|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Environment |
|
Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
Current rating: 0 |
by pat n
Email: npat1 (nospam) juno.com (verified) |
26 Feb 2006
Modified: 06:45:09 PM |
I took a position in Jan of 2000 which I felt strongly about then and now, that:
"climate change is already having an
impact on the hydrology of the Midwest
and therefore should at least be
considered in hydrologic modeling
efforts and flood prediction". |
Career
I've had experience in flood prediction for rivers in Illinois, including the Sangamon, Kankakee, Des Plaines, Illinois, Mississippi, Kaskaskia and Big Muddy.
In addition to my flood prediction experience for rivers in Illinois, I've had experience in predicting river flooding in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.
The office where I worked in Minnesota from 1979-2005 is called the National Weather Service (NWS) - North Central River Forecast Center (NCRFC). NCRFC is located in a southwest Twin Cities area suburb called Chanhassen. NCRFC was created in 1979, and has flood prediction responsibility for the rivers in the Upper Midwest.
In 1979, I was the only person to make the move from the parent NWS river forecast center office in Kansas City, Missouri to the new office in Minnesota. Thus I had responsibility for training a brand new staff of hydrologists and meteorologists in river forecasting modeling and prediction techniques during the early years of NCRFC operations during the 1980s.
I spent my entire career as a hydrologist for NWS (29 years from right out of college in 1976 to 2005). My primary tasks included preparation of the annual spring snowmelt flood outlooks for the Upper Midwest, ice and water supply, hydrologic modeling and flood prediction.
After the NCRFC moved locally from Minneapolis, MN to Chanhassen during the mid 1990s, for the nation-wide implementation of NWS Doppler radars and NWS reorganization, and after my daughters had graduated from high school in St. Paul, MN, I moved from St. Paul to Chanhassen, MN so that I could bike and walk to work.
Had I known a few years earlier, that I would be fired for my position on climate change and global warming in 2005, we (my wife came too) would not have moved here (Chanhassen, MN).
Hydrologic climate change
I took a position in Jan of 2000 which I felt strongly about then and now, that:
climate change is already having an
impact on the hydrology of the Midwest
and therefore should at least be
considered in hydrologic modeling
efforts and flood prediction.
Career ends
My career ended by being handed a "Decision to Remove" memorandum on
July 15, 2005 by the acting NWS Central Region headquarters office director from
Kansas City, Missouri; in the presence of my supervisor in Chanhassen, MN.
Disclosure of a government agency
Public disclosure on NOAA administrators and National Weather Service (NWS)
directors, supervisors and employees, for seriously downplaying global warming.
A retired teacher from Texas said recently that NWS people told him that global
warming was nothing more than "a statistical fluke"
In a globalwarming Yahoo Group, Mr. Ross Thomas, a retired teacher and
businessman from Texas, wrote:
"Your conclusions were the exact opposite of what I got when I talked to your NWS colleagues. In conversations they would give me the current line from their powers that be, ... Then they would look over their shoulder to see who was nearby and then say they didn't believe that GW was anything more than a statistical fluke."
By "powers that be", I believe that Mr. Thomas meant the NWS field office supervisors (several hundred of them in offices within the U.S.), and NWS regional office directors (several dozen), NWS directors in headquarters (a couple) and NOAA administrators (several), all presently answering to political appointees in the Department of Commerce, the vice president and the president.
I replied to Mr. Thomas that NWS staff have been telling the public about that same thing (that global warming is no more than a "statistical fluke") since even before President G.W. Bush took office in Jan. 2001, and that as far as I know now, the public is still being told that about global warming by NWS managers and employees.
Pat Neuman
Chanhassen, MN |
See also:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
by Mike
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Feb 2006
|
Since Pat made this public disclosure (PD) , we could all help spread the news by forwarded it to other media sources.
I'm starting this out by forwarding a copy of to my local newspapers. |
|
Special goodbye version at Saint Louis indymedia center |
by pat neuman
npat1 (nospam) juno.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Feb 2006
|
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
Copy of special goodbye version at Saint Louis indymedia center, below.
"Hydrologist said climate change impacts hydrology, thus career in river prediction with NOAA/NWS ends"
Due to my position that climate change is impacting hydrology in the Mississippi River, Great Lakes and Red River of the North basins, my career of 29 years in river forecasting with the National Weather Service (NWS) ended on July 15, 2005.
Special goodbye note, added last:
Over the many years of my career with NWS, I've enjoyed and appreciated the many discussions I was given the opportunity to have had, with many of the very fine people working in the St. Louis area NWS Weather Forecast Office, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) offices in Missouri and Illinois, the Corps of Engineer District office in St. Louis, MO; and particularly the people in the Rock Island, IL Corps of Engineers District Office which services the reach of the Mississippi River from near Dubuque, IA to just below Hannibal, MO. It would have been impossible to provide accurate and timely snowmelt flood outlooks and flood forecasts without the essential data and expertise offered by the USGS and Corps of Engineer offices.
My work included spring snowmelt flood outlooks and flood prediction for rivers,
in Missouri and Illinois ...
.. Mississippi River, headwaters to St Louis, MO
.. Illinois River, Morris,IL to Harden,IL
.. Meramec River from Steelville to Arnold, MO.
.. Sangamon, Kankakee, Des Plaines, Kaskaskia
My work included all or parts of 15 states in the Midwest and Great Plains regions: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.
From 1979-2005 I worked at the NWS North Central River Forecast Center (NCRFC) office in MN. The office moved locally in 1994 from Minneapolis to the current location in Chanhassen, MN.
The NWS NCRFC was split from a river forecast center in Kansas City, MO in 1979. The Kansas City River Forecast Center was formed during the 1960s out of an office move from the original river forecast center in St. Louis, MO (formed after the end of World War II).
After my daughters graduated from high school in St. Paul, MN in the late 1990s, I moved from St. Paul to Chanhassen so that I could bike and walk to work at NCRFC. Had I known earlier that I would be fired for my position on climate change and global warming (July 2005), we (my wife came too) would not have moved to Chanhassen, MN, where we live now.
My career with NWS ended on July 15, 2005 by being handed a "Decision to Remove" memorandum from the acting NWS Central Region headquarters director (office in Kansas City, Missouri), in the presence of my supervisor, Hydrologist in Charge of NCRFC, in Chanhassen, MN.
For additional information, please see the link to the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center article: "Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends" by pat n (26 Feb 2006)
at:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/update/index.php
Your supportive comments would be appreciated. |
|
Includes link to Saint Louis Indymedia |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Feb 2006
|
|
See link. |
See also:
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
|
|
Re: Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Feb 2006
|
It is never good to be dismissed.
It is however that unnatural alterations to climate have not been validly shown to be possible from any concern involving 'greenhouse theory' due to the invalid state still of such theory.
It is still more directly obvious that rematerialing of the surface, produced by the sprawl of and by the explosion in Human population, is having a cumulative effect on the rate and distribution of kinetic energy induction within the surface materials, across the planetary surface.
This impacts on turbulence, whilst the redistribution impacts on regional weather patterning, induced convection patterns of the kinetic energy redistribution.
Also, this rematerialing DOES have effect on the hydrological concerns OF a region.
This is exampled in Mexico City, where subsidence is seen due to overdraw of the water table below the city, as the sprawl of the city is limiting and otherwise modifying the inflow to this water table.
On top of this, air pollution is creating erosion of the older city buildings still, from memory it was decided to spray these structures with a 'plastic coating'.
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm). |
|
Re: Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Mar 2006
|
Excerpt below from an article of Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) by Paul D. Thacker dated June 22, 2005 called: "Blowing the whistle on climate change: Interview with Rick Piltz"
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/jun/policy/pt_piltz.html
Excerpt:
"[Note: In a brief interview, James R. Mahoney, the director of the Climate
Change Science Program, confirmed that the program has been restricted âon our
use of informationâ from the National Assessment." ...
Paper I wrote and presented in 2003 (at a 20-24 Oct 2003 NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center conference in Reno ("Nugget" casino, Sparks), Nevada. Links to my paper and the Press Release, are below.
Link to 2003 paper:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm
Link to 30 Oct 2003 Press Release:
"Senior Scientist: Rapid Global Warming is Happening Now" - 10/30/2003
8:28:00 AM, U.S. Newswire
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=22702 |
|
Re: Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2006
|
It is again noted Pat N. that you have NOT validated any opinion regarding ANY process of 'climate change' occurring for any reason that is NOT based in 'opinion'.
It is STILL Pat N. that OPINION is NOT a process of SCIENCE.
OPINION will NOT produce within CO2 or any other molecule, as example, a 'greenhouse behavior' when no such behavior is SHOWN by these materials.
You CANNOT opinion into reality a PROCESS that is NOT even noticing the REAL behavior of the materials it would involve.
Your personally espoused 'methodology' has also been seen as INVALID Pat N. and as such your INFERENCES relating to 'climate change' are INVALID. This HAS been outlined in more than a reasonable manner. Continuing to PRETEND not to notice such is perhaps partly the reason you where dismissed from the position of 'Hydrologist'. If you had listened to 'friendly advice', modified you METHOD and made your inferences in a VALID MANNER......
It is ALSO the 'trend' of 'climate science' to try to segregate itself and make comments as:-
'..he has no training in science.."
When the REAL and contextual is often that the individual is not:-
"Properly instructed in 'approved' climate science".
This is a function of and within the PLATFORMING of 'greenhouse science', trying to present its devotees as the 'only experts to heed".
The recent attempt to claim 'censorship' is based in the reality that many would be 'climatologists' produce 'science' as MEDIA RELEASES and 'novella'.
It is NOT 'censorship' to be asked to NOT make a 'media comment' to garner 'public fear' without a valid reason for such. There are LEGALITIES that COULD be used to stop the 'mischief and rorting', so far the 'scientists' have been mostly given 'fair warning'.
Simply that the 'climate expert' cannot otherwise SHOW any VALID reason FOR said mention of SCARE, with added DOOM AND WOE seems to lead to a cry of 'censorship'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Into the 'Trough' of Climate |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2006
Modified: 10:04:22 PM |
There is not generally an answer forthcoming to validate such opinions regarding a quantification of this 'cooling' and also such opinion of reason seems to overlook the entire situation, as I have outlined for the past 400 years, with a relationship evidenced to human sprawl.
To proceed, with regard to other common knowledge:-
From 'A chronology of climate change'
.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
It is very simply really, with relation to global climate alterations, there is no trend viable from only '15 years' of 'time', there is no trend viable from the past 150 years or 400 years, and no matter how many data points you place into that period, you will still not get a trend. This is known of statistical process, often ignored within the opinion and inference proffered in regard to 'greenhouse climate change'.
If you look at the plot of SURFACE temperature "Figure 1â you will notice the trended âshapeâ linked to plots relating to HUMAN POPULATION for this period.
 "Figure 2, Human population growth/redistribution (U.N.)"
I again provide the most relevant plots. The rise in average surface temperature (as above) is in tandem with rematerialing produced by the rise in population seen in "Figure 2, Human population growth/redistribution (U.N.)" and total growth in Figure 3.
Greater definition of population rise and redistribution is seen, with consideration of geographic redistribution of Human population seen in figure 4, as detailing geographical population density, which can relate where future sprawl will proceed.
 Density of the human population 1994 (Source: CIESIN).
(yellow = low density - dark red = high density)
The trend of Human Population redistribution will continue to see sprawl over presently existing 'green' regions, like the Amazonian basin. Sprawl will continue into those presently less densely occupied regions, taking the âbest places first. Then population growth will âfill inâ the gaps to produce a âunified human sprawl surface materialâ.
ď§ This âsprawlâ trend, along with its linked interactions with turbulence and weather patterning, is produced from Surface kinetic energy induction rate and distribution alterations. These alterations, these redistributions, produced by âsprawlâ surface rematerialing will be producing further changes to weather and regional 'climates'.
It is important to notice this as it is the REDISTRIBUTION and ALTERATION of kinetic energy induction by the planetary surface that is producing alterations to weather patterning seen in events associated with, rainfall, floods, snow, etc. All these events are driven by turbulence produced by Conduction and Convection of kinetic energy.
There is again, to restate what needs to be realised rapidly, no possibility in SCIENCE for a 'greenhouse effect' to even be produced by the materials involved. Such 'greenhouse concepts' would involve behaviors the actual materials do not posses, these properties outlined as 'greenhouse behavior' within the âgreenhouse concepts.
It is that few if any of the labeled âclimate expertsâ, the supposed 'relevant scientists' often presenting âdoom and woeâ, can actually place our âpresentâ into the actual known climate oscillation. How then can they be at all referenced as producing âfuture scenariosâ of âhuman induced âclimate woesâ? Effectively they are 'lost' and if we had heeded these âclimate expertsâ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the âGlobal Cooling scareâ of the 1970âs.
ď§ Observations are not so much of âclimate changeâ but of âredistribution of turbulenceâ induced by alterations to the planetary surface. Humanity IS making these alterations and is doing so unheeding of the effect our constructions are having on the distribution and rate of kinetic energy inductions CONDUCTED to the atmosphere/ocean and transported as CONVECTION.
Two billion dollars will not stop climate alteration, no matter HOW it is spent. Neither will five billion dollars.
Climate alteration is a process of thousands of years, not tens or even hundreds. Notice the irregular periodicity of those Periods that contain multiple glacial events (above), where ice ebbs and flows across the surface (figure 5).
These total periods are within the 'troughs' of a very LONG and IRREGULAR oscillation.
Within these 'troughs' occurs an EVIDENCED secondary set of oscillations, producing the fall and rise, the ebb and flow' of ICE across the surface. ALL of this activity is WITHIN the OVERALL 'trough' of the LONG term irregular oscillation.
Within these 'short and ice prone' Periods, Million of years are encompassed; the present PERIOD is only TWO MILLION years into its progression.
Are we to listen to the book selling âclimate prophetsâ for more MILLIONS of years yet?
Are we to fund âclimate prophetsâ in their continuance with BILLIONS of dollars for the MILLIONS of years left in this cycle?
I do not hope so!
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
See also:
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
|
|
Re: Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2006
|
Humanity is the CHILD even OF 'climate change'. The existence OF 'human like apes', 3 million years approximately, is near totally within the 'dawn' of the present (active now for ~2 MILLION years) 'glaciation cycle'.
Would HUMANITY be STANDING here 'NOW' without the onset OF the present Period of GLACIATIONAL cycles?
See
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
for an outline presentation.
Should the CHILD ever try to LEAD, before it can even CRAWL?
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
PKA's Odd Vendetta |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2006
|
I won't make predictions on this, as historians do not generally do this.
However, I will note that PKA's main criticism that Pat N's article is only his opinion is off base. As a historian who often deals with the history of science, PKA seems to be confusing data with interpretation.
Sure, the data are factual. But the presentation and interpretation of data in science is ALWAYS fraught with opinion. Sure, Pat N. has offered us his opinion, based on his interpretation of the data. But that is all that I've seen PKA offer here, too, just his own interpretation of the data. It is of no less, but certainly no more, substance than Pat N's interpretation. I guess I'm just getting tired of PKA's relentless attacks based on his claims to some superior knowledge. So far, this seems to be more BS than fact and his approach to science, that the data can only support one inerpretation of the facts -- in this case PKA's -- is just more bull.
Finally, I am least impressed of all by PKA's opinions when it turns out that he's a nuclear power booster. Nuclear power boosters depend on the public's perception that it is safe. Setting aside the rather obvious problems of weapons proliferation -- something which certainly undermines in itself any notion that nuclear power is safe -- we can look at it as a putative solution to global warming. It's a notion that fails on the face of the data.
I don't have the reference handy, but one study I read recently explored the potential of nuclear power being a sloution to global warming caused by CO2 emissions. It estimated for this to make any difference, 30 to 40 new nuclear power plants would need to be built each and every year for the next half century. Leaving aside the lack of an industrial base to do this, there simply isn't the political capital or will on a global basis to support that kind of effort.
Such an effort would also be dependent on public perceptions of nuclear power as safe. Nuclear boosters insist it is -- but that position is based almost entirely on their opinions, certainly not on hard data that proves exposure to radiation is harmless. In fact, the entire field of health physics formed more as a cover-up to create the illusion of safety in connnection with nuclear weapons and power production than anything else. It presumed that there was a safe threshold of exprosure to radiation.
In fact, the best scientific opinion now is that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation. Any exposure carries with it the threat of harm at some level. Note that I said opinion here. This is because the assertions of health physics experts are almost entirely based on observations of immediate damage and very rarely on long-term studies that would fully explore the ramifications of the oft-delayed harm caused by radiation. In fact the government has carefully constructed the funding and access to data of science so that it does NOT explore this question. The government and nuclear industry would rather rely on the social construction of human radiation standards hypothesized from the opinions of cooperative scientists than actually doing the science necessary to prove whether or not those assertions of opinion are accurate.
Any time a scientist is unwilling to fully pursue and test a hypothesis, there is usually an issue that the public should be aware of, but in the case of nuclear power, all the public gets from the science is frequently "trust us." All I can say, is show us the proof that nukes are safe. So far, I have yet to be impressed by much in the way of opinion that has been all that is offered as proof.
So PKA, I'd suggest you take your vendetta and apply it where it would do some good, pursuing those who flaunt social constructions as scientific proof in the nuclear power industry. You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but it's no more valid than Pat's. Please quit pretending that it's something more -- it's not. |
|
There is not, nor ever was, a 'Vendetta'. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
You should know, as 'a historian', that checking of 'facts' is indeed of prime importance. As such you seem to have overlooked, 'historian', an important piece of effort in the production of your post.
It is NOT VALID to attempt on the simplistic numeracy that is employed in the production of the 'temperature plots' as Pat N. would present, to produce 'opinion' that 'unnatural climate alterations' are occurring.
This IS a basic tenet of statistical process, from the considerations noted within Experimental Design. You cannot take an INSIGNIFICANT portion of a process and make that portion 'significant' by more detailed study.
You will note the present 'period' of climate is presenting irregularly periodic recurring glaciations. WE are at a point near opposing the onset of the last glaciation, so it is getting 'warmer'. Notice this present 'period' is known as active for ~2 MILLION years now, a few DECADES is simply not LONG ENOUGH to make any VALID OPINION, regardless form WHOM such opinion is QUOTED. (*See links below for more detail.)
Next, the actual issues that those platforming 'greenhouse effects' still try to avoid are based in the ill formed THEORY that they present, along with the complete LACK of notice of what the materials they would involve actually present as behavior.
This is NOT a 'vague situation' that is 'open to interpretation' "Historian", these behaviors are now known, unlike at the time of the 'birth' of the 'greenhouse concepts' in the 19th Century when material was 'studied' on the basis of hypothetical concerns, exampled by the "Theory of Uniform Blackbodies" and the "Ideal Gas Theory".
The MODERN realisation of actual behaviors was at the basis of ALL the repeated failures at validation the 'greenhouse concepts' had in their presentations within the 20th Century.
After the last failure, in the mid 1950's, it was realised that MODERN SCIENCE was leaving the 'greenhouse concepts' behind. That is when those platforming these concepts decided to act NOT as those of SCIENCE, but as 'politicians'.
They instead garnered 'opinion' instead of details, and to this day the 'greenhouse platform' is 'opinion based' with little VALID SCIENCE beneath the façade. This is reported in the 'greenhouse versions of history' as the "Brilliant few leaving the slow processes of SCIENCE to bring warning of danger to the people", or in some minor variation on such a theme.
*Please refer to:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more detail.
Next 'historian' your rhetoric against Uranium Fuelled power generation espouses the same LACK of SCIENCE and relevant KNOWLEDGE. This is seen certified by your continued attempt to link CO2 to supposed 'global warming', again see the links '*'.
There is little to fear from Uranium Fuelled power, and if you had done ANY REAL research 'historian' you would have found NUMEROUS attempts by ME to divert the need for Uranium fuelled power generation, made on numerous occasion over the past several YEARS.
The REASON it is NOW needed is that 'opinionators', such as yourself 'historian', have NO IDEA of the SCIENCE involved in power distribution AND generation. It is that the metal wire grid presents REAL issues that LIMIT the PRACTICAL generation methods that CAN be used. I have pointed out how CLOSE humanity is to OPTICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION within the present technologies seen in 'communications'.
Yet STILL the 'platformers' of 'opinion' try to SOUND like they have 'an idea' when it is clearly seen they have NONE, just possessing 'a loud voice'. That is WHY NOW we are hearing of Uranium Fuelled Power generation "historian', as your preference for OPINION will NOT produce power that CAN be made to penetrate the METAL WIRE GRID in the grid densities that are actually existent.
Power supply systems are TWO PART, Generation AND Distribution.
As I feel that it is simply a lack of relevant KNOWLEDGE that makes your 'post' otherwise so removed from dealings with actualities, i present below from another 'thread' material better suited to discussion with a 'historian'.
From the thread:-
www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/112836/index.php
-----
Regarding the relevancy of 'underwater Colorado'?
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
70 Million years ago there where no 'humans'.
The alteration to the major climate oscillations that realised the dip into the CURRENT period of irregularly recurring glaciations saw no "Humanity" walking anywhere.
This 'present period', now in progress for around 2 MILLION years actually saw the 'Rise of Humanity'.
Humanity is in every sense the CHILD of 'climate change' and is NOT a 'victim' of climate alteration.
It is thought that the DEVELOPEMENT of intellect was DRIVEN in Humanity by the circumstances that gave it 'birth'. It was the ABILITY to think that gave 'humanity to be' the "edge" over its 'competitors'.
There are few other reasonable considerations that could see a small animal climb down from 'trees' and go on to 'dominate' a planet.
That the 'trees' possible became less sustaining, due to the encroachment of the 'cold' , and infact did not move, meant that the 'population' that 'became human' needed to, and left the trees and began to WALK eventually due to the greater efficiency of a bipedal stance for improved 'line of sight' whilst in transit. The urge to SEE was translated from the observational advantages the 'species culture' had developed in the initial 'TREE HOPPING' made to escape the 'encroaching cold' until there where too few trees to make such advantageous, so 'standing tall' became a 'survival mechanism'.
This is seen in, as example, the Slender-Tailed Meerkat, whose 'guard' still 'stands erect' to 'shout a warning', see:-
http://www.zootopia.com.au/content/view.asp?id=1061
Freeing up the fore limbs meant that these could begin to be used for other activities and this freedom was the most likely reason for the progression of TOOL use in the "species (as a potential plural) that became Humanity".
The issue these 'few doomsayers' need to realise is that there is NO PERMANENCE in CLIMATE, only persistence.
As such, like those that 'produced Humanity', 'HUMANITY itself' will need to REALISE that the concepts of 'PERMANCE' that permeate the 'scare' behind the concepts made mention of with regard to the 'photo' are infact those of the animals that DID NOT handle change well.
It IS that HUMANITY will need to MOVE, and IF 'Colorado' gets a bit 'wet' in another 70 MILLION years, it would be HOPED that HUMANITY will then again WALK TALL and MOVE.
-----
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Oh, the Irony! |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
hartlod(tm),
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously be your continual rehashing of your difference of opinion with Pat?
Pat at least has some credentials to back up his interpretation and opinion. You have offered absolutely NOTHING to indicate any similar expertise on your part. Instead, you have simply been repeating your unqualified opinion about his interpretation. I don't take this very seriously and I doubt anyone else does either.
As a historian, I'm perfectly willing to deal with facts, but I'm also cognizant of the social construction of facts. Having an expertise does not make one an expert or guarantee that everything that comes out of an expert's mouth will be the objective truth.
Pat at least has his expertise to qualify his opinions as being worthy of attention. You have -- NOTHING! You're relying solely on the seemingly endless repetition of your opinion as being of significance. It's not. It's ONLY your opinion and nothing more.
To take just one example of the sorry state of your debate skills, let's look at your credulous support of nuclear power. If CO2 is realy not an issue here, then why don't you simply call for more coal-fired powerplants? Believe me, the problem isn't getting the electricty into the wires -- what the hell does that part of your increasingly incomprehensible argumentation have to do with global weather anyway?
You've simply drunk neo-conservative kool-aid and are too ignorant to admit that your opinion is nothing except an apology for the powers that be. It sure isn't something to take seriously. You've made it plain that you're nothing but a troll -- and a cyberstalker, based on a quick Googling of your internet presence on this subject. |
|
It is easy to realise... |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
What I have warned those 'few' about IS happening and is happening due to those implications of SCIENCE that these few are OBVIOUSLY still UNKNOWING of.
I am not actually WANTING Uranium and/or Coal to be used,that has been plainly made obvious in the many attempts i have made to discuss those issues.
Power supply systems are TWO PART, Generation AND Distribution.
THAT is why i have been attempting to discuss, amongst unknowing hecklers such as you 'historian', what NEEDS to be done to make much of the 'alternate' energy generation systems ACTUALLY practical, feasible for use in the REAL world.
Solar energy sources are limited by the amount of energy ACTUALLY surface incident, that being in the lower and upper visible spectrum and the lower one third of the UV spectrum. These systems cannot afford to loose output energy to the PHYSICS of the METAL WIRE GRID.
Similar issue arise in all attempts to impalce 'renewable sources' as major utilities, be it wind or 'stationary fuel cell', when intended as major utility.
So there will be Uranium fuelled power GENERATION as the DISTRIBUTION system of the METAL WIRE GRID is unsuitable for the low density utilities you 'historian' might like to OPINION are practical.
Power supply systems are TWO PART, Generation AND Distribution, the later involving issues of capacitivity and resistivity.
***
The POWER issue IS about the distribution grid for electricity, and simply as you (and some othres) have no understanding does NOT make REALITY alter. It is these isuesthat require Australia to produce NOW near 200 Terra watt/hours (that is 200 TRILLION, with plans in place to lift that to 300 TRILLION). As the 'grid' becomes more dense, and complex, it is that a proportion of the inputed power 'lodges' in the grid, and is NOT represented to the 'remote user' as being 'generated' even.
***
As to Coal, it is that here in Australia the placement of such NEW utilities is being considered also, as well as Gas.
The same situation (the attempt to produce 'import from opinion') applies to 'greenhouse concepts', the ACTUAL materials present will NOT alter their REAL behavior to accodomate the 'opinions of the few'.
Fossil Oil will continue to be extracted as it is now that Fossil Oil use as FUEL is almost a secondary use. The is now the situation that the dependence of Humanity on materials otherwise derived from fossil oil has made it essential for this to happen. This situation has grown to be from the time of the mid 1940's to now. Even the cloths you wear have materials incorporated that are derived from fossil oils.
This is so far ALL based on FACTUAL event and SCIENCE.
The unwanted VOLATILES from the fossil oil will be mixed with bio-oils to produce a suitable volume of FUEL OILs for use in hybrid vehicles.
Next, Pat has no 'credentials' to support his 'opinion' that can overcome the obvious paucity of SCIENCE and poor methodology Pat attempts to apply to support his inferences. There are no such credentials available regardless of WHO is involved.
This paucity has been mentioned by many, not just myself, to Pat N. in many forums over a long period of time. Pat should have tried listening a bit more, instead of reproducing these 'threads' (over 500 in one case of the same title).
*Please refer to:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more detail.
Again, Power supply systems are TWO PART, Generation AND Distribution.
As I feel that it is simply a lack of relevant KNOWLEDGE that makes your 'post' otherwise so removed from dealings with actualities, i present below from another 'thread' material better suited to discussion with a 'historian'.
From the thread:-
www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/112836/index.php
-----
Regarding the relevancy of 'underwater Colorado'?
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
70 Million years ago there where no 'humans'.
The alteration to the major climate oscillations that realised the dip into the CURRENT period of irregularly recurring glaciations saw no "Humanity" walking anywhere.
This 'present period', now in progress for around 2 MILLION years actually saw the 'Rise of Humanity'.
Humanity is in every sense the CHILD of 'climate change' and is NOT a 'victim' of climate alteration.
It is thought that the DEVELOPEMENT of intellect was DRIVEN in Humanity by the circumstances that gave it 'birth'. It was the ABILITY to think that gave 'humanity to be' the "edge" over its 'competitors'.
There are few other reasonable considerations that could see a small animal climb down from 'trees' and go on to 'dominate' a planet.
That the 'trees' possible became less sustaining, due to the encroachment of the 'cold' , and infact did not move, meant that the 'population' that 'became human' needed to, and left the trees and began to WALK eventually due to the greater efficiency of a bipedal stance for improved 'line of sight' whilst in transit. The urge to SEE was translated from the observational advantages the 'species culture' had developed in the initial 'TREE HOPPING' made to escape the 'encroaching cold' until there where too few trees to make such advantageous, so 'standing tall' became a 'survival mechanism'.
This is seen in, as example, the Slender-Tailed Meerkat, whose 'guard' still 'stands erect' to 'shout a warning', see:-
http://www.zootopia.com.au/content/view.asp?id=1061
Freeing up the fore limbs meant that these could begin to be used for other activities and this freedom was the most likely reason for the progression of TOOL use in the "species (as a potential plural) that became Humanity".
The issue these 'few doomsayers' need to realise is that there is NO PERMANENCE in CLIMATE, only persistence.
As such, like those that 'produced Humanity', 'HUMANITY itself' will need to REALISE that the concepts of 'PERMANCE' that permeate the 'scare' behind the concepts made mention of with regard to the 'photo' are infact those of the animals that DID NOT handle change well.
It IS that HUMANITY will need to MOVE, and IF 'Colorado' gets a bit 'wet' in another 70 MILLION years, it would be HOPED that HUMANITY will then again WALK TALL and MOVE.
-----
It is 'historian' that you should attempt to discuss the points i raise.
I notice you only attempt to belittle myself whilst avoiding the DETAIL i mention, which from behind the anonymous identity of 'historian' (which is as likely to be a cover for Pat N. as anyone else) makes your comments AND opinions, in regard to myself and what i attempt still to discuss, as near to worthless as any could be especially when your rhetotric 'historian' obviously attempts to 'dodge' the 'real issues'.
Lastly, if Pat N. had not decided to produce "hate hartlod threads' (as it was i needed to have such mentioned to me, my interest in Pat N. being near non-existent) then he could happily be about his 'business'. Now i will need to watch to see if he attempts more such 'threads'.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Regarding the fabrications of the 'Irony!' |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
A search with Google on the word HARTLOD returns:-
Results 1 - 49 of about 523 for hartlod.
A search from within those results including PAT N. returns:-
Results 1 - 10 of about 93 for hartlod Pat N..
and if one attempts to see what is generated since Pat began is belligerent harrasement of myself, with the aid of some 'few' others(possibly):-
Results 1 - 10 of about 91 for hartlod Pat N. 2006.
(With some inclusions here not made in 2006, but just mentioning the DATE.)
So before the 'hate hartlod threads' Pat N. started there was only 2 mentions involving Pat N. from myself out of the other ~420 posts IN TOTAL to the interent locatable by Google by myself.
TWO (2) mentions only from myself involving Pat N. and NOT involving the year 2006.
It is i do not USE the intenet much for communications, dealing mostly in facsimile.
It seem that from behnd the 'identity' of 'historian', someone is FABRICATING a situation in an OBVIOUS manner.
Infact 'historian' you seem intent to harass ME for NO valid or existant REASON. This is EXACTLY what Pat N. has attempted to do, and why i need now to spare a little time to 'observe' Pat N. and make Pat N. AWARE of this observation by making occasional comments in, and amongst, the NUMEROUS (to the point of being unavoidable on the interent) posts/treads Pat N. makes.
IT is NOT myself 'historian' that is ["nothing but a troll -- and a cyberstalker, based on a quick Googling"] of internet presence.
You can either discuss the issues 'historian' or run away, either will suit myself.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: |
|
Hardly a Fabrication to Note the Obvious Inadequacies of Your "Evidence" |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
It's not a fabrication to note that the only thing you've offered to support your opinions is -- more of your opinions.
I see no evidence of any factual basis to your disagreement with Pat, except that you want to vocally disagree with him. You've cited no particular expertise, the work of others, or even expressed a substantive grasp of the facts and theory of atmospheric processes.
Repeatedly insisting, like you do here, that a trend offers no proof until it has existed at least a million years is of no help to anyone, whether you're in support of the increasing evidence of global atmospheric warming or not. Such stubborn resistance to acknowledge the potential significance of short-term evidence as yours is more indicative of a closed mind than anything else. It's rather like telling someone that you'll tell them to get out of the road, but only after they get hit by the bus. Thanks, but that's of no help to anyone in this argument, even if you disagree with Pat.
I haven't a clue what the power distribution system has to do with atmospheric processes -- you seem to think it does, but again you offer nothing except some more babbling on about it's (non-existent) relationship to global atmospheric processes.
You're tiresome and repetitive. Your frequent recourse to citing you own obscurantist rants does nothing except further discredit whatever vague point you are stumbling to make.
More basically, your argument, whatever it is, is basically incomprehensible. Say whatever you want about Pat, at least the reader can follow what he's talking about. With you, I can't tell whether you're just BSing, you're full of yourself in some bizarre way, or whether you just have litlle exprience conveying what you want to say in clear language. |
|
To note the obvious. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
What I relate is considered by the MAJORITY to be COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
It is COMMONLY KNOWN as to the effects of Resistivity and Capacitivity. These do NOT need to be 'linked' to give YOU 'validation' 'historian', what YOU need is EDUCATION and that is NOT required for me to supply. YOU mentioned 'power generation' 'historian', not I.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to display a supposed 'greenhouse behavior'. Please detail HOW it can 'historian', but realise that such was NOT found VALIDLY possible already THREE TIMES.
A 'trend' as a statistical statement of a PROCESS needs to be able to deal with a component of that process that is REPRESENTATIVE within known STATISTICAL processes of determination and validation.
The situation that WE ALL observe NOW is the 'end play' of the warming process that began ~15,000 years ago. From that point of time, the snow and ice began to retreat, away from the equatorial regions to NOW be seen in the Polar Regions.
This 'warming process' is NATURAL and the Polar Regions are reacting IN TURN and LAST within this NATURAL warming process.
The ONLY ISSUE the 'greenhouse few' need to realise is that all this is happening NOW. That is what is making the situation UNIQUE, not in any manner is there otherwise a VALID link to a 'greenhouse warming effect'.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to actually BEHAVE in a manner as outlined as being a 'greenhouse behavior', the materials DOES NOT posses the ability to so act.
The MODERN realisation of actual behaviors was at the basis of ALL the repeated failures at validation the 'greenhouse concepts' had in their presentations within the 20th Century. After the last failure, in the mid 1950's, it was realised that MODERN SCIENCE was leaving the 'greenhouse concepts' behind. That is when those platforming these concepts decided to act NOT as those of SCIENCE, but as 'politicians'. These 'few' instead garnered 'opinion' instead of details, and to this day the 'greenhouse platform' is 'opinion based' with little VALID SCIENCE beneath the façade. This is reported in the 'greenhouse versions of history' as the "Brilliant few leaving the slow processes of SCIENCE to bring warning of danger to the people", or in some minor variation on such a theme.
The measure of CO2 is a FALSE POSITIVE.
The RISE in median SURFACE TEMEPRATURE is DIRECTLY correlated to the rise in Human Population, and the SPRAWL of habitat linked to that population rise.
*Please refer to:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more detail.
Next, there is little in valid method that can outline the atmosphere of 650,000 years ago, as has already been shown. Again poor methodology and predetermination is having overlooked the lack of VALIDITY in the INFERENCES of 'atmospehric content' so often attempted to be factualised.
For example, regarding 'ice cores', where the ice is produced from the compression of SNOW. There is no VALID reason to assume that after 650000 years the gas 'bubbles' actually represent the original composition of the 'atmosphere' at any particular time, or at all.
This is as the SAMPLE volume is no small as to NOT offer a sample size that can render a statistically SIGNIFICANT 'experiment' for the 'population' (see concepts under Experimental Design). Also there is nothing to suggest that any particlar 'bubble' contains ONLY gas form a particualr 'time'. Then there is that all the H20 is removed. Then the list of 650,000 years of unknowns is added.
There is NOT even a 'chance' that the 'estimates' for 20 MILLION Years ago could even be CLOSE to 'approximates' even. At this time the climate would have been in a DIFFERENT 'mode', no longer in a 'PRIMARY TROUGH'. The SAME would be true for 70 MILLION years ago. The attempt is to infer 'temperature' then 'produce' an amount of CO2. this is NOT valid as the 'greenhouse effect' is NOT validly produced or even existent.
These periods (20 to 70 MILLION years ago) would be in a PRIMARY CREST mode of the overall Climate oscillation. The SECONDARY oscilllations would still occur however, but would NOT dip into 'glaciations'. You would see in geological record (more likely) division of Secondary PEAK and DIP by SEA LEVEL alterations, as TURBULENCE leaves few traces otherwise that would survive till NOW.
The PRESENT Primary Trough is only 2 to 3 MILLION years 'old'. The BEHAVIOR we are observing is particular to THIS 'oscillatory mode'. It is NOT VALID to 'cross boundaries' UNNOTICED as these 'few' (so often quoted) would like to do.
There is that the 'few' try hard to avoid notice of what is beng told by the natural processes WE ALL OBSERVE. EVERYTHING that is observed CAN be readily detailed WITHOUT imposing any 'unnatural casuality' and have such done in a VALID manner with regard to SCIENCE and in a statistically proper method.
At 'best' what Humanity IS doing is produceing variation in WEATHER PATTERNING by altering the distribution across the surface of Surface produced Kinetic Energy induction (in both regional location and amount/rate).
Lastly "Historian', the tired attempt of belittlement of me are NOT seeing much 'joy', nor am I saying anything of Pat N. that is not already observed within that individuals DOCUMENTED ACTIONS.
It is that few in the theads I have bothered to visit seem to accept what Pat N. is telling them, from what I have read amongst the numerous threads Pat N. has started, and you are correct in that few there in seem to have difficulty understand what Pat N. is 'saying'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
To note the obvious. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
What I relate is considered by the MAJORITY to be COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
It is COMMONLY KNOWN as to the effects of Resistivity and Capacitivity. These do NOT need to be 'linked' to give YOU 'validation' 'historian', what YOU need is EDUCATION and that is NOT required for me to supply. YOU mentioned 'power generation' 'historian', not I.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to display a supposed 'greenhouse behavior'. Please detail HOW it can 'historian', but realise that such was NOT found VALIDLY possible already THREE TIMES.
A 'trend' as a statistical statement of a PROCESS needs to be able to deal with a component of that process that is REPRESENTATIVE within known STATISTICAL processes of determination and validation.
The situation that WE ALL observe NOW is the 'end play' of the warming process that began ~15,000 years ago. From that point of time, the snow and ice began to retreat, away from the equatorial regions to NOW be seen in the Polar Regions.
This 'warming process' is NATURAL and the Polar Regions are reacting IN TURN and LAST within this NATURAL warming process.
The ONLY ISSUE the 'greenhouse few' need to realise is that all this is happening NOW. That is what is making the situation UNIQUE, not in any manner is there otherwise a VALID link to a 'greenhouse warming effect'.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to actually BEHAVE in a manner as outlined as being a 'greenhouse behavior', the materials DOES NOT posses the ability to so act.
The MODERN realisation of actual behaviors was at the basis of ALL the repeated failures at validation the 'greenhouse concepts' had in their presentations within the 20th Century. After the last failure, in the mid 1950's, it was realised that MODERN SCIENCE was leaving the 'greenhouse concepts' behind. That is when those platforming these concepts decided to act NOT as those of SCIENCE, but as 'politicians'. These 'few' instead garnered 'opinion' instead of details, and to this day the 'greenhouse platform' is 'opinion based' with little VALID SCIENCE beneath the façade. This is reported in the 'greenhouse versions of history' as the "Brilliant few leaving the slow processes of SCIENCE to bring warning of danger to the people", or in some minor variation on such a theme.
The measure of CO2 is a FALSE POSITIVE.
The RISE in median SURFACE TEMEPRATURE is DIRECTLY correlated to the rise in Human Population, and the SPRAWL of habitat linked to that population rise.
*Please refer to:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more detail.
Next, there is little in valid method that can outline the atmosphere of 650,000 years ago, as has already been shown. Again poor methodology and predetermination is having overlooked the lack of VALIDITY in the INFERENCES of 'atmospehric content' so often attempted to be factualised.
For example, regarding 'ice cores', where the ice is produced from the compression of SNOW. There is no VALID reason to assume that after 650000 years the gas 'bubbles' actually represent the original composition of the 'atmosphere' at any particular time, or at all.
This is as the SAMPLE volume is no small as to NOT offer a sample size that can render a statistically SIGNIFICANT 'experiment' for the 'population' (see concepts under Experimental Design). Also there is nothing to suggest that any particlar 'bubble' contains ONLY gas form a particualr 'time'. Then there is that all the H20 is removed. Then the list of 650,000 years of unknowns is added.
There is NOT even a 'chance' that the 'estimates' for 20 MILLION Years ago could even be CLOSE to 'approximates' even. At this time the climate would have been in a DIFFERENT 'mode', no longer in a 'PRIMARY TROUGH'. The SAME would be true for 70 MILLION years ago. The attempt is to infer 'temperature' then 'produce' an amount of CO2. this is NOT valid as the 'greenhouse effect' is NOT validly produced or even existent.
These periods (20 to 70 MILLION years ago) would be in a PRIMARY CREST mode of the overall Climate oscillation. The SECONDARY oscilllations would still occur however, but would NOT dip into 'glaciations'. You would see in geological record (more likely) division of Secondary PEAK and DIP by SEA LEVEL alterations, as TURBULENCE leaves few traces otherwise that would survive till NOW.
The PRESENT Primary Trough is only 2 to 3 MILLION years 'old'. The BEHAVIOR we are observing is particular to THIS 'oscillatory mode'. It is NOT VALID to 'cross boundaries' UNNOTICED as these 'few' (so often quoted) would like to do.
There is that the 'few' try hard to avoid notice of what is beng told by the natural processes WE ALL OBSERVE. EVERYTHING that is observed CAN be readily detailed WITHOUT imposing any 'unnatural casuality' and have such done in a VALID manner with regard to SCIENCE and in a statistically proper method.
At 'best' what Humanity IS doing is produceing variation in WEATHER PATTERNING by altering the distribution across the surface of Surface produced Kinetic Energy induction (in both regional location and amount/rate).
Lastly "Historian', the tired attempt of belittlement of me are NOT seeing much 'joy', nor am I saying anything of Pat N. that is not already observed within that individuals DOCUMENTED ACTIONS.
It is that few in the theads I have bothered to visit seem to accept what Pat N. is telling them, from what I have read amongst the numerous threads Pat N. has started, and you are correct in that few there in seem to have difficulty understand what Pat N. is 'saying'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
CAPS Do Not Make Facts |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2006
|
hartlod(tm),
Are you next going to jump up and down, spin around until you fall down and hold your breath until we start taking you seriously?
It'll be amusing, but it doesn't change my evaluation of the specious nature of your argument. Neither will repeating the exact same post in two different threads.
Neither will invocation of what is "considered by the MAJORITY to be COMMON KNOWLEDGE." That sort of thinking got us into a totally stupid war. No one here is impressed by such trite appeals to emotional and intellectual shallowness. |
|
To note the obvious again. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Mar 2006
|
CAPS produced emphasis, just as does 'bold' or 'italics', however i post in plain text, so use CAPS. This is not a 'chat room' and discussion is in the form of short essay.
AS this is stating the obvious, and you 'historian' are trying still in an OBVIOUS manner to avoid notice of points you OBVIOUSLY cannot overcome, i shall repeat my previous post, continaing as it does so much 'common knowledge'. Perhaps it is 'historian' that my level OF 'common knowledge' is just HIGHER than what you are 'used to experiencing', that again is NOT my problem.
To reprise (whilst i cook tonights dinner) with a few corrections of 'typos':-
What I relate is considered by the MAJORITY to be COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
It is COMMONLY KNOWN as to the effects of Resistivity and Capacitivity.
These do NOT need to be 'linked' to give YOU 'validation' 'historian', what YOU need is EDUCATION and that is NOT required for me to supply.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to display a supposed 'greenhouse behavior'.
Please detail HOW it can 'historian', but realise that such was NOT found VALIDLY possible already THREE TIMES.
A 'trend' as a statistical statement of a PROCESS needs to be able to deal with a component of that process that is REPRESENTATIVE within known STATISTICAL methods of determination and validation.
The situation that WE ALL observe NOW is the 'end play' of the warming process that began ~15,000 years ago. From that point of time, the snow and ice began to retreat, away from the equatorial regions to NOW be seen in the Polar Regions.
This 'warming process' is NATURAL and the Polar Regions are reacting IN TURN and LAST within this NATURAL warming process.
The ONLY ISSUE the 'greenhouse few' need to realise is that all this is happening NOW.
That is what is making the situation UNIQUE, not in any manner is there otherwise a VALID link to a 'greenhouse warming effect'.
There is NO ABILITY for CO2 to actually BEHAVE in a manner as outlined as being a 'greenhouse behavior', the materials DOES NOT posses the ability to so act.
The MODERN realisation of actual behaviors was at the basis of ALL the repeated failures at validation the 'greenhouse concepts' had in their presentations within the 20th Century. After the last failure, in the mid 1950's, it was realised that MODERN SCIENCE was leaving the 'greenhouse concepts' behind. That is when those platforming these concepts decided to act NOT as those of SCIENCE, but as 'politicians'. These 'few' instead garnered 'opinion' instead of details, and to this day the 'greenhouse platform' is 'opinion based' with little VALID SCIENCE beneath the façade. This is reported in the 'greenhouse versions of history' as the "Brilliant few leaving the slow processes of SCIENCE to bring warning of danger to the people", or in some minor variation on such a theme.
The measure of CO2 is a FALSE POSITIVE in platformings of a relationship to 'temperature'.
The small RISE (0.6 degrees C) in median SURFACE TEMPERATURE is DIRECTLY correlated to the rise in Human Population, and the SPRAWL of habitat linked to that population rise.
*Please refer to:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more detail.
Next, there is little in valid method that can outline the atmosphere of 650,000 years ago, as has already been shown. Again poor methodology and predetermination is having overlooked the lack of VALIDITY in the INFERENCES of 'atmospehric content' so often attempted to be factualised.
For example, regarding 'ice cores', where the ice is produced from the compression of SNOW. There is no VALID reason to assume that after 650000 years the gas 'bubbles' actually represent the original composition of the 'atmosphere' at any particular time, or at all.
This is as the SAMPLE volume is no small as to NOT offer a sample size that can render a statistically SIGNIFICANT 'experiment' for the 'population' (see concepts under Experimental Design). Also there is nothing to suggest that any particlar 'bubble' contains ONLY gas form a particualr 'time'. Then there is that all the H20 is removed. Then the list of 650,000 years of unknowns is added.
There is NOT even a 'chance' that the 'estimates' for 20 MILLION Years ago could even be CLOSE to 'approximates' even. At this time the climate would have been in a DIFFERENT 'mode', no longer in a 'PRIMARY TROUGH'. The SAME would be true for 70 MILLION years ago. The attempt is to infer 'temperature' then 'produce' an amount of CO2. this is NOT valid as the 'greenhouse effect' is NOT validly produced or even existent.
These periods (20 to 70 MILLION years ago) would be in a PRIMARY CREST mode of the overall Climate oscillation. The SECONDARY oscilllations would still occur however, but would NOT dip into 'glaciations'. You would see in geological record (more likely) division of Secondary PEAK and DIP by SEA LEVEL alterations, as TURBULENCE leaves few traces otherwise that would survive till NOW.
The PRESENT Primary Trough is only 2 to 3 MILLION years 'old'. The BEHAVIOR we are observing is particular to THIS 'oscillatory mode'. It is NOT VALID to 'cross boundaries' UNNOTICED as these 'few' (so often quoted) would like to do.
There is that the 'few' try hard to avoid notice of what is beng told by the natural processes WE ALL OBSERVE. EVERYTHING that is observed CAN be readily detailed WITHOUT imposing any 'unnatural casuality' and have such done in a VALID manner with regard to SCIENCE and in a statistically proper method.
At 'best' what Humanity IS doing is produceing variation in WEATHER PATTERNING by altering the distribution across the surface of Surface produced Kinetic Energy induction (in both regional location and amount/rate).
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends |
by pat n
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Mar 2006
|
Historian said: "Say whatever you want about Pat, at least the reader can follow what he's talking about."
Historian, thank you for saying that (above).
Now I understand that Hartlod will most likely never be serious in any of his remarks. Thus, I will stop posting replies to Hartod at this forum. |
|
You might read the comments in the link below |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Apr 2006
|
To save more typing..
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm) |
|
..and just to be sure that the 'reader' see THE reality... |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 May 2006
|
With regard to:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/450 with title:- "Earth First! In US initiates EF! Climate Caucus"
There is no SCIENCE to support the 'anti corporate mentality' so often expressed (as within the above link), or to make possible even the 'greenhouse effect' (see below *) that is platformed to justify so much of this misdirected angst.
Meanwhile, the Amazonian Forests, the people who live within it AND those trying to protect it are being MURDERED with little indication such 'groups' as mentioned in the link above are even aware, let alone concerned.
Let US ALL notice a section from this (May 5th 2006) mornings paper ('The Daily Telegraph' in NSW) on page 22 (no internet link), under the title "Atomic Power: a great bright hope" attributed to Bob Carr (yes the ex-NSW Premier signed up by the "Climate Institute"):-
["The debate is over. Yesterday WWF Australia, one of the nation's largest environmental groups, accepted the realist of peaceful nuclear power."]
["In other words you won't save the planet from global warming without Nuclear Power."]
["As Premier I made similar comments. I was surprised by the response. It wasn't the outrage and indignation that one would have got in the 70's and 80's."]
["Renewable energy -wind, solar- is a part of the solution. But a smallish part. WE could build windmills from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and they would not provide the seven-day-a-week flow of energy that we call base load power."]
These individuals (as in the above link), and the 'groups' they have overrun (as exampled in the above link) are now IGNORING reality, ignoring the Public, and ignoring the Environment, expressing only their 'self interests' wrapped in a veneer of 'environmental concern'.
I would also reprise (in short) my outlines, given as warning, over the past YEARS in various Yahoo groups (especially). "Greenhouse platforming" will be rendered moot by:-
1) The increased use of hybrid bio-diesel vehicles.
2) The increased use of Uranium Fuelled Power generation as backbone generation.
So infact there will be a vast reduction in 'greenhouse pollution'. Thus the incessant (and POINTELESS) 'greenhouse rhetoric' will fall from 'public notice' (from what ever level that is NOW) as pollution OVERALL is reduced. Any INTEREST in listening to CONTINUED claims of 'climate change due to greenhouse warming' will also disappear, as the ENTIRE 'climate/greenhouse' sociopolitical VAPIDITY is rendered MOOT as 'Human additions' of supposed 'greenhouse gases' ARE infact removed in reality AND as a 'climate issue'.
=========
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
=========
Next with regard to http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/439 with the title "New Film: The Great Warming":- To quote from the MOVIE script:- ["Over the past 10,000 years, the amount of 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere has been relatively constant"]
Well INFACT over the past ~15000 years the CLIMATE has been rising from a GLACIATION, so it seems that in terms of CLIMATE 'greenhouse concepts' have NO application.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Without greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be -19 degrees C instead of 14 degrees C, or 33 degrees C colder.']
As yet NO valid reason to even BELIEVE these figures has been provided (see *), just a LOT of OPINION being REPEATED.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Earth is heated by sunlight. Most of the Sun's energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the earths surface, oceans and atmosphere."]
Blatantly incorrect as can be seen in slides I have already provided in links, ONLY those photons within the upper and lower VISIBLE spectrum as well as the lower THIRD of the UV spectrum are able to become surface incident. This is on the 'inward' leg, i.e. FROM the outer edge of the atmosphere.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, in order to keep the atmosphere's energy budget in balance, the warmed earth also emits heat energy back to space as infrared radiation."]
WRONG AGAIN, the photons escaping the CASCADE are infact NOT representing 'heat energy' in ANY manner. These PHOTONS represent NON kinetic interactions by the molecules of the atmosphere with PHOTONS within the cascade. It is the energy NOT released by the interaction that is retained as HEAT. This is the energy recorded within measures of ALBEDO
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, because the energy is recycled downward, surface temperatures become much warmer than if the greenhouse gases were absent form the atmosphere."]
Complete nonsense, the energy is NOT recycled downward with ANY trend, again ALL photons within the atmosphere are absorbed as seen in the slides I have already provided within links.
(*) INFACT photons NOT in the upper/lower VISIBLE spectrum, or the lowest one third of the UV spectrum, or that small portion in and just above the RADIO spectrum DO NOT become surface incident, EVER. So there is NOT POSSIBLE any 'surface warming' from a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. The WARMING that is seen as unnatural is due to humanity rematerialing the surface, end of 'debate'.
This (and other) 'movie(s)' is(are) dispensing POINTLESS nonsense which is leading us all into the URANIUM age.
Boycott these movies, and they will cease attempting to produce their PROPAGANDA.
Ignore those attempting to defend and support these 'movies' and the 'information' they propaganda, THEY are leading us all into the URANIUM AGE.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
