Subject: Re: Tropical ocean warming - are climate models wrong?
From: bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 14:39:28 GMT
Hugh Easton (hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: For years, climatologists have been telling us that human-induced
: "global warming" will mainly affect high latitudes. So far, there has
: been no clear evidence of a large-scale temperature increase in either
: the Arctic or Antarctica (or here in the U.K. for that matter!), a fact
: which has led many sceptics to claim that global warming is a myth.
:
: In a number of previous postings in this forum I have suggested a
: possible explanation for the apparent lack of global warming: about 20
: percent of heat from the sun arriving in the tropics is transported via
: wind and ocean currents to mid and high latitudes. In addition to
: producing an overall temperature increase, greenhouse gas (GHG)
: emissions have adversely affected the heat transport process. The result
: is a temperature increase in the tropics, and a strong cooling effect
: (which has largely offset the effects of global warming) everywhere else.
:
: This week's issue of Nature carries an article which appears to confirm
: my theory in the strongest possible way. I challenge readers of these
: newsgroups to find any other plausible explanation for these results:
:
I've only had one brief reply on my ice age article reply.
Are any more ice bergs or cracks in polar ice about these days?
Could melting of ice be detected or quantified by the isotopes in the sea
as older layers become melted? C'mon some of you sub expeditions! (I think
ice of different ages (depths) has varying isotopes? Does boring up from
under give similar results?)
If the sea near the ice does try to warm musn't the heat required to melt
the polar ice keep the nearby temperatures down? We should not be looking
at warming but at the total latent heat.
The angle of incidence of sunlight closer to the poles is much lower, so
that it will be reflected off. (Put your eye near a dull table surface
and look along it - you will see better reflections than if you look at
right angles to the surface). I don't think reflected solar energy will
be absorbed by the CO2 in the same way that the wavelength which is
re-emitted after absorbtion will do.
Is there usually more cloud cover near the poles - we saw that clouds are
reflective.
Since water at 4 degrees Celsius is more dense than colder water which is
starting to get the ice crystal form and density does that mean that
colder water near the ice will be driven away as warmer water displaces
it supplied by under currents which have come from warmer areas?
The abstract you quote speaks of sea surface temperatures, but what is
happening to the temperature of the deeper layers of the sea? The
surface layer may consist of recently melted ice. So check the isotopes
at various depths as well as the temperatures.
I bet this work is well under way and someone may tell us.
Brian Sandle.
:
: Recent changes in tropical freezing heights and the role of sea
: surface temperature (Nature vol 383 p152, 12 Sept 1996)
:
: ABSTRACT
:
: A widespread retreat of alpine glaciers and melting of tropical
: ice-cap margins has been observed in recent decades, over which
: time a general climate warming at lower altitudes has been
: documented. Moreover, some ice-core records provide evidence
: suggesting that mid-tropospheric temperatures in the tropics have
: been greater in recent decades than at any time during the past
: 2,000-3,000 years. Here we examine the processes controlling
: mountain glacier retreat by comparing high-altitude air-
: temperature measurements for the past few decades, to the
: temperature predicted by a model atmosphere forced by the
: observed global pattern of sea surface temperature in a 19-year
: simulation. The comparison strongly indicates that the observed
: changes in freezing-level height (the altitude of the 0 C
: isotherm) are related to a long-term (over decades) increase in
: sea surface temperature in the tropics, and the consequent
: enhancement of the tropical hydrological cycle. Although changes
: in this cycle are likely to affect high-elevation hydrological
: and ecological balances worldwide, tropical environments may be
: particularly sensitive because the changes in tropical sea
: surface temperature and humidity may be largest and most
: systematic at low latitudes.
:
: Fig. 4 in the article shows what appears to be a clear upward trend
: in tropical ocean surface temperatures from the late 1970s onwards
: (this also correlates well with temperature-related coral bleaching,
: which has become increasingly frequent since the late '70s). The
: authors go on to state that "the warmth recorded in the tropical oceans
: may be at unprecedented level since the mid-Holocene period, 3,000 -
: 4,000 years ago". They do not say whether there was a warmer period
: prior to this, or if that is simply the limit of how far back their ice
: core data goes.
:
: Those of you with a scientific background will be familiar with the
: concept of the 95 percent confidence level. Basically, if the odds
: against something happening by chance are less than 1 in 20, then the
: result is accepted as real and not due to chance. Tropical ocean
: temperatures within the last 20 years are higher than they have been
: for approx. 4000 years, if not more. This gives odds of 1 in 200 (or
: more) against it being due to chance. This would be accepted as an
: overwhelmingly positive result in any laboratory experiment.
:
: --
: Hugh Easton
Subject: Re: Interesting Article, must READ
From: bpj@netg.se (B.Philip.Jonsson)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:10:33 +0200
In article <323CB216.288F@nethelp.com>, M Maldonado wrote:
> IT CAN AND DOES HAPPEN!! Just take 5 minutes to find out how!!
>
> How to use the internet to make a profit.
>
> Make $50,000.00 in just 4 weeks
>
> *********************************
> ** Don't go away yet!
> ** READ ON!!!!!!!
> *********************************
>
> At the end are two testimonial's READ ON
>
> If you follow the three steps below, there is no reason why
> it should not work for you! This is a legitimate
> investment opportunity. You invest $5, and you receive a
> return on your investment. So does the next investor. NOT
> ILLEGAL, NOT A CHAIN LETTER- PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.
>
> If you are not interested, then don't participate, but
> please print this article and pass it on to someone who may
> be interested, so they can take advantage.
>
> The procedure is simple:
>
> 1) Write your name and address on 5 sheets of paper.
> Below that, write the words, "Please add me to your
> mailing list." Fold $1 note or money order
> in each piece of paper and mail them to the
> following 5 addresses:
>
> 1. Vic Williams
> 14307 Virtue Rd.
> Lenoir City, Tn 37772 USA
>
> 2. Olivier Arcadipane
> 237 rue Francois Andre
> 7390 Quaregnon BELGIUM
>
> 3. Scot Mendz
> 706 Brightview Dr.
> Lake Mary, FL 32746
>
> 4. J.M. Davidson
> 4041 202A St.
> Langley, BC
> Canada V3A-1T4
>
> 5. M Maldondo
> 9 Photina Ct. #105
> Winter Springs, FL 32708
>
> 2) Now remove the top name from the list, and move the other
> four names up. In other words, #5 becomes #4 and so on.
> Put your name as the fifth one on the list. Use a simple
> text editor such as Notepad, in your "accessories" window
> (If you have MS-Windows), or DOS editor. In fact, any
> editor will do.
>
> 3) Post the article to at least 200 newsgroups. There are
> 17,000, so it shouldn't be hard to find that many. Try
> posting to as many newsgroups as you can, and the bigger the
> newsgroup is, the more people are sure to see your message!
>
> You are now in the mail order investment business, and
> should start seeing returns within a week or two. Of course,
> the more newsgroups you post to, the greater your return is.
> If you wish to remain anonymous, you may use a pseudonym,
> call yourself "The Manager", "The Boss", whatever but make
> sure your address is correct.
>
> Now, here is why the system works:
>
> -Of every 200 posts I made, I received 5 responses. Yes,
> only 5. You make $5 for every 200 posts with your name at #5.
>
> -Each person who sent you $1 now also makes 200 additional
> postings with your name at #4. ie. 1000 postings. On average
> therefore, 50 people will send you $1 with your name at #4.
> $50.
>
> -Your 50 new agents make 200 postings each with your name at
> #3 or 10,000 postings. Average return 500 people = $500.
> They make 200 postings each with your name at #2=100,000
> postings=5000 return at $1 each=$5000.
>
> -Finally, 5,000 people make 200 postings with your name at
> #1 and you get a return of $50,000 before your name drops
> off the list. AND THAT'S IF EVERYONE DOWN THE LINE MAKES 200
> POSTINGS! Total income in one cycle=$55,000.
>
> From time to time, when you see your name no longer on the
> list, take the latest posting that appears in the newsgroups,
> and send out another $5, and put your name at #5, and start
> posting again. Remember, 200 postings is only a guideline.
> The more you post, the greater the return.
>
> Let's review why you should do this. THE ONLY COST IS $5, AND
> 5 STAMPS, AND 5 ENVELOPES. Anyone can afford $5 for such an
> effortless investment with such SPECTACULAR RETURNS.
>
> Some people have said to me, "What happens if the scheme is
> played out and no one sends me any money?" Big Deal, so you
> lose $5-but what are the chances of that happening?? Do you
> think that NOBODY cares about a LEGAL chance of making such
> BIG money as $50,000.00???? And all for a microscopic
> investment of five separate dollars? Just think of all of
> the new Internet users that join the net every day!!!
>
> There are millions of internet users, and millions of new
> net surfers every month! This is the great plus of the
> Internet, people all over the world can hear you and will
> listen carefully if you talk reasonably. Everyone will take
> that chance! I agree, if it wasn't the Internet, and was a
> small circle of people, the chance wouldn't have been so
> small. The amount of money had to be 200 times bigger, and
> the chances were zero. It wouldn't succeed.
>
> But here, on the Internet, it is a giant village, where
> thousands of new members join every day! You CAN'T lose!!!
>
> Remember- read the instructions carefully, and play fairly.
> That's the only way this will work. Get a printout so you
> can refer back to this article easily.
>
> Try to keep a list of everyone that sends you money and
> always keep an eye on the postings to make sure everyone is
> playing fairly. You know where your name should be.
>
> REMEMBER-HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO
> CHEAT THIS IDEA TO MAKE MONEY!! BESIDES, NOT PLAYING THE
> GAME FAIRLY IS ILLEGAL. SO LET'S BE REASONABLE AND PLAY
> FAIRLY, SO WE CAN ALL ENJOY THE INTERNET GOLD MINE.
>
> GOOD LUCK FOR YOU ALL!!!
>
> TESTIMONIALS
>
> After his first mailing "two weeks later, I began receiving
> money in the mail! I could not believe it! Soon hundreds,
> and then thousands of dollars began to roll in. Within 4
> weeks, I had received a total of $32,445! It came from
> everywhere in the world. My bank account has changed its
> "-" into a big "+" (++++)!!! I bought myself a car and
> things I had wanted for a long, long time for my wife and kids!"
>
> This works, "I did it and have already received $682.00 in the past
> week."
Ain't there no .greed group where you can post this s***?
--
B.Philip.Jonsson
Subject: Re: Freon R12 is Safe
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:30:05 GMT
lparker@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>:
>: The chemical company which manufactures R134 was never against the
>: switch over.
>
>The major chemical companies were against the ban on R12 -- they had a
>lot invested in its production. R134 was not settled on at that time as
>a substitute. The chemical companies only changed their minds when they
>were convinced by the scientific data and theories.
Do you have some information on this I have not seen? As a chemist I
can tell you that those chemists I talked to were unaware of the
situation you describe. I am sure that some chemical companies can be
found who were against it, but I do not believe that the manufacturer
of R134 ever was.
>: You really need to learn to check on things before you
>: say them. R134 costs about $2.00 per ounce, R12 costs (before taxes)
>: $0.78 per 12 ounce can.
>
>One was new and patented; the other was not. One had all its R & D and
>tooling costs long paid for; the other had not.
No kidding! Thanks for the unnecessary lesson in R&D;! I would never
have guessed!
>: Why would a chemical company prefer the
>: cheaper product if they can get the government to ban it?
>
>Retail price does not = profit. R134 is more costly to make.
Profit is a nebulous thing to pin down, even pricing policies are
different from one company to the next. But if you are trying to
imply that the manufacturer of R134 is not making a larger profit than
they would from R12, you have your head in a dark place.
>Perhaps YOU should check on the science at issue here? And the history
>of the CFC ban?
Sure! Where do you recommend? Maybe my own sources in the chemical
industry are wrong, after all, we are only chemists and mid-level
managers, so please divulge your sources for this information!
>
>
Regards, Harold
---
Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end
of government should enslave the less number that would be free?
More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number
compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their
liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their
baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves.
They who seek nothing but their own liberty, have always
the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.
---John Milton
Subject: Re: Safety or Sanity (was the Rusland Beeches, England)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:30:07 GMT
Nick Eyre wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>>"Reviewed studies"? I am sorry you consider that a reviewed study,
>>since it makes me think you are unaware of how the peer review process
>>works in science. This can be the only explanation for why you would
>>consider a government report as the equivalent.
>
>It is not a government report. IPCC is a panel jointly established and
>UNEP and WMO. If it is not a "reviewed report" - why is there a 14 page
>list of reviewers from over 40 countries?
You do not consider UNEP to be government supported organization?
This surprises me. Do they get their support from donations or large
corporations?
As for "peer reviewed", I guess I need to describe the peer review
process, since I simply, and mistakenly, assumed readers knew what it
is.
In the peer review process the author(s) of a scholarly article submit
the article to a journal in the appropriate field. An editor of the
journal, generally after some consulting, decides if this article is
within their area, and if so then asks several other, totally
independent, experts to read the article and pass some judgements.
These are the reviewers, usually two or three (custom varies). The
first judgement is simply if the work is necessary, then they look for
errors in facts, references, math, etc. Some even go so far as to
judge grammar of scientific documents! As a reviewer, you should even
read, if you are not already acquainted with, all the references.
The reviewer then sends the article back, the editor examines their
comments and frequently returns the article to the author and requires
changes prior to publication. A good reviewer can make a paper by
finding errors or mistakes prior to publication. A lazy or
incompetent reviewer can really hurt.
The key to the process is that the reviewer is (theoretically)
anonymous! The author does not know the name of the reviewers or
where they work. This allows the reviewers freedom from pressure that
would not have if their names were public.
As you can see, this is not a "peer reviewed" document, in the usual
scholarly sense. There is no group of anonymous reviewers, free to
make any politically incorrect statements they wish.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"If he wants to campaign in my district, he should campaign
for himself. I wouldn't feel comfortable standing next to
him on a podium -- with him saying he likes me."
-- Democrat state Sen. Adam Smith of Washington
(The Wall Street Journal, 7/1/96)
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:07:35 GMT
tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) wrote for all to see:
>
>>First off their is no such thing as a Zero emission vehicle, all you do
>with a eletric
>>car is move the emissions to some power plant some place. In the case
>of the northeast
>>Canada, as a lot of the power comes from Canada. Otherwise it will come
>out of a coal
>>fired generator someplace else.
>
>This is not true. Electric vehicles charged with solar generated power
>are emission free, as are vehicles charged with any renewable source of
>energy. You could even put a solar panel on the roof of the car, so it's
>being recharged all day (but park it outside).
Tell me something real quick about these "emission free" vehicles, do
cows shit out the sloar panels, or are they manufactured in a
(shudder) factory?
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"If it was a debate on who's got the best character, that's Dole,
there's no question about that."
-- Former Dem. Mayor Ed Koch
(WFAN-FM's Imus in the Morning, 7/17/96)
Subject: SciQuest - A New Productivity Tool
From: "Joe Bumgarner, Jr."
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:37:40 -0400
Searching for a laboratory vendor? Wasting time browsing through
catalogs, playing "phone tag," or holding in customer service queues?
A FREE, comprehensive "buyer's guide" and communications tool,
consisting of over 2000 vendors, is now available for scientists,
researchers, and purchasing agents at
"http://sciquest.com"
Within two minutes, the SciQuest search engine will assist you in
locating, qualifying, and communicating with multiple vendors
simultaneously. So check us out and start saving time with SciQuest -
the first place to look!
________________________________________________________________________
jbumgarner@sciquest.com "SciQuest - Internet Solutions for Science"
Joe Bumgarner, Jr. "http://sciquest.com"
Site Director 919-786-1770
________________________________________________________________________
--
ÐÏࡱá