Global warming alert!!!!!

[ChaseKenyon]

You guys and gals are letting me down here. I put up a poll expecting some sort of non-knee jerk input.

THis is what I am getting.



Agreed, Crichton's writing blows goats. Furthermore, State of Fear's science is dodgy, and the book has contributed to public misperceptions of science and scientists. One of many thoughtful critiques can be found here.
__________________


I'd stake my life on that fact that in a reaonable court of law Micheal Chrichton's "science" would not be found anywhere near as "DODGY" as the IPCC and the UNEP and The Center for Health and The Global Environment
at Harvard Medical school. As said elsewhere this attempt to take MC down only proves his point by it's very links and references as they have more bias than anyone else on the planet as their jobs depend on the hype of their unproven PC but not real conclusions. All they can do is attack the source not the data.


Here leads to UNEP which founded IPCC. So who is UNEP?


Science - Weighing the evidence
UNEP’s history with climate change science dates from the late 1980s when UNEP helped to establish the IPCC with WMO to assess the scientific understanding of climate change in preparation for the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, closed the case on questions about human influence on our changing climate. For this and its other work over the past 20 years, the IPCC was the joint winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
:mad:[/QUOTE]


THe very first page of the link at UCS Global environment Quotes only IPCC and you guessed it UNEP and it's red headed stepchild "The Center for Health and The Global Environment" at Harvard Medical school.

:eek:

[varadero]

Here you go Chase, I stepped out from these threads for a while, got sick of being insulted for expressing an opinion. Others are also tired of dodgy science.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/12/tree-ring-circus-global-warming-hysteria-might-be-/

[ChaseKenyon]

Maybe they got confused and mixed up a bioligist at a medical school with another DR McCarthy.


James McCarthy

Associate Professor


Background

Ph.D. (1999), M.A. (1994), Geography, University of California Berkeley

B.A. (1987) English/Environmental Studies, Dartmouth College


Contact

Address: 302 Walker Building,
Pennsylvania State University
University Park PA 16802
Phone: 814-863-1782
E-mail: jpm23@psu.edu

Research

My research interests center on environmental politics, the political economy of capitalist societies, and the relationships between those two domains. On the environmental front, I am interested in how people lay claim to and struggle over their environments, and in how human societies regulate their relationships with their environments and with what consequences: for instance, are those relationships just, are they sustainable, and how do they transform individuals, societies, and environments over time? On the political economy front, I am interested in the full spectrum of relationships involved in the historical and geographical development of capitalism, and in the same set of fundamental questions: are those relationships just, are they sustainable, and how do they transform individuals, societies, and environments over time?


My Environmental concern started in 1961 after being shown many things about nature by Amos George hereditary Western Peoquot caretaker of McLean's Game Refuge in CT. After HS I went to CSU Fort Collins on an advanced entrance program of study in Nuclear Physics and Atmospheric physics. I could not afford to stay there as I lost some funding and while transferring back to U of Hartford i got trapped by the you're not enrolled as you left your school and haven't started another yet clause of the draft.

So I spent four years in the NAVY. After that In 1974 I enrolled in the only Environmental Technology degree program in CT at NWCC.


Since then, before, during, and after, my time in robotics engineering I have always tried to stay up to date on the global state of atmospheric physics and the progress in atomic particle research.


I don't have the answers, but I have a pretty good feel for when I am being fed "signed on believer's from a part time after class JOB at the University or a bleeding heart political movement stance" of belief not understanding.

I have seen so much of the BS like shown in Penn and Tellers vids of petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
go to Penn and teller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull****!

Penn and teller gets you to this link if you scroll down about half a paragraph..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscientific



So I ask you folks to put forth serious links that are not PC necessarily on the subject of climate and atmospheric physics. Biologists at Harvard Medical are not in my humble opinion viable counter to teh work of Dr Singer who's work is NASA and independent not tied to the purse strings of UNEP and their clone the IPCC.

As Alston Chase so well put it:

“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power”.

That sums up my personal take on Al Gore, UNEP, IPCC, and company.

WE are the most independent think tank of educated (formal or self) individuals I have had the pleasure to know.:)

So let's get the keyboards working and run those links down to the last nitty gritty.:D

Maybe, just maybe, we actually can make a difference. If we have the goods I think I can still get us published. I can not do it alone and it can not be "consensus" It has to be not both sides but all six sides of a 3 dimensional cube. THAT, is true logic and reality to my mind.;):)

[Duncan Gibbs]

Chase, just because a very good number of people here don't agree with your views and strongly believe that this author you quote from has been roundly dismissed by a very good number of people, including those far more qualified to comment than both you or I, don't chuck a big hissy fit online and say people are being "knee jerk" in their responses. If you put someone like Crichton, a self obsessed publicity seeker if ever there was one, up on a pedestal you should be expecting rotten tomatoes.

Find an eminent climatologist with years of peer reviewed hard data and rigourous research behind them who disputes the general conclusions in the IPCC report, then you may get the kind of discussion you want. Putting Crichton up to discuss climate change is a bit like putting up David Irving as a shining example who understands the complexities of race relations.

[sdowney717]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Sky is falling, IPCC, Al Gore, and all their doom = Chicken Little stuff
the doom sayers kept on getting more elaborate creating stories creating the propaganda

[stevebaby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
Spoon bending? Auras? Clairvoyance?
Oddball,to say the least.
From wikipedia...
"As an adolescent Crichton felt isolated because of his height (at 6'9"). As an adult he was acutely aware of his intellect[citation needed] which often left him feeling alienated from the people around him. During the 1970s and 1980s he consulted psychics and enlightenment gurus to make him feel more socially acceptable and to improve his karma."
"At Harvard he developed the belief that all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind. He later wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us."
"Given the private way in which Crichton lived his life, his battle with throat cancer was not made public until his death. According to Crichton's brother Douglas, Michael was diagnosed with lymphoma in early 2008. He was undergoing chemotherapy treatment at the time of his death. Crichton's physicians and family members had been expecting him to make a recovery. He unexpectedly died of the disease on November 4, 2008."
Given his odd beliefs about the causes of disease, I can only assume that he committed suicide by disease.

[Uncle Duke]

Find an eminent climatologist with years of peer reviewed hard data and rigourous research behind them who disputes the general conclusions in the IPCC report, then you may get the kind of discussion you want
Duncan - that's not an option for Chase, he is strongly against peer-review as a valid method for separating the wheat from the chaff.

[sdowney717]

http://stickandstone.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-extremism.html

it is a religion of mother earth Gaia and zealots are evangelizing the agenda.

[LeeG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Sky is falling, IPCC, Al Gore, and all their doom = Chicken Little stuff
the doom sayers kept on getting more elaborate creating stories creating the propaganda

and you present the thesis of abiotic oil when there's nothing to support it.

[PeterSibley]

Duncan - that's not an option for Chase, he is strongly against peer-review as a valid method for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Chase like Chase reviewed .

[PeterSibley]

Duncan - that's not an option for Chase, he is strongly against peer-review as a valid method for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Chase prefers Chase reviewed .

[stevebaby]

http://stickandstone.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-extremism.html

it is a religion of mother earth Gaia and zealots are evangelizing the agenda.Maybe all the climatologists should join with the spirit of Michael Crichton and energize their auras,regain their karma and bend some spoons. :D

[ljb5]

Whaddaya think, Chase....

Should we get the Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation into the scientific basis for spoon bending and auras?

Or is that the type of government over-reach that you only support when it's done to others?

[ljb5]

...got sick of being insulted for expressing an opinion.

Don't be a crybaby.

You didn't get "insulted for expressing an opinion."

I challenged the validity of the scientific theory you presented. Please don't act like that's a personal attack; it's not.

Challenging science is a normal and healthy part of discourse... just as much when I challenge you as when you challenge me.

[varadero]

Lj its not you, I respect and enjoy my discourse with you, you at least discuss and I would never accuse you of Knee jerk.
Bobby

[Breakaway]

I am on the fence on this issue-- with perhaps a lean towards Crichtons POV. However, as far as peer review---didn't the recent events in which emails were revealed showing that scientists were found to be collaborating to consolidate their opinions?

Peer review is like self-policing--it can work, but everyone involved has to be honorable. IMO, people of science are no more immune from greed and power grabbing than anyone else. Whats the solution? I dont know. But I do think peer review should be taken with a large grain of NaCl.

[varadero]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it.
I believe Voltaire.

[Duncan Gibbs]

If one reads the emails they are actually trying to get set of extremely complicated sets of data through computer programmes that are having difficulty in outlining all the variable factors. Try loading Novel server or Cisco software packs on two identical machines and you'll know what I'm talking about.

This is not to say that scientific fraud has not taken place somewhere in the field of climate science. But to suggest, on the basis of a few instances being found, such as the Indian glaciologist's fraud, that the combined work of thousands of others is suspect, or worse still, bunk is hyperbole at its worst. To suggest that the peer review process is fundamentally flawed on the basis of isolated frauds that have been found and revealed by the scientific community itself, is to deny ALL the major achievements of science for the past one hundred and fifty years that have gone down in the history books and radically altered the way of life of most of the inhabitants of the planet.

Peer reviewed science has given us our way of life, and to suggest otherwise is to be blinded by BS of the worst kind.

[ChaseKenyon]

Duncan - that's not an option for Chase, he is strongly against peer-review as a valid method for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Let us not confuse Peer-review something I have participated in many times as submitter and as reviewer.

With the nasty little imposter that is called Consensus.

Consensus masquerading as peer review is suppression of ideas and scientific research on any subject. Whether that be oncology or robotics or atmospheric physics, or climate research.

Consensus is the thing I will not accept. Consensus happens when scientists get together and a majority here something or are presented with a platform or paradigm and they feel they should understand it but don't. Then they all nod their collective heads and the paradigm becomes consensus.

In 1983 Derrick Abbot's discovery of how to make sub micron ballistic transistors at the Gallium at the University of Adelaide Was a momentous achivement. There were some of us who said good by Kaypro and al this is going to drive Intell and AMD and all the rest to develope sub micron ballistic transistors in silicon. That will miniturize electronics like a revolution in capacity on a footprint. We were ballyhooed. The "Concensus" and common sense and official positions were it will take 20 years to do that in silicon. Gallium arsenide sub micron ballistics are just interesting and will not affect the future .


80286, 80386, 80486, and then the sub micron ballistic transistor based Pentium. all were in opposition to the "concsensus".:)

[ChaseKenyon]

Chase, just because a very good number of people here don't agree with your views and strongly believe that this author you quote from has been roundly dismissed by a very good number of people, including those far more qualified to comment than both you or I, don't chuck a big hissy fit online and say people are being "knee jerk" in their responses. If you put someone like Crichton, a self obsessed publicity seeker if ever there was one, up on a pedestal you should be expecting rotten tomatoes.


Which author would that be?

I haven't quoted anything by Michael Chrichton. In view of that would the content of your post be a klnee jek reaction to my p;osts and the poll?

Every thing I have quoted has been lurking directly in the links that have been posted by others to justify saying MC did not do his homework or his science is dodgy and so on. I have gon out of my way to point out that the quotes were al from the links in everyones responses not my links and not MC's links even. I may have quoted one or two of his footnote references, but I do not I thinkhave quoted him or his conclusions or appendices.

I asked if those who had read the book agreed or disagreed with his conclusions and was hoping to get some whys and links back. The links that have come back I have found to be more than a bit interesting. While they were intended to rebuke MC's conclusions to me they have mostly made his case.:)

[ChaseKenyon]

LJB nice to see you involved here. (I was born in VA)

Whaddaya think, Chase....

Should we get the Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation into the scientific basis for spoon bending and auras?


Actually This is the news for today


Are academics some special subspecies of hu- mans who are be- yond suspicion and above the law? That's the ques- tion being played out in a drama between Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the dead-end defenders of global warming's poster junk scientist, Michael Mann.

Mr. Cuccinelli is under assault by the climate-alarmist brigades for launching an investigation into whether any fraud against taxpayers occurred with respect to Mr. Mann's hiring by the University of Virginia and his receipt of government grants. Mr. Cuccinelli recently sent the university a civil investigative demand requesting e-mails and other documents pertaining to Mr. Mann.

Mr. Cuccinelli's rationale is simple to understand: Mr. Mann's claim to fame - the infamous "hockey stick" graph - is so bogus that one cannot help but wonder whether it is intentional fraud.

Developed in the late 1990s, while he was at the University of Massachusetts, Mr. Mann's hockey-stick graph purports to show that average global temperature over the past millennium was stable until the 20th century, when it spiked up, presumably because of human activity. The hockey stick was latched onto by the alarmist community, incorporated into government and United Nations assessments of climate science and held out to the public (particularly by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth") as proof that humans were destroying the planet.

But by the mid-2000s the hockey-stick graph was revealed for what it was - pure bunk.

Skeptics first became suspicious because the hockey stick failed to show two well-known periods of dramatic swings in global temperature - the so-called Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice Age. Mr. Mann's indignant refusal to share his data and methods with skeptics only added fuel to the fire. Eventually, skeptics discovered that the hockey stick's computer model would produce a hockey-stick graph regardless of what data was input. But it gets worse.

Mr. Mann apparently created the hockey stick by cherry-picking data he liked and deleting data he didn't like. While the vast majority of the hockey stick is based on temperature data extrapolated from tree rings going back hundreds of years, the tip of the blade (representing the late 20th century) was temperature data taken from thermometers. Beyond the obvious apples-and-oranges problem, Mr. Mann appended the thermometer data to the hockey stick at a point at which the tree-ring data actually shows cooling. This cooling trend data was then deleted. This is what is referred to by the now-famous "Climategate" phrase "Mike's Nature trick to ... hide the decline."


Varadero gave us the link.:)

[ChaseKenyon]

Norman

QUOTE]Originally Posted by ChaseKenyon
As Alston Chase so well put it:

“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power”.
It is an astute observation....

....and the best thing about it, is that it's completely free of bias, so it applies equally to GW deniers and GW supporters; neither side is free from the effect noted.
__________________[/QUOTE]


Oopps I am not quoting MC. But I do remember now that he also quoted that famous comment of Alston Chase's:)

[Breakaway]

Some more thoughts on peer review. One, I don't believe it is completely without merit, but...Two, there are leaders and followers in every group. Add to that that some people are just distracted by their lives, their own work, or whatever and will vote or express an opinion without giving it the attention it deserves just so they can move on. I'm saying that you cant take human nature out of scientific peer review. That being the case, a stamping Peer Reviewed on a document doesnt make it gospel in my book.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

The world is flat for some people. The world was created in 7 days 2500 years ago for some other people. So it goes. I don't have anything to say to people like this.

Scientific evidence is usually cumulative in nature, particular in a field such as climatology. People that don't want to take the time to study the range of cumulative evidence with usually come up with a easy answer. No problem, it's their prerogative. They're still wrong.

[Breakaway]

Conversely, however, lack of any peer review makes the study highly questionable.

Agreed. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not totally dismissive of peer review--its all we got. It should be in the mix. But what method would give me, a layman, enough trust in the opinions of those with such highly specialized knowledge to go along and agree completely, I don't know. I just don't know.

[Keith Wilson]

I'd stake my life on that fact that in a reaonable court of law Micheal Chrichton's "science" would not be found anywhere near as "DODGY" as the IPCC and the UNEP and The Center for Health and The Global Environment
at Harvard Medical school.Aside from the fact that a "court of law" is not the best way to test ideas about the physical world, I'm very glad you don't have to do that. Might be fatal.

[Mrleft8]

I'd love a little local global warming here right now.... :(

[ljb5]

Agreed. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not totally dismissive of peer review--its all we got. It should be in the mix. But what method would give me, a layman, enough trust in the opinions of those with such highly specialized knowledge to go along and agree completely, I don't know. I just don't know.

The foundation of science is not peer review, but rather repeatability and verifiability. (Which leads, in turn, to peer review)

The idea is that you can believe something because the evidence for it is as accessible to you as it is to anyone else. You don't have to take anyone's word for it... you can verify for yourself.

The church claimed to have some insight into 'The Truth' based on secret messages from invisible sources that were heard only be "special" people (prophets).

Scientists, in contrast, delighted in demonstrating their sources of knowledge and showing how anyone could repeat and verify their experiments.

Modern science, of course, is often too complex or expensive for the layperson to repeat, but there are huge sections of science, from simple Newtonian mechanics to advanced quantum mechanics and superconductivity, etc, which really are accessible to the layperson. Once you understand that complex science is based upon simple concepts, you realize that it becomes difficult to overthrow some ideas while still retaining others.

(Although, if you get in the habit of verifying stuff, you'll have to stop calling yourself a "layperson.")

In short, we, as scientists, believe in the science of global warming because we know it is based on so many other things which have been verified thoroughly.

[Duncan Gibbs]

Yup! The fundamentals are impossible to argue with really. The body of evidence is now so vast that to argue against it is a bit like creationists arguing against the fossil record. Almost any attempt I see to now to refute AGW is always a shot at picking around the edges and using the most inconsequential mistake or even (gasp) scientific fraud to implicate the 99% of data that is not under question. This is the same tactic that was used by big tobacco in their attempt to refute evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, or asbestos producers who attempted to deny the deadly effects of that product on human health.

I find it offensive when AGW deniers shout so hard and constantly you have to shout back to get a word in edgeways and end up frustrated, start saying you've become emotive and are now treating the science as religion.

[Duncan Gibbs]

What's not funny is that these people are now attacking scientists and science, saying they have some kind of vested interest in maintaining funding for university programmes and keeping their jobs, when the funding streams and salaries for academic staff look microscopic next to the profits of the fossil fuel industries. And contrary to the way the debate seems to be going right now, we are, globally, rapidly increasing our usage of fossil fuels; not the inverse. The targets that have set so far are barely paying lip service to any real attempt to reduce CO2 and other GHG atmospheric concentrations. So all the screaming about "new taxes" and "economies ruined" comes across in a manner far more deserving of the title of "Chicken Little" than those of us who suggest we should err on the side of caution and actually try to do something to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, which is a finite resourse anyway.

[Duncan Gibbs]

I'm looking forward to absolute waterfront at the head of an expansive and deeply crenulated bay - like the coast of Maine really. I'm already planning the revetments to my private harbour! :D

[LeeG]

whats funny is a lot of the same folks who worked for big tobacco in there pr campaign now work for the oil and gas industry in its pr campaign

and those like Milloy who worked for the tobacco industry is spreading the RWW bs that scientists are bending their findings for all that education money. Oh yeah. Those research assistants are just rolling in grant money driving off in their Mercedes Benz.

[Candyfloss]

Chase, I don't claim to be a genius, (as you have) but you really do need to be more careful in what you say, and how you say it, otherwise I have to assume that these are the ravings of a lunatic. At least turn your bloody spellcheck back on, and do try to speak in coherent sentences.

If you don't review your own work, and nobody else is allowed to, then it has no validity at all, does it?

[Candyfloss]

Sorry Boston. Has it not filtered through? You are one of the guys I admire here. "Boyles Boats" is another & his English is appalling. What I'm saying to Chase is that if he wants to present himself as a credible scientist, which I am sure he is, he needs to sharpen his act.

[ChaseKenyon]

LJB gotta totally agree with this part disagree with your conclusion.

The foundation of science is not peer review, but rather repeatability and verifiability. (Which leads, in turn, to peer review)

The idea is that you can believe something because the evidence for it is as accessible to you as it is to anyone else. You don't have to take anyone's word for it... you can verify for yourself.

The church claimed to have some insight into 'The Truth' based on secret messages from invisible sources that were heard only be "special" people (prophets).

Scientists, in contrast, delighted in demonstrating their sources of knowledge and showing how anyone could repeat and verify their experiments.

Modern science, of course, is often too complex or expensive for the layperson to repeat, but there are huge sections of science, from simple Newtonian mechanics to advanced quantum mechanics and superconductivity, etc, which really are accessible to the layperson. Once you understand that complex science is based upon simple concepts, you realize that it becomes difficult to overthrow some ideas while still retaining others.

(Although, if you get in the habit of verifying stuff, you'll have to stop calling yourself a "layperson.")
WE have the right to disagree .

I may come across as totally no climate change is happening and as anti global warming.

In fact my personal stance is I have yet to see proof.

Now with limited time I have not been able to do the research of every thread in every link as I do not have a staff of 20 grad students at my disposal. So I pick the thread in your posted links that sdems to follow the thought or core paradigm of the thread.


THe reason I keep posting seemingly on the deniers side is every single link that I follow for AGW and even GW to the bitter end ends in no data or even worse in circular proof masquerading as peer review.

When scientist no 2 references 1 as the source of key data and 3 references 2 as the single source of key data and 4 references 3 and 5 references 4 and go back to no 1 who has in advance references no 5's paper a a source you are dealing with a closed group. In my conference management as chair days in robotics I came across this on a regular basis. I often had to throw out multiple papers and report those to their institutions. So I have experience in spotting this circular peer review and support syndrome. It is almost always tied to the same set and sources of grant money. Grants for xxabc tend to get 5 or more folks from different institutions trying to get grants to prove xxabc.

This is the thing that destroys my acceptance of most of the AGW camps claims.

Now as said I cant follow as I stated earlier in this thread every lead in every link given back to me by posters to the bitter end. But I can follow the main paradigm leads present in every link. The"better end" seems to end in no data or circular references 98% of the time.

So i have to be in the prove it camp.

FIRST QUOTE OF MC: TAKE NOTE:

When A pseudo science takes hold like Eugenics did from 1900 to the end of WWII the first thing is to state it as agreed accomplished done deal. Instead of proving the theory now the non believers have to did prove it. It is an age old method of changing the burden of proof from the theorists to the EMPIRICAL RESEARCHERS. This was used by the Catholic Church to VIRTUALLY stop all scientific development for over 900 years.

[ljb5]

I see your point, Chase, but I think you're looking at the wrong chain of key data.

These are the facts that aren't in questions and don't hinge upon a single researcher:


Humans burn fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide has a different absorption/transmission/reflection spectra than normal atmospheric gases.
An alteration in the absorption/transmission/reflection spectra will alter the thermal balance between the earth, sun and space.


All of this can be verified (by anyone) with the conventional tools of science. We can use chemical analysis to determine what coal is made of and what gases it produces when burned. We can use spectroscopy to measure absorption spectra, and we can study blackbody radiation (a simplified model), or terrestrial radiation (a very similar, but more nuanced model).

More importantly, we can see how it's all inter-connected to other areas of science and based upon scientific principles which we consider rock-solid.

You cannot deny the basic principles of global warming science without also denying the basic principles of every other type of science which we know has a very, very long history or being proved right.

If you want to deny the composition of coal or oil, you must be willing to uproot our understanding of compositional analysis of everything.

If you want to deny the transmission spectra of CO2, you must be willing to refute everything we know about spectroscopy.

If you want to deny black body radiation..... well, good luck with that, cause it ain't gonna happen.

================================================== ==================================

We can go into as much detail as you want about the actual scientific basis of global warming, but I see you'd rather talk about Michael Crichton, the Catholic Church and eugenics, which are fields totally unrelated.

If you were serious about the subject, you'd be more interested in spectroscopy and thermodynamics.

[ChaseKenyon]

LJB


Carbon dioxide has a different absorption/transmission/reflection spectra than normal atmospheric gases.
An alteration in the absorption/transmission/reflection spectra will alter the thermal balance between the earth, sun and space.

If carbon dioxide is less than 0.039 % of the atmospheric gases ( and what smaller percentage is anthropogenic?). That is a fact.

So just going to the first link on google for "carbon dioxide percentage of the atmosphere" we get this.


Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state. CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.

As of April 2010, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Taking all this into account, the concentration of CO2 grew by about 2 ppm in 2009.[2] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.

So are you telling me that 0.039 of the atmosphere is human caused and is the controlling factor in Global Warming?

Would you show me scientific empirical data on things we already know from real world testing where a component of less than 0.04 % as a trace element is the controlling factor in a chemical reaction.

I can't find any in any of my textbooks. So I am, admittedly putting the burden of proof of even possibility of
391 ppm by volume being the control forcing in a chemical reaction. Show concrete empirical examples of how a 0.039 % of the existing GreenHouse Gases is the control factor on the sunlight transmission to the surface. Show any case where that percentage of atmospheric gases has caused a change in weather. I am open but still see no proof.

It DEFIES EVERY KNOWN LAW IN PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY to claim that this low trace percentage is the controlling factor in anything.

I am by choice and career a predominately empirical scientist and engineer.

AS I said prove it.

I am very interested in Thermodynamics and spectroscopy.

My examples of how the catholic church and eugenics disavowed science are true and valid as a point in this discussion.

The political entity UNEP of the UN created the IPCC.

Neither has do date come forth with a set of conclusive EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPORT ANY OF THEIR POSITIONS.

I do not deny
deny the transmission spectra of CO2 , however I repeat again it is only 0.039 % of the GHG layer.

THat still has not and probably can not be proven to be the controlling factor in the effects GHG may be having on the temperatures and such on the planets surface. The light transmissive difference increased CO2 has caused on the
absorption/transmission/reflection spectra of the GHG layer is down around "delta" 0.00028%.

You are claiming that is the source for all climate change and is anthropogenic?

It is not logical to "believe" in that.

It is a form of societal populism of a "faith" like a religion to believe that.

To believe that % is all man made and is causing GW is so far from any kind of science it is ludicrous.


We are going to change the laws of the world and tax all carbon users and give insane control of nations over to the UN for 0.00028% of which maybe 25% is man made?

[Duncan Gibbs]

So are you telling me that 0.039 of the atmosphere is human caused and is the controlling factor in Global Warming?

Would you show me scientific empirical data on things we already know from real world testing where a component of less than 0.04 % as a trace element is the controlling factor in a chemical reaction.

LSD

Tick poison

Stronium 90 (Remember that Russian guy the revamped KGB did in in London about ten or 15 years ago).

And that's not even trying Chase.

At this point in time the World consumes (burns) well over one cubic kilometre of liquid petroleum a year. We consume (burn) far more of both brown and black coal each year. Once it is burnt a very large proportion of it is converted to a gas (it expands). The quantities involved each year make the volcanic contribution to atmospheric pollution look meek indeed. Now multiply these quantities over the last 150 years starting with smaller amounts and focusing on coal to begin with, but exponentially increase the rate of consumption each year and a clear picture begins to develop.

Now think about how long it took for all this carbon that we're burning off at such an increasing rate to actually be laid down in the Earth's substrate. Hint: It took WAAAAAAY longer than 150 years.

[ChaseKenyon]

Duncan,


At this point in time the World consumes (burns) well over one cubic kilometre of liquid petroleum a year. We consume (burn) far more of both brown and black coal each year. Once it is burnt a very large proportion of it is converted to a gas (it expands). The quantities involved each year make the volcanic contribution to atmospheric pollution look meek indeed. Now multiply these quantities over the last 150 years starting with smaller amounts and focusing on coal to begin with, but exponentially increase the rate of consumption each year and a clear picture begins to develop.


This all may be true. I have concerns about our pollution and have since the 60s. I was studying and planning a career In environmental technology in the early/mid 70s. pollution is an ongoing problem. But that does not make CO2 a Pollutant.

Nor does it prove that CO2 has anything to do with the GHG layer other than as a 0.00028 effector on reflectivity of the layer as a trace element.

your "clear picture " is not clear at all.

Are you saying that we create lots of CO2 so that must be an anthropogenic cause of GHG changes.

That is like saying there always clouds in the sky when it rains so rain must cause the clouds.

Water vapor is THE operating major force in GHG. To ignore empirical data and create climate models that do not account for DihydrogenMonoxide (that nasty est at 98% of GHG) poison is a model that can not be valid. When that non empirical model than claims a 0.039% trace element is the cause of and is causing global warming is beyond ludicrous. To then claim that it's 0.00028 % of delta of reflectivity Is the cause of GW is even crazier.

The IPCC models don't just ignore DihydrogenMonoxide, they do not account for it as 96% of GHG. The models do not account for DihydrogenMonoxide being 99.9 % of the GHG layers reflectivity. NO the models say that CO2 at 0.00028 of which anthropogenic generation is 25% is causing the GW from reflectivity changes.

If you want to believe GW is happening and it is all anthropogenically caused by our CO2 generation as our 25 % of CO2 causes a 0.00007 % delta change in GHG layer reflectivity makes logical sense, then you are being duped. Duped by a political org the UNEP and their stepchild the IPCC. THe UNEP is about global laws and solidifying control over many countries through taxation. A world carbon tax. To have a world govt type agency with control based on a trace element of 0.039% of our GHG layer.

You believe this?

I Got a bridge to sell you bring your checkbook.


..

[ChaseKenyon]

Let's get one thing straight here.

Back in the early 70s I fought and campaigned and ran gatherings and went to endless town halls working on getting the Housatonic (full of PCBs) and the Connecticut rivers cleaned up. We were not paid activists. We were concerned citizens and volunteers all of us. We won and the rivers got cleaned up and now have fish and can actually be safely navigated and swum in.


I have been active in environmental issues since 1967 or so.

Where were you in 1974? What were you doing back then to "save the environment"?

When I have been actively trying to save the environment since 1967 or so it irks me to hear over and over how I don't care and can't see what is obvious.

The issue of Anthropogenicly caused by CO2 global warn=ming has not yet been proven empirically.
It is a theory based on a model that ignores the 96% of GHG.

Ludicrous.

The billions of dollars that have been spent on it already would have been better spent on real issues that are not politically generated like starvation and know environmental disasters like all the mining waste dumps and ponds in this country and world wide that are poisoning our waters and aquifers.

Those are empirically proven problems with empirically proven solutions. Just needing funding to save our environment.

Let's do something real with real science behind it, and get off the political band wagon and stop being sheep. THe german NAZI gas chambers were built with USA coprorate and federal grants funding before the WWII as part of the US and German eugenics programs. This IPCC GW and AGW thing is just as flawed as the eugenics 6 million jews and 4 million others just in Germany.

"But everyone believed in it" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE.

I want to see that kind of money spent on things that are proven and are not a path to political control of all world wide economies.

After over 40 years as an environmental activist the AGW thing is the worst piece of empirically unsubstantiated POS I have ever seen.
THat is my personal status at this time..


LSD

Tick poison

Stronium 90 (Remember that Russian guy the revamped KGB did in in London about ten or 15 years ago).

And that's not even trying Chase.

IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THE EMPIRICAL PROOF ASKED FOR BY SOMEONE JUST ATTACK THEIR PERSON BY DERISION OR ANYTHING ELSE TO MAKE THEM SEEM LIKE THE FAKE.

I am still waiting for the empirical data and the proof of 0.039% as trace elements being the control element in a situation.

Attacking me personally is still not providing proof.

I am not attacking anyone personally, and I do not do drugs.

Why an I being attacked then.


Tick poison

Stronium 90 (Remember that Russian guy the revamped KGB did in in London about ten or 15 years ago).

And that's not even trying Chase.


How about responding with the proofs I have asked for?

Just easier I guess to attack me than to provide a post with anyh real content or value.

[Mrleft8]

If this last week is any indication....... I'm all in favor of global warming......At least locally....And temporarilly....

[ljb5]

It DEFIES EVERY KNOWN LAW IN PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY to claim that this low trace percentage is the controlling factor in anything.

You obviously don't know anything about semiconductor physics.

What's the intentional doping concentration in a modern CMOS device? What's the maximum permissible level of unintentional doping?

How much copper contamination would destroy the functionality of a silicon based IC?

How much iron contamination would destroy a fiber optic cable?

Do you know what happens if you dope Y3Al5O12 with 1% neodymium? Do you know what happens if you don't?

Where do you thing diamonds get their colors? A few atoms, much less than 1% can totally change the color (absorption/reflection/transmission spectra) of the diamond and alter its value by an order of magnitude.

You have revealed your ignorance yet again.

[ljb5]

From Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_(semiconductor))


Magnetic doping

Research on magnetic doping has shown that considerable alteration of certain properties such as specific heat may be affected by small concentrations of an impurity; for example, dopant impurities in semiconducting ferromagnetic alloys can generate different properties as first predicted by White, Hogan, Suhl and Nakamura.[7][8]


The number of dopant atoms needed to create a difference in the ability of a semiconductor to conduct is very small. When a comparatively small number of dopant atoms are added, on the order of one per 100 million atoms, the doping is said to be low or light. When many more dopant atoms are added, on the order of one per ten thousand atoms, the doping is referred to as heavy or high. This is often shown as n+ for n-type doping or p+ for p-type doping. (See the article on semiconductors for a more detailed description of the doping mechanism.)

[Duncan Gibbs]

Let's get one thing straight here.

Indeed!



IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THE EMPIRICAL PROOF ASKED FOR BY SOMEONE JUST ATTACK THEIR PERSON BY DERISION OR ANYTHING ELSE TO MAKE THEM SEEM LIKE THE FAKE.

I am still waiting for the empirical data and the proof of 0.039% as trace elements being the control element in a situation.

Attacking me personally is still not providing proof.

I am not attacking anyone personally, and I do not do drugs.

Why an I being attacked then.


I'm not! You asked for proof of things that can be added to a living system in very small quantities compaired with the whole they are being added to and I provided you with three: LSD, the poison of a tick bite and stronium 90. LSD is untraceable in almost every drug test devised, because it's delivered in such microscopic quantities there's simply not enough of it to show up. But it does, undeniably, alter a human quite dramatically for a good many hours. If you've taken it, more power to you: I have and it was fun. Stronium 90 can be administered in even smaller quantities by many orders of magnitude, but once in the system WILL kill a person.

But if you really want me to attack you then I will, but saying that you come across here a paranoid delusional obsessed with a grand conspiracy theory of a World tax, (which IME is usually followed by the crazy notion of a World Government), and you seem as obsessed by this issue as Sam F is by abortion and defending Catholicism at all costs.

But I do believe you to be a fine fellow in all other respects and applaud the work you with wooden boat building.

I did try to put up a post this morning that CO2 is actually quite a necessary component of the atmosphere, but too much or too little of it will radically alter the Earth's climate, but I lost my connection (wireless :mad:). Historical CO2 concentrations have been used by a great number of scientific disciplines as a benchmark to determine climatic and conditions for life on Earth for quite some time. Deforestation is also linked to higher concentrations of CO2 as well. Our whole lifestyle of dum consumerism and the concomitent general environmental damage is another aspect that has to be addressed at the same time as our use of fossil fuels, which I restate, are not in infinite supply.

To say that I'm not interested in attacking these other major environmental problems because I understand pumping additional amounts of all the different GHGs, including CO2 into the atmosphere to be a major threat is, quite frankly, insulting and a gross presumption on your part.

Once more with feeling. If you want us to take your arguments seriously, then you had better take ours seriously and not jump to ridiculous conclusions about us, like those stated above.

[varadero]

The science does not seem to be settled,following is an interview with a Harvard astro physicist.
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Harvard-astrophysicist-dismisses-AGW-theory-challenges-peers-to-take-back-climate-science

[varadero]

Mrleft, it is not just you.
http://www.iceagenow.com/2009_Other_Parts_of_the_World.htm

[Duncan Gibbs]

Examiner.com is down for maintenance

I'll have a look in the morning.


http://www.iceagenow.com/2009_Other_..._the_World.htm

Well part of the predicted shift in climate is that there will be more extremes in weather. (Note the use of the word "weather" as opposed to the use of the word "climate" here). Not all parts of the planet will get warmer as well. If there was a very even distribution of land-mass and ocean and ocean currents and high level jet-streams were all perfectly symmetrical maybe the planet would warm evenly. Just think about how air-conditioning is so variable (hot/cold zones metres apart) within a single office space and then apply this variability to a whole planet.

The modelling is complex in the extreme and no-one who says that global warming is real is saying "this will happen." Rather the phraseology is, "This may happen," or "This is a possibility."

Once again, the idea is that the cautionary principle should apply; that action to mitigate catastrophic climate change should be undertaken with a whole raft of positive changes in society to reduce mindless consumption of the Earth's precious resources (including crude, coal and gas amongst other non-renuable minerals), reduce mindless consumerism, understand on a society wide level how things get made and where the resources to make them come from and how they are disposed of when they break/become obsolete.

I am wholly in favour of anything that will place a direct cost on the act of environmental/marine/atmospheric degradation.

[elf]

Which brings me back to my question. Why is it so hard for people like Chase to prepare for this climate change instead of resisting it so vigorously? The opportunities for research, invention, new types of work, investment, are myriad, but there is some reason that people like Chase are so resistant to those attractions.

[Hot Air]

Chase, don't resist - especially if you are going to do it vigorously. They just want to offer you a "myriad" of "attractions." Where is the harm in that? Imagine a world free of mindless consumption and icky consumerism. That's right, it will be a cooler world. And if it gets a little too cool, then all they will have to do is encourage a little more mindlessness to crank temperatures up to where they belong again. It is so simple I don't know why you don't see it? Again, don't resist. Just believe. And if at the end of the day it turns out to be all a crock you will be content in the knowledge that you behaved well for the wrong reasons.

[Duncan Gibbs]

Glad to see the advocates of stupidity and gross thoughtlessness haven't gone completely to ground! :rolleyes:

[varadero]

Its all going to be all right, oil and coal are a finite resource, we are going to have to find alternatives as the costs make traditional fuels too expensive, or the rarety means we wont be able to find adequate amounts. Then the CO2 levels will drop and we will have to find a source of some other GHG to warm the planet as the current interglacial period ends.

[Hot Air]

Duncan, I'm simply advocating that Chase gets smart like you and stops buying crap he doesn't need so as to bring the world to the perfect temperature.

[LeeG]

besides our kids will be dead when that happens so let their kids deal with it. We got ours. One little problem is that when homo saps starts squeezing the earth for more fuels it'll require more fuel to get it out and some of those sources emit more C02 and pollutions, tar sands for example. But that's for our great grandkids to deal with.

[Hot Air]

Damn right LeeG. Bring the temperature down now. What is the target temperature where you live? I know what I want to see the temperature at here.

[varadero]

Its about 14C here right now. Nice if it was 18-20C.

[Hot Air]

We will leave it to peer-reviewed scientists to decide what temperature is "nice." I don't believe you are qualified to decide what is "nice."

[LeeG]

14C sounds lovely, it's 17 here. How about Brian in Afghanistan? What's the temp 2000' up in the air?

[ljb5]

Hey guys, let's try to keep it factual.

Mr. Kenyon challenged a point of science:

DEFIES EVERY KNOWN LAW IN PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY to claim that this low trace percentage is the controlling factor in anything.

In posts 49 and 50, I provided him with several very clear and well-documented examples to prove that he is mistaken.

That should be the end of the argument right there.

I do expect, of course, that Mr. Kenyon will have the decency and integrity to admit he is mistaken.... although realistically, it doesn't matter if he admits it or not.

[LeeG]

it's that fuzzy logic I read about, words are momentarily stripped from their meaning in a millisecond of thought then reassembled before delivery.

[LeeG]

there will always be dissenters and that is actually a good thing, to have a few folks out there looking for a hole or two in any given theory. But to suggest that simply because one or two folks are not in agreement yet, that the entire science of climate studies has its data all wrong is just silly

cheers
B

if only Science made clear declarations like "in the beginning was the Word"

[varadero]

astro-physics is not climate science

what is interesting is that among climate scientists ~90 to 97% of scientists agree that human emissions is responsible for the recent warming event

simple logic would indicate that even among well educated scientists within the climate science field 3 to 10% could be found that will present dissenting opinions

it in no way negates the 90 to 97% of other scientists within the climate science field that do find agreement within the data

this also does not mean that there isn't one of the largest levels of consensus that has ever existed within the sciences, theories like the big bang and evolution do not enjoy as high a level of consensus as does the theory of rapid global climate shift.

there will always be dissenters and that is actually a good thing, to have a few folks out there looking for a hole or two in any given theory. But to suggest that simply because one or two folks are not in agreement yet, that the entire science of climate studies has its data all wrong is just silly

cheers
B

"Dr Willy Soon, a solar and climate scientest at the Harvard Smithsonian". B do you have a link from a peer reviewed parer or article that can substantiate your 97% figure.

[varadero]

I agreed with AGW theory 15 months ago also. Since then my, and many others opinions have changed. Got a more up to date version, post climate gate, and subsequent unravelling of the whole story?

[Kaa]

what is interesting is that among climate scientists ~90 to 97% of scientists agree that human emissions is responsible for the recent warming event (emphasis mine)

Per your own link:


Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?To illustrate the difference: Most people would agree that more relaxed and free sexual attitudes are a significant factor in the spread of AIDS. Are sexual attitudes responsible for the spread of AIDS?

Kaa

[Hot Air]

Willy Soon is not qualified to speak on climate matters as he is not an expert in Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric Dynamics, Historical Climatology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, Soil Science, Geology, Oceanography, Biology, Paleoclimatology, Oceanography, Glaciology, Ecophysiology, Mathematical modelling, Mathematical statistics. Any official climate scientist is expert in all these disciplines.

Like Boston pointed out, Willy Soon is just an Astro-physicist and everyone knows the sun has almost nothing to do with climate.

[elf]

And I know many climate scientists in Woods Hole and none of them doubts the theory either.

[Finn Bay]

The graph shows things going wrong well before 0 BP so this could have nothing to do with people according to the information provided.:D

[varadero]

Here is another University of Alabama.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/quotscience_help_usquot/interview_global_warming_skeptic_dr_roy_spencer

[varadero]

You guys really aught to keep your loose cannon scientests under control. Like the UK did with Kelly.:(

[ljb5]

I do expect, of course, that Mr. Kenyon will have the decency and integrity to admit he is mistaken.... although realistically, it doesn't matter if he admits it or not.

[Captain Intrepid]

Nor does it prove that CO2 has anything to do with the GHG layer other than as a 0.00028 effector on reflectivity of the layer as a trace element.

I'd say when you're talking about a system that's hit by 5.5x10^23 joules of of solar energy a year, a very small change in reflectivity and energy absorption could make a very big difference over a long period of time.

[ljb5]

"Dr Willy Soon, a solar and climate scientest at the Harvard Smithsonian".

Boy, you really can pick em!

Dr. Soon circumvented peer review to get his shoddy research published -- against the legitimate objections of many scientists.

Surprise, surprise... he's funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

I'm betting you didn't even know that. You probably read only a little about him, decided he would suit your purposes and then failed to investigate further. :rolleyes:

That's a problem you will encounter over and over again because you seek out people who agree with you, rather than seeking out facts. I'm not sure you understand the difference.

[ChaseKenyon]

ljb


You obviously don't know anything about semiconductor physics.

What's the intentional doping concentration in a modern CMOS device? What's the maximum permissible level of unintentional doping?

How much copper contamination would destroy the functionality of a silicon based IC?

How much iron contamination would destroy a fiber optic cable?

Do you know what happens if you dope Y3Al5O12 with 1% neodymium? Do you know what happens if you don't?

Where do you thing diamonds get their colors? A few atoms, much less than 1% can totally change the color (absorption/reflection/transmission spectra) of the diamond and alter its value by an order of magnitude.

You have revealed your ignorance yet again.
__________________


You obviously are much more familiar with semi conductor fabrication than I am. I have followed and searched and found the sources of your quotes which you did not provide links for.


Doping, while it controls the conductivity Which is our usage mode of semiconductors, does not control the growth of silicon or gallium arsenide crystals.

So yes as to our usage of said crystals the
f one per 100 million atoms, the doping is said to be low or light. When many more dopant atoms are added, on the order of one per ten thousand atoms, the doping is referred to as heavy or high. does control the properties of our usage modus.

It does not control the actual growth of the crystals only the conductance characteristics.

So you are right in one way and maybe not in the other.



You obviously don't know anything about semiconductor physics.

What's the intentional doping concentration in a modern CMOS device? What's the maximum permissible level of unintentional doping?

How much copper contamination would destroy the functionality of a silicon based IC?

How much iron contamination would destroy a fiber optic cable?

Do you know what happens if you dope Y3Al5O12 with 1% neodymium? Do you know what happens if you don't?

Where do you thing diamonds get their colors? A few atoms, much less than 1% can totally change the color (absorption/reflection/transmission spectra) of the diamond and alter its value by an order of magnitude.


You have revealed your ignorance yet again.


You sir from my upbringing could use a course in manners.

I never claimed to be an expert in that field as you obviously are.


Searching for your quotes I did come across a lot of interesting information.

I have my fields of specialty and yes like most of us who are not experts in everything, my world view tend to originate from the base of what I am relatively expert in.



In posts 49 and 50, I provided him with several very clear and well-documented examples to prove that he is mistaken.

That should be the end of the argument right there.

I do expect, of course, that Mr. Kenyon will have the decency and integrity to admit he is mistaken.... although realistically, it doesn't matter if he admits it or not.
I just got a chance to get back on the PC.

You sir LJB5 of anonymous fame seem to need instant gratification of your posts. You really need to stop automatically dissing people on a personal note just because they have not responded immediatly to your posts. It seems to be your primary modus operandi.

There are probably lots of subjects you can bury me on, and vice versa..

That is no reason to be rude or to attack a person's integrity.

[ChaseKenyon]

Duncan,

I apologize, I mistook what you were posting.


I'm not! You asked for proof of things that can be added to a living system in very small quantities compaired with the whole they are being added to and I provided you with three: LSD, the poison of a tick bite and stronium 90. LSD is untraceable in almost every drug test devised, because it's delivered in such microscopic quantities there's simply not enough of it to show up. But it does, undeniably, alter a human quite dramatically for a good many hours. If you've taken it, more power to you: I have and it was fun. Stronium 90 can be administered in even smaller quantities by many orders of magnitude, but once in the system WILL kill a person.

But if you really want me to attack you then I will, but saying that you come across here a paranoid delusional obsessed with a grand conspiracy theory of a World tax, (which IME is usually followed by the crazy notion of a World Government), and you seem as obsessed by this issue as Sam F is by abortion and defending Catholicism at all costs.

But I do believe you to be a fine fellow in all other respects and applaud the work you with wooden boat building.


Historical CO2 concentrations have been used by a great number of scientific disciplines as a benchmark to determine climatic and conditions for life on Earth for quite some time. Deforestation is also linked to higher concentrations of CO2 as well. Our whole lifestyle of dum consumerism and the concomitent general environmental damage is another aspect that has to be addressed at the same time as our use of fossil fuels, which I restate, are not in infinite supply.

To say that I'm not interested in attacking these other major environmental problems because I understand pumping additional amounts of all the different GHGs, including CO2 into the atmosphere to be a major threat is, quite frankly, insulting and a gross presumption on your part.


I have read some of the stuff on deforestation and CO2 and some valid counters to it. The other pollutants like SO2 and so on concern me much more than CO2.

No insult intended and again I apologize for any aspersions.

[ljb5]

You obviously are much more familiar with semi conductor fabrication than I am.

I am glad you understand that fact.


Doping, while it controls the conductivity Which is our usage mode of semiconductors, does not control the growth of silicon or gallium arsenide crystals.

Are you sure?

What experimental methods have you used (or would you use) to verify that fact?

Are you experienced with SEM, TEM, LEED, AFM, X-ray diffraction and various forms of magnetometry and optical probes such as second harmonic magneto-optical Kerr effect?

What do you know about XPS, WDS or Auger? Nothing? Okay.

Aren't you familiar with Max Lagally's rather famous research into the formation of silicon nanhuts and Dr. Craighead's manipulation of nanoscale strain mechanisms?

No? Then stop trying to tell me what you think you know.


It does not control the actual growth of the crystals only the conductance characteristics.

Again... please describe the empirical evidence to support that claim.

If you do not have the empirical evidence to support that claim, please refrain from making such a claim!


I never claimed to be an expert in that field as you obviously are.

I never mistook you for one.

Why are you trying to make strong, categorical declarations about subjects which you admit you are not an expert in?

You admit you're not an expert, so for God's sake, stop trying to act like one --- especially in ALL CAPS, like you did in post #44.

[ChaseKenyon]

elf


Which brings me back to my question. Why is it so hard for people like Chase to prepare for this climate change instead of resisting it so vigorously? The opportunities for research, invention, new types of work, investment, are myriad, but there is some reason that people like Chase are so resistant to those attractions.
__________________

The climate is always changing in all parts of the world. Some parts are getting warmer some colder as previously posted about Paris and Spain setting cold records of April and May.

What I am resisting is putting blinders on and following whatever comes out of the IPCC a politically owned group of the self stated political advocacy group the UN's UNEP and super politician Al Gore.


WE need to spend more time listening to those qualified scientists who are no longer in the job market dependent on industry or what happens to be politically correct or is within the bounds of news sensationalism (headline Florida sinking and such).

I am careful not to come to conclusions. I admit to putting more stock in the retired and not owned by any faction scientists. I believe that is wise.

[ChaseKenyon]

hot air

Duncan, I'm simply advocating that Chase gets smart like you and stops buying crap he doesn't need so as to bring the world to the perfect temperature.


I don't personally know anyone who buys less and finds and restores more stuff from cars to woodworking tools. Newest car I have owned in a long while like 20 + years is a 1999 model I bought last June.:D

[ljb5]

I find it odd that you start off trying to make strong, definitive declarations about science, but end up making weak, irrelevant remarks about personalities and personal habits.

Since global warming is largely a science-based topic, could you make an effort to talk about the scientific facts?

We know, for example, that an extremely small amount of boron can change the spectra of a diamond (also, make it a semiconductor and change its value).

Why should we not therefore conclude that an extremely small amount (or comparatively large amount) of CO2 might change the spectra of the atmosphere?

I don't care what type of car you drive and neither do the photons.

[ChaseKenyon]

ljb


Boy, you really can pick em!

Dr. Soon circumvented peer review to get his shoddy research published -- against the legitimate objections of many scientists.

Surprise, surprise... he's funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

I'm betting you didn't even know that. You probably read only a little about him, decided he would suit your purposes and then failed to investigate further.

That's a problem you will encounter over and over again because you seek out people who agree with you, rather than seeking out facts. I'm not sure you understand the difference.
__________________
Competence matters.



Five percent of the Soon-Baliunas study's budget ($53,000) was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.[

your factoid is a bit thin on this on my friend.

As you and I have butted heads on before:rolleyes:


I do not agree that having 5% funding on a specific project of a scientist from a source means that the scientist is employed and or owned in total by said source.

[ljb5]

That's five percent.

What else?


At the time Soon and Baliunas were also paid consultants of the Marshall Institute

Oh.

[ChaseKenyon]

ljb get real


especially in ALL CAPS, like you did in post #44.


less than two sentences acually only two phrases in the entire post were in caps.:eek:


Your above comment is just more exaggeration of the truth focused at or against an individual on the WBF.:rolleyes:



I give anyone who wants to attack me on this forum more than enough good fodder. I am disappointed that you have to exaggerate like that when my list of real blunders is so extensive.:D

[ljb5]

less than two sentences acually only two phrases in the entire post were in caps.:eek:

Just the part where you claimed to know something about the laws of physics, which (coincidentally) was the part where you were completely mistaken.

You were wrong. Show some integrity: admit it, change your stance and stop being wrong.

[ChaseKenyon]

Dr. Singer and his results from NASA satelite make sense to me.

Al Gore does not and never has even when he was in Washington.

So yes I am going to continue to be a hard sell on GW and especially AGW.

THat does not mean I am closed on the subject. Unlike most of the AGW camp most of the folks I know who are "deniers" are not closed on the subject, just holding saying this or that does not make sense and expecting more proof of the subject being closed. only those in the AGW camp have declared it closes as in accepted laws of physics. Where would science be if everything was "closed" in 1901:

I would love to meet with you and discuss many topics. You seem to be a very knowledgeable intelligent person (even if you do get a bit wound up I do too from time to time). Without passion there never would be or would have been any science. So our passion is a good thing I believe.

Hope you have a good weekend.


Chase

[ljb5]

You're just playing Hopscotch.

You were proven wrong on one issue, so you've decided to ignore it and hop to another issue.

Show some integrity.

Admit you were wrong, sit back for a moment and think about if you really know stuff, or if you merely want to believe.

Since you were obviously wrong on this issue, you ought to (at the very least) ask yourself what else you may have been wrong about.

Being wrong and continuing forward in the same direction will not serve you well in the long run.

[ChaseKenyon]

You obviously are much more familiar with semi conductor fabrication than I am. I have followed and searched and found the sources of your quotes which you did not provide links for.


Doping, while it controls the conductivity Which is our usage mode of semiconductors, does not control the growth of silicon or gallium arsenide crystals.

So yes as to our usage of said crystals the
Quote:
f one per 100 million atoms, the doping is said to be low or light. When many more dopant atoms are added, on the order of one per ten thousand atoms, the doping is referred to as heavy or high.
does control the properties of our usage modus.

It does not control the actual growth of the crystals only the conductance characteristics.

So you are right in one way and maybe not in the other.
THat was the info I found from the search for your quotes.

Is you were right in one way but maybe not in another (from the links of your quotes) not self aggrandizing enough for your need to be Right?



Admit you were wrong, sit back for a moment and think about if you really know stuff, or if you merely want to believe.


You can not be right without someone acknowledging they were wrong?


Since you were obviously wrong on this issue, you ought to (at the very least) ask yourself what else you may have been wrong about.

Which issue specifically? Or are you implying that you are right and I am wrong on all issues posted in the WBF?

So you are an expert on everything and never wrong about anything?


I have had to deal with people like that in the past. They can not have discussions with anyone it has to be an argument with a winner (them ) and a proven looser.

All four of them have burned every relationship and business opportunity they have had. All four of them now live in isolation and even local businesses hate to see them coming because all they do is go on and on about how "bad and lousy" all the associates and friends they used to have have become. Yet we all still get along fine.

[Candyfloss]

Al Gore is a politician, a failed politician at that, and like all politicians I would trust him about as far as I could throw him. However, here is a little climate science thing that he had nothing to do with that I know of. The CFC punching a hole in the ozone layer and that's why you get sunburnt easy in NZ thing. CFCs reached a high of 550 parts per trillion in 2005 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/combined/CFC12.html, and have been dropping since.

If you want to believe GW is happening and it is all anthropogenically caused by our CO2 generation as our 25 % of CO2 causes a 0.00007 % delta change in GHG layer reflectivity makes logical sense, then you are being duped. Duped by a political org the UNEP and their stepchild the IPCC. THe UNEP is about global laws and solidifying control over many countries through taxation. A world carbon tax. To have a world govt type agency with control based on a trace element of 0.039% of our GHG layer.

A lot of very serious scientists were and are very concerned about that level of CFC.

[ljb5]

Doping, while it controls the conductivity Which is our usage mode of semiconductors, does not control the growth of silicon or gallium arsenide crystals.

I am not sure where you came up with that theory, but it is also quite mistaken.

Please describe the methodology of your experiment. What types of doping did you investigate? What experimental techniques did you use to asses the growth mode?

Any competent scientist would be prepared to answer those questions before making a definitive statement, like you just did.

(You might find this link useful, if you ever have the urge to learn anything before shooting your mouth off about it.) (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505670/description#description)


Which issue specifically?

Specifically, the statement you made in post #44 (the part in ALL CAPS and any other portion that is also mistaken.)

More importantly: any beliefs you hold (and have tried to convince other people of) that are predicated on this belief that you now know is mistaken.

Since your opposition to AGW was based on a belief that we all know was incorrect, your opposition ought to simply melt away and you ought to change your position. (A direct, causal relationship between evidence and conclusion is considered the foundation of science.)

We know, of course, that you won't change. You'll simply find some other 'reason' for your opposition. (As if reason had anything to do with it.:rolleyes:)

It's like this: If you believe a person has committed a crime, locking him in jail makes sense. If you find out that you were mistaken about the evidence, letting him out of jail would make sense. Keeping him in jail, even while admitting your mistake, would not be the right approach.

Since we know you were wrong about absorption spectra, it's time for you to let go of that belief and any other belief predicated upon it.

[Vince Brennan]

Floss makes a valid point here.

Many times in the past there have been lengthy diatribes penned by various (soi-disant) "Spelling and Grammar Nazis" and defenses of stream-of-consciousness posting (warts and all) by others, but (IMHO) it DOES boil down to the fact that if you cannot communicate your ideas with sufficient clarity for another to comprehend them, then you should not be surprised when the message is not understood or is misconstrued.

Larry's posts get a pass on this point for known reasons, but the rest of us have an obligation to at least TRY to re-read and correct our posts before sending them off into the ether. Spell-checkers are not always fool-proof (I know many errors get past THIS fool), but eyeballs really are useful in this regard.

/rant/

Thenkewberrymunch.

[varadero]

CFCs are not regarded as naturally occuring, although some quantities are produced by volcanos. CO2 is natural and vital to life. That both temperatures and CO2 levels have been both higher and cooler in recent earths history, and civilisation still prevails is heartning. That a risk of over cooking things is a dangerous possibility, we should take note and try to reduce where possible those emmisions without harming current economys struggling in these trying times ( In itself reducing CO2 emmisions by reduction in production, travel, and consumerism). Definately not by reducing the ability of 3rd world nations to develop, at least untill they are on a par with basic health and infrastructure that we enjoy. Have a safe per capita allowance, each person on the planet can be allowed so much CO2. Trade and cap within your own nation, but not internationally. That will allow the poorer nations to develop, encourage the advanced countries to reduce carbon based / develop new energy sources, and allow the oil to last untill something else is found. If after that, It proves not to have been cause of this spell of heating, everyone still wins. BLAH

[ChaseKenyon]

Journal of Crystal Growth
Additional Information
Related Publications

Editorial Board

Login to Editorial System

Advertisers Media Information

Keywords to be used by Authors

Readers
Order Journal

Access Full-Text

Free Sample Issue

Volume/Issue Alert

Free Tables of contents and abstracts

Alerting Services

Authors
Authors Home

Submit an Article

Track Your Accepted Articles

Guide for Authors

Artwork instructions

Authors Rights

Funding Bodies Compliance

Librarians
Librarians Home

Ordering Information and Dispatch Dates

Abstracting/Indexing

Editors
Editors Home

Article Tracking for Editors

Ethics Questions (PERK)

Reviewers
Reviewers Home

Advertisers/Sponsors
Advertisers Home

Reprints Information


ISSN: 0022-0248
Imprint: NORTH-HOLLAND
Actions
Submit Article
Order Journal
Free Sample Issue
Recommend to Friend
Bookmark this Page

Statistics
Impact Factor: 1.757
5-Year Impact Factor: 1.929
Issues per year: 24
Editorial Board


Principal Editor:
T.F. Kuech
Dept. of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Wisconsin at Madison, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA, Fax: +2 608 262 3782, Tel: +1 608 263 2922, Email: kuech@engr.wisc.edu

Editorial Board:
R.S. Feigelson
Geballe Lab. for Advanced Materials, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4, USA, Fax: +1 650 723 3752/3044, Tel: +1 650 723 4007, Email: feigel@soe.stanford.edu
R. Kern
CRMC, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Campus Luminy, Case 913, F-13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France, Fax: +33 4 91 418916, Tel: +33 4 91 172837, Email: kern@cinam.univ-mrs.fr
K. Nakajima
Inst. for Materials Research, Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, 980-8577 Aoba, Sendai, Japan, Fax: +81-22 215 2011, Tel: +81 22 215 2010, Email: nakasisc@imr.tohoku.ac.jp
M. Schieber
Grad. School of Applied Sci. & Tech., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel, Fax: +972 2 566 3878, Tel: +972 2 658 4364, Email: schieber@vms.huji.ac.il
(Founding Editor)
G.B. Stringfellow


Interesting link yes.



(You might find this link useful, if you ever have the urge to learn anything before shooting your mouth off about it.)


I would not describe the "Journal of Crystal Growth" as required reading to in order to learn anything. It may be one of many sources to learn more about crystal growth but I doubt that it will help with other subjects.

I do not think I need to read that journal to learn about all those other subjects available that I have a greater interest in.

I read and research on line all the time. The net has given us such terrific access to knowledge. I do consider myself as a searcher/student. The old saw about the more you learn the more you realize how much you still have to learn.

I do believe in that and in the old engineering adage not to trust self declared experts as they have yet to learn enough to realize that.

So I will continue to study and to pose questions and to post things I find. I realize this bothers those of you who are experts and have everything cast in concrete. Sorry to bother you. To me the world and science is always changing and always interesting.

We have come so far since even the 50s. I love my solar panels and many other things. I hope we keep on striving for change and ever new and increasing knowledge on all subjects.

Some one once said mankind should learn to be generalists specialization was for insects. He may have had a point since we all tend to view the world (if we are not careful) in terms of our specialty if we have one.

Hope everyone has a good weekend. I am off to brunch and work on the ChrisCraft and the GarWood for the rest of the weekend.:D

[ljb5]

I would not describe the "Journal of Crystal Growth" as required reading to in order to learn anything. It may be one of many sources to learn more about crystal growth but I doubt that it will help with other subjects.

You were spouting off and showing your ignorance about growth modes of crystals.

I agree that J.C.G. is not required reading for most subjects... but if you're going to try to discuss crystal growth (as you did), you really ought to know what the hell you're talking about.

You seem to be really adept at pointing out that you're not an expert in certain fields.... but only after you make untrue claims about them. :rolleyes:

And you're really good at pointing out what you haven't read (and aren't going to read)... but only after you claimed to know something that you don't.

[jbelow]

No one knows if the earth is warming or not. You guys just parrot the side you want to believe in. Same with the orign of life and evolution. Case closed nuff said.