.

You would do so much better if you left out stuff like that. There are very
intelligent arguments for conservatism that don't resort to calling people
names. Go after what they do. If somebody wants to attach a label, let them
do so themselves. Calling someone a "communist" eliminates any possibility
that someone who disagrees with you might see something reasonable in your
position and change their mind.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> messagenews:[email hidden]...
>
> > Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global
> > warming was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
>
> > I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally
> > mild
> > ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That
> > is -
> > absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
> > beloved leftists.
>
> But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just
> act
> like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at
> times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would
> want anyway.

Mike, I've always put a smaller footprint on the earth. Of course we
called it "conservationism" and not "environmentalism".

Tom: If we want to solve problems, letting words get in the way isn't
going to help. At some point it makes sense to accept that there are
reasonable connections between "conservationism" and "environmentalism."\

No, Mike, there isn't. Environmentalism is a twisted leftist idea used
purely to garner more power. Conservationism was an individual movement by
concerned INDIVIDUALS. And individuals too smart to believe anything Al
Gore had to lie about. Remember that Hillary claims that it takes a
village? Please don't think of that as just some catch words. She, like
all good little communists, believes that the state should raise your
children and not you.

If you think that you're going to compare conservationism with
environmentalism you're simply going to fail.

Quoted message said:

If the left & right weren't so anxious to battle each other, we'd be a
lot better off.

The problem is that I'm middle of the road circa 1965 which to people
these days means that I'm about a mile to the left of the John Birch
Society. Not that anyone today even has a clue who they were and what they
stood for. Look, I've watched true communism fail completely. I've watched
Socialism in Europe tear them to pieces and it wasn't until they undid a
great deal of the stupid socialist [censored] that they began to dig themselves
out and now the leftists here are telling us what wonderful lives
socialists live.

Mike, I believe you have kids. You'd better start being concerned about
what the leftists intend for your children.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you think that doing everything the leftists asked would
satisfy them you're sadly mistaken. Like all psychologically damamged
people (did you know that the vast majority of "environmentalists"
couldn't tell you the basis of their beliefs?) they want you to dance
to their tune because they crave a feeling of power.

My mother is a conservative and couldn't tell you the basis of her
beliefs either. In fact, I'd guess conservatives have an easier time not
knowing what they believe, because in general they prefer things not to
change or progress. Thus "conservative."

So you think of change as progress? Maybe you'd better start there. A
conservative is someone that requires a reason to change something.
Liberals simply believe that EVERYTHING is wrong and has to be changed.

I'm hoping that a REAL(tm) Presidential candidate will appear pretty
quick.

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Remember, Mark Twain said "Everybody talks about
the weather, but nobody does anything about it." And
that's how you can tell Mark Twain was a born appeaser,
French-speaking, freedom-hating Commie.

That was Franklin who said that.

--
Bill Asher

SLAVE of THE STATE <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the
ones there were didn't kill white people.

In your own defense, I suppose that was funnier before you wrote it,
since it wasn't funny when you did.

It wasn't meant to be funny, why on earth did you think it was supposed
to be? That seems sort of weird to me that you would be offended, I
mean, you being the paragon of non-political correctness and all. The
point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007. But there were. Dean
came ashore as a Cat 5, so did Felix. We just didn't hear about them in
the media because Trent Lott's home wasn't damaged. Or does that offend
you as well?

en.wikipedia.orgHurricane Felix (2007)Open ↗

en.wikipedia.orgHurricane Dean (2007)Open ↗

--
Bill Asher