Subject: Major problem with climate predictions
From: hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk (Hugh Easton)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 21:40:11 GMT
For years, climatologists have been telling us that "global warming" will
affect polar regions more than anywhere else, but no clear evidence of
warming in polar regions has so far emerged. For instance:
"We have analysed more than 27,000 temperature profiles [taken during the
period 1950-90] ... for trends as a function of season and altitude. Most
of the trends are not statistically significant. In particular, we do not
observe the large warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect
significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during
winter and autumn." - Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the
Arctic ocean in the past 40 years, Nature vol 361 p335 (28 Jan 1993).
Partly because of the total absence of warming right where climatologists
expect it to be strongest, a lot of people are highly skeptical of
climate models and the predictions of climatologists in general. In light
of new evidence - a paper just published in the journal Nature - it now
looks like that skepticism is well founded:
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. 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 data (from ice
cores drilled in glaciers on tropical mountain tops) goes.
Most of the emissions of "greenhouse gases" have taken place within the
last 30 years. The odds against a temperature increase occurring just by
chance at the same time as the increase in greenhouse gases are huge. 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. If tropical ocean temperatures within the last
20 years are higher than they have been for at least 2-3,000 years, this
gives odds of 1 in 100 (or more) against it being due to chance. That would
be accepted as an overwhelmingly positive result in any laboratory
experiment.
In other words, the rise in tropical ocean temperatures is almost certainly
due to global warming. Since there is no warming in polar regions, the actual
pattern that global warming is following is completely the opposite of what
climate models predict. If they are so wrong about something as fundamental
as that, their predictions for future climate are hardly likely to be
accurate!
--
Hugh Easton
Subject: UCLA short course on "Radar Interferometry"
From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:02:16
On November 18-22, 1996, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Radar Interferometry: Principles and Applications" on the UCLA campus
in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Anthony Freeman, PhD, Scott Hensley, PhD, and
Paul Rosen, PhD, all from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Radar interferometry involves coherently combining radar measurements
made by two or more radar antennas displaced by a relatively small
distance. Depending on the relative geometry of the two antennas, the
combined measurements can be turned into measurements of surface
topography, topographic change, or displacement over time. Advances
in techniques for measuring platform motion, and the advent of stable
spaceborne radar systems, have led to dramatic improvements in the
measurement capability of radar interferometry systems, where data
processing is automated to a much greater degree than in stereo
imaging (radar or optical). Mapping precision of around 2m in three
dimensions over a wide area is now possible from airborne
interferometric radars. Observations of large-scale surface deformation
at the millimeter-level have been reported over fault zones and
volcanically active regions. Surface ocean current speeds of less than
one meter per second have been measured.
This course provides an understanding of the basic principles and
applications of imaging radar and radar interferometry. The course
also reviews the design of interferometric radar systems and processing
algorithms. Limitations of radar interferometry are discussed and more
advanced techniques such as differential interferometry and
interferometry using longer wavelengths are addressed. The course
concludes with an overview of Earth science and commercial
applications of radar interferometry.
The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: tooie@sover.net (Tooie)
Date: 21 Sep 1996 00:24:10 GMT
Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
:
:*nothing of substance*
:
: "Safe" operation does not cause a TMI mass-negligence LOCA incident,
: a debacle beyond any conceivable excuse. "Safe" operation does not
: involve control operators falling asleep on the job in front of NRC
: regulators (as they did in Peach Bottom, I believe it was, shortly
: after the TMI incident).
Since the results of those events, and all other in the US, have had no
adverse effects on the general public, I feel that this is an excellent
example of safe operation.
: "Safe" operation does not result in
: undetected 5,000 gallon leaks of radiation contaminated water, as they
: had at that military storage depot in Washington (state). "Safe"
: operation does not cause uranium poisoning, as we saw in the Gulf war
: "friendly fire" accident.
Gee, I must too ignorant to understand how these involve the commercial
power industry.
: For more information, any public library will probably have many
: references for you to read. Since you appear to be claiming ignorance
: of the facts I mentioned, I suspect that you may never have examined
: the nuclear situation; I recommend that you do so now. One does not
: need to be a doctor of nuclear technology to see that there is, shall
: we say, a small safety problem.
Since I have a BSNE and years of experience in the commercial nuclear
power industry, I feel that I'm more than well versed in the pros and
cons of nuclear power, radiation, etc.
: Now, feel free to attack me and demand that I, alone, suddenly
: document any and all alleged incidents that ever saw the light of
: day. But I leave that task to you; I'm sure nothing I could ever say
: or do would ever convince you of the obvious.
Try documenting how nuclear power isn't safe for starters :-) Since it's
obvious that nuclear power is a safe and clean source of electricity, I
guess you could say I'm already convinced. Thanks for offering.
tooie
Subject: Scrubbing CO2 (was Re: Hydrogen Energy)
From: dietz@Jupiter.cin.net
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:56:53 +0000
> Let's hold on for a minute. Chemical engineering
> thermodynamics would imply that you can't get 100% scrubbing
> of CO2 with a strong base, and you would very likely use a
> large amount of excess base in the process. You will want to
> find a PhD type of chemical enginner who has done a lot of
> work in thermodynamics to verify this, but it is highly
> probable that it will be approximately as difficult to
> chemically scrub CO2 as it is to do it mechanically. In
> addition, once the excess sodium hydroxide is in the
> environment, you will find that you have merely substituted
> one problem for another. This sounds like a bad idea to me.
To address these points:
(1) I believe the partial pressure of CO2 over even a moderately
basic solution is quite small, so very strong bases would not be
required (reality check: the oceans were, before the recent CO2
perturbations, near saturation with CO2, yet they are not
extremely alkaline). I'm willing to listen to an argument that the
kinetics are unfavorable.
(2) Dumping excess base into the ocean is not a problem. Indeed,
it's an advantage -- if we make the ocean more alkaline, the ocean
itself (its surface layers, rather) have an increased capacity for
absorbing CO2. I proposed spraying to get around the slow
washing CO2 into the ocean by rain, in which CO2 is only sparingly
soluble.
(3) I don't see why mechanical scrubbing should be easier. After
all, spacecraft use chemical scrubbers, not mechanical scrubbers.
Compressing 3000 volumes of air to get at 1 volume of CO2 seems
to me to be quite a challenge to do economically.
Paul
Subject: Re: MTBers Trashing One of the Last Virgin Forests in Iowa!
From: gator@atcon.com
Date: 21 Sep 1996 03:13:28 GMT
In <32408A8C.3CAF@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman writes:
>S.J.Pratt wrote:
>-
>- Mike Vandeman writes:
>-
>- > My heritage is Dutch, but I can't see any reason to take a bike into the home
>- > of wildlife.
>-
>- There is one utterly simple reason: to enjoy the wildlife. To actually get
>- to see it. To breathe fresh air.
>
>You can walk, can't you? No reason to rip up the trails & destroy everyone
>else's experience, as well as drive out the wildlife that you came to see.
>
Miuke, where is this bulldozer/killer bike? I want one.
> Alternatively we could create little
>- sanctuaries of forestry, then put little video cameras in a few trees and
>- broadcast it. Hell, that'd be just as good, surely? No, of course not.
>- Yes, the forests are there - flora and fauna - to provide and maintain a
>- well balanced ecological cycle. But they're also there to be enjoyed.
>
>Says who? I don't think the wildlife would agree with you. From their point of view,
>I am sure they would rather be left alone. That is why most of them leave as soon as
>they see/hear us coming.
You are an amazing create Mike, day after day, you convey to us what wildlife thinks.
>
>The
>- fact that they were around long before us and our cities means not only
>- that they must be preserved but that they are for us to use and enjoy.
>
>You are begging the question. Who gave you the right to "use and enjoy"
>them?
Who gave you the right to say we can't?
>
>- By the way, if we are not Dutch, are we less likely to see a reason to
>- take a bike into the home of wildlife?
>
>Probably. The Dutch have destroyed most of their natural areas already, & are
>ready to do the same to others'.
The Dutch? Your paranoia has included the Dutch now?
>
>- > > My club sells stickers for 10 Guilders (about 5 dollars) that you stick to the
>- > > frame of the bike. The sticker allows you to use the trail for the running year
>- > > and the national parks service tells us were we're allowed to bike. All the
>- > > money that selling stickers brings in goes to the national parks service. Our
>- > > club (the mountainbikers themselves) maintain the trail.
>- > > It's a great success for all of us.
>- >
>- > Except for the wildlife, who wish you would stay out altogether. Including the
>- > ones that are extinct. Take their point of view for once!
>-
>- To my mind
>
>Of what value is your mind, if you aren't willing to learn, e.g. by seeing things
>from the point of view of wildlife.
Brain transplat Mike? Is tht what you had done? Crossed with a weasle perhaps?
>
> this Dutch system is the ideal way to maintain forests which are
>- used by groups such as mountain bikers. Those who use the trails pay to keep
>- them maintained... it's simple and effective.
>
>Effective in maintaining the trails, maybe, but not in keeping people out of
>wildlife habitat. You are missing the point.
>
> Anyone caught off limits gets
>- a spot fine which can help pay for trail maintenance, which keeps people
>- off of areas which are sensitive to erosion, and away from sectors of
>- sensitive fauna habitat.
>-
>- You seem to nurture the idea that wildlife drops dead within half a mile
>- of human intrusion: though I have no categorical evidence, I have absolute
>- confidence that the existence of a network of well-maintained trails
>- through a region of forestry has no effect on the wildlife within.
>
>I know. But you have no knowledge to back up your belief, which is based on
>complete ignorance of biology. You can find the information you need on my
>web page.
Your web page shows ignorance of humanity and nature. What could he learn there?
>
>- > > The Dutch philosophy is to make people use (but not abuse) the forests in order
>- > > to gain respect for plants and animals.
>- >
>- > If you "use" them too much, they get destroyed. Aldo Leopold called that "loving
>- > wilderness to death". You have already done that all over Europe!
>-
>- And if no-one uses them then no-one cares. There are minorities: you are in
>- one, in that you care deeply about all areas of wildlife, however it is an
>- undeniable (and perhaps unfortunate) fact that not all of society - far from
>- it - is so inclined. People always protect their own, it is human, and
>- animal, nature. If half the parks in my town were to be torn down, and half
>- those in yours were to be torn down also, would the same people protest each
>- action? Of course not, even though neither is less undesirable than the
>> other.
>
>Humans also are capable of compassion & altruism, or we would have NO parks.
>If not, we might as well all commit suicide, because we are WORTHLESS.
Parks? You've already tld us Mikey, that any nature area that includes people in
the design is flawed.
>
>- > > bicycles on the streets! But there's no better way of environmental
>- > > transportation than using a bike.
>- >
>- > On the street, yes, but not in the wilderness! There, walking is far superior!
>-
>- This is questionable, surely? There is a suggestion here that hikers cause
>- far less damage to the environment that bikers...
>
>That missed the point. Nobody is trying to decide whether to allow hikers OR
>bikers, but hikers alone, vs. hikers PLUS bikers. The former is obviously
>preferable.
Preferable is to make proper trails and allow everything not motorized.
>
> I would disagree. Firstly
>> there is the effect of the numbers involved. There are far more hikers than
>> cyclists in wild areas, and as a collective their effect is much more
>> noticeable, especially where paths constrict, such as gates or junctions.
>
>I see a lot more erosion damage from a few bikers, than from dozens of hikers.
>Bikers also travel a lot farther & make a lot more noise.
Excuse me Mikey? My bike makes no mre noise than the garbage you spew here.
Not to mention, I think a Wolf has sufficient hearing to know when you break wind
20 yards down the trail, forget a gear shift 10 yards down the trail.
Bikers stick to the trail, hikers feel compelled to explore for some reason, explain that
Mikey, you seem to be the resident expert on human and animal behavior.
>
>> The presence of a flock of walkers must be as disturbing to any wildlife
>> as a cyclist or two. In my experience, the only areas in which I have seen
>> large numbers of riders is near urban areas -- areas where it would be
>> almost laughable to suggest that a major detractor from the immediate
>> environment's condition was the presence of cyclists.
>
>Cyclists greatly increase the number of people who can access an area.
? I've never seen 5 bikes travel 5 abreast on a trail, trampling the skirting plant life,
I have however seen people who feel they must be side by side, do this on foot.
>
>> Furthermore, there is little reason to suggest that even on a one-
>> to-one basis the walker is 'far' superior. I agree that on the whole a
>> hiker is less detrimental than a cyclist. However, largely because hiking
>> is a more accessible activity (ie you don't need a bike) it attracts a
>> higher proportion of 'part-time' hikers. There are any number of terms for
>> the type, but call them what you will, there are those who go out with
>> little regard for the countryside: they are often careless with their
>> litter, leave gates open, allow their dogs to roam unleashed and so on.
>> I recognise that of course this is far from being true of every walker;
>> however my opinion is that the 'irresponsible minority' forms a higher
>> propotion of hikers than it does cyclists; and again accounting for the
>> larger number of hikers who use forests, the overall number concerned is
>> far greater.
>
>This is irrelevant. BOTH are harmful, as I have said many times, so we should
>reduce the numbers of visitors, by not allowing biking. YOUR proposal is to
If that is your aim, why not ban hiking? you'll get rid of even more people.
>increase the number of people. That makes no sense, given the degree to which
>you have already destroyed your environment, and are continuing to do so.
If anyone isn't making sense here, I'm talking to him.
>
>> > In my club
>> > > (app. 250 members) no mountainbiker has ever killed an animal.
>> >
>> > Perhaps because you have already chased most of them away!
>>
>> Surely better than killing them?
>>
>> Please lay to rest the concept that wildlife cannot cope with intrusion;
>> this is nonsense: the ecological systems involved are staggeringly complex
>> and effective.
>
>You need to learn something about biology! This is pure nonsense. Holland is
>a good example of environmental destruction, including wildlife. How many species
>have been driven extinct there? Find out, before you continue making no sense.
Think Mikey, how much of Holland would have drown by now were it not for humans?
>
>There can be few people who doubt that areas rich in wildlife
>> are worth preserving; however there is no reason why we should feel forced
>> to put it in a box and never touch it.
>
>If that is what is needed in order to save it, yes we should!
Then what is the point of saving it ? That is the flaw in your logic Mikey, you haven't
gotten the suporters you seek because no one wants to create a place to preserve
nature if they can't go see it for themselves.
>
>If we never see it, touch it, smell
>> it or experience it in any way then the only point of it being there is to
>> filter the air.
>
>So you believe that nature exists only to serve humans?!!! Why don't you make
>this explicit? I thought such thinking went out with the "Flat Earthers".
We all know what you want now Mikey, to get others to pay for a nature preserve that humans
can't access, except for you of course, you will have your own government payed for playgroud
so that you may continue to talk to the animals in peace.