... that I wish I could get off of my "ass and go pester the officials who are helping to rape Colorado and who are doing very little to fight global warming".

But I had to do this before I can do that.

Special goodbye note:
Please post any supportive comments you may have at the final article - at Saint Louis indymedia,
27 Feb 2006 article at:

www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php

Subject: Special goodbye ... Hydrologist said climate change impacts hydrology, thus career with NOAA/NWS ends

Thanks.

Link to Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center referenced article should be:

www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/112211/index.php

Politics, sad to say, play a major role in nearly everyone's life today. Big business is in charge now. Whatever does not benefit them up to, and including, science reports, or silencing opponents that would necessitate costing them money, gets the ax. When an issue is clear-cut against, it ends up being debatable. Think about this next election day.
When Big business says jobs will be affected, believe them. One way or another, either the workers, the enviroment, or the public pays for their lack of caring.

This is a great article. I wish that there were impact studies posted about the loss of glaciers in the Rockies and the effects of natural gas development along the Colorad river. multiple states fight over this river and it would be refreshing to see more articles on the abuse and danger it faces....

I would rather know what is going on than tomorrow wake up to a tsunami...Wake up

Fw: [Native Gardening] Re: Special goodbye note,

Johnny,

Thank you for your post here and comment to stlimc today.

I'm also thankful to indymedia for allowing me the opportunity to say goodbye to many people I talked with on the phone about river flooding in the St. Louis area, especially during the summer of 1993. I also said my goodbyes to people in Chicago / northern Illinois area,

at:

chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/70687/index.php

Without the independent media centers and groups like this I would have felt like I missed what other people usually have as an opportunity after putting in enough time to reach retirement .. i.e. a retirement party. For me, this is it, online ... even though I live only 2 miles from my former workplace.

Pat N

...
> ...jj
>
> > --- In nativegardening (at) yahoogroups.com, "Pat Neuman" npat1@ wrote:
> >
> > 27 Feb 2006 article at:
> > www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
> >
>

[The Yahoo! Native Gardening Group]

The oldest and most respected native and wildlife gardening message board on Yahoo!

When is the last time you've visited the Native Gardening Group homepage? Participate in the discussion today by navigating to: < groups.yahoo.com/group/nativegardening>;

To post a message to the Native Gardening group without visiting the homepage, please send an email message to: <mailto:nativegardening (at) yahoogroups.com>

...

Thank you, and happy gardening!

I am deeply troubled by this news. Politics and industry are intertwined in an unholy union of spin and propaganda thats sole purpose is to foster confusion among the public. Nasa and NOAA scientists are being muzzled now and the Bush administration has an unprecedented history of putting in lobbyists and campaigners into postions of power and policy making. The White House Center for Environmental Quality (CEQ) is a bastion of politcal hacks whose main job function is to deny climate change is even happening. It's a sad day for this country when people like Pat are fired for doing their job and speaking the truth. The irony is that is what the government agencies are supposed to do, but those days are long gone.

Good Luck Pat.

Staci-lee,

Thank you.

With your help, and that of Ross and Jack, I created and sent a post (below) this morning to several discussion groups. I think it was is my best post ever.

IPCC removes upper limit while Bush and many others continue to fiddle

Rapid global warming was triggered by greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuel burning by aviation and other human activities, decades
ago.

Now climate scientists are issuing a "dire warning" on out of
control global warming, ... "scientists are now unable to place a
reliable upper limit on how quickly the atmosphere will warm as
carbon dioxide levels increase.".
www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329422607-117700,00.html

The world's biggest contributors to the problem, world aviation
interests and the U.S. population, continue to fiddle the time away.
groups.yahoo.com/group/globalwarming/message/10483

Bush Fiddles While Climate Changes
kmareka.com/index.php/

Pat N
Chanhassen, MN

Above posted this morning at:
groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcell-energy/

Also, please see my latest temperature plots for climate stations in Alaska and many other states at:
pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos

Thanks what I'm doing to stay busy now, along with getting reading for native gardening and prairie landscaping work. I'm happier now than I've been for many years, being away from work at NWS NCRFC, and we're doing ok financially. I wish everyone else the best that I can.

It is never good to be dismissed.

It is however that unnatural alterations to climate have not been validly shown to be possible from any concern involving 'greenhouse theory' due to the invalid state still of such theory.

It is still more directly obvious that rematerialing of the surface, produced by the sprawl of and by the explosion in Human population, is having a cumulative effect on the rate and distribution of kinetic energy induction within the surface materials, across the planetary surface.

This impacts on turbulence, whilst the redistribution impacts on regional weather patterning, induced convection patterns of the kinetic energy redistribution.

Also, this rematerialing DOES have effect on the hydrological concerns OF a region.

This is exampled in Mexico City, where subsidence is seen due to overdraw of the water table below the city, as the sprawl of the city is limiting and otherwise modifying the inflow to this water table.

On top of this, air pollution is creating erosion of the older city buildings still, from memory it was decided to spray these structures with a 'plastic coating'.

Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm).

Mr. Anderson - We know the greenhouse effect exists because if Earth's atmosphere didn't contain such heat-absorbing gases in such amounts, Earth surface would have remained frozen, worse even than during the ice age when atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower.

Now we see that the greenhouse gas volumes contained within the Earth's atmosphere have been growing as a direct consequence of we humans burning billions of tons of carbon-based fuel, and there we might expect that the temperature condition of the Earth's land and ocean surfaces ought continue to warm, which they have. I submit to you that a complex mathematical theory is not required to prove this relationship as valid. All it takes is a bit common sense, something which you appear to be short on based on the rest of your comments.

Dear Keith (and others), you might wish to opinion an existence for the 'greenhouse effect', but even the materials present within their actual properties do not support a 'greenhouse behavior'. These materials, CO2, etc, will not be motivated by opinion to produce such behavior either.

Heat is not 'absorbed' in any special manner by these 'Greenhouse gases' as 'heat' is but the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules, in this case within the atmosphere.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

What 'climate science' tries to present however is a 'new phrase', that seemingly being "Polar Amplification", as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much 'political science' is incorporated in to 'climate tutorials'.

It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this thread, that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.

The attempt to impugn any comments, made by anyone, that raise these points as lacking 'rationality' is common from the 'greenhouse platform', but are never associated with any rational detailing of 'why'.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

feb 28, 2006
the independent online: Armed forces are put on standby to tackle threat of wars over water
news.independent.co.uk/environment/article348196.ece

Mr. Anderson - We know the greenhouse effect exists because if Earth's atmosphere didn't contain such heat-absorbing gases in such amounts, Earth surface would have remained frozen, worse even than during the ice age when atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower.

Now we see that the greenhouse gas volumes contained within the Earth's atmosphere have been growing as a direct consequence of we humans burning billions of tons of carbon-based fuel, and there we might expect that the temperature condition of the Earth's land and ocean surfaces ought continue to warm, which they have. I submit to you that a complex mathematical theory is not required to prove this relationship as valid. All it takes is a bit common sense, something which you appear to be short on based on the rest of your comments.

Dear Keith (and others), you might wish to opinion an existence for the 'greenhouse effect', but even the materials present within their actual properties do not support a 'greenhouse behavior'. These materials, CO2, etc, will not be motivated by opinion to produce such behavior either.

Heat is not 'absorbed' in any special manner by these 'Greenhouse gases' as 'heat' is but the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules, in this case within the atmosphere.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

What 'climate science' tries to present however is a 'new phrase', that seemingly being "Polar Amplification", as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much 'political science' is incorporated in to 'climate tutorials'.

It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this thread, that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.

The attempt to impugn any comments, made by anyone, that raise these points as lacking 'rationality' is common from the 'greenhouse platform', but are never associated with any rational detailing of 'why'.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

Dear Keith (and others), you might wish to opinion an existence for the 'greenhouse effect', but even the materials present within their actual properties do not support a 'greenhouse behavior'. These materials, CO2, etc, will not be motivated by opinion to produce such behavior either.

Heat is not 'absorbed' in any special manner by these 'Greenhouse gases' as 'heat' is but the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules, in this case within the atmosphere.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

What 'climate science' tries to present however is a 'new phrase', that seemingly being "Polar Amplification", as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much 'political science' is incorporated in to 'climate tutorials'.

It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this thread, that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.

The attempt to impugn any comments, made by anyone, that raise these points as lacking 'rationality' is common from the 'greenhouse platform', but are never associated with any rational detailing of 'why'.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

Dear Keith (and others), you might wish to opinion an existence for the 'greenhouse effect', but even the materials present within their actual properties do not support a 'greenhouse behavior'. These materials, CO2, etc, will not be motivated by opinion to produce such behavior either.

Heat is not 'absorbed' in any special manner by these 'Greenhouse gases' as 'heat' is but the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules, in this case within the atmosphere.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

What 'climate science' tries to present however is a 'new phrase', that seemingly being "Polar Amplification", as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much 'political science' is incorporated in to 'climate tutorials'.

It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this thread, that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.

The attempt to impugn any comments, made by anyone, that raise these points as lacking 'rationality' is common from the 'greenhouse platform', but are never associated with any rational detailing of 'why'.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

Notice the plot of Human population. From 500 million to over 5 billion in under 400 years, the most rapid rise within the past 100 years.

Next, 'Heat' is not 'absorbed' in any special manner by these 'Greenhouse gases' as 'heat' is but the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules, in this case within the atmosphere.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

The energy incident to the surface is seen in the plot of absorbance below, and is encompassed in the lower and upper Visible spectrum (where this energy is consumed by the process of Photosynthesis), and within the lower third of the UV spectrum (NOT REGION).

To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. These glaciations are seen to reoccur within irregularly occuring periods of varying length, see the last side below. This particular period of glaciations is already 2 million years old.

In the last glaciation (from which present climate is rising), there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

What 'climate science' tries to present however is a 'new phrase', that seemingly being "Polar Amplification", as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much 'political science' is incorporated in to 'climate tutorials'.

It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this thread, that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.

The natural oscillation of climate is well KNOWN, documented and realised as EXISTENT. It is NOT as yet shown that any substantial alterations to this oscillation have been made. It IS noted that additions of KINETIC ENERGY have been made to some events linked to Turbulence. This is recorded as a small increase in surface temperatures, a measure of retained intrinsic KINETIC ENERGY generation within the MATERIALS of the surface. This is link to the alterations OF the MATERIALING present, due to the activities of Humanity within the past 400 years and in particular in the last 100 years.

These additions of kinetic energy will increase the AMPLITUDE of the short term oscillations of climate, but have little effect on the LONG TERM oscillation. The LONG TERM oscillation is defined by interactions of oscillators such as the planetary axial precession and orbital path variations. You also have the 'climate systems' of the Star Sol creating variations in energy output INDEPENDANT of our planetary oscillator's altogether.

As such the trivariant of axial precession, orbital variation and Solar Climate form one primary oscillator, with the Solar Climate being the greatest 'unknown' variant component, as an example. This alters the placement of land mass surface to the 'face' of the system star.

Is there 'compelling evidence' for this being 'the warmest period in the past 1000 years', the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of 'warming' for the past 10000 years with all this related to 'greenhouse concepts'? No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.

Are we at or near a peak in the NATURAL climate oscillation? If you look AT the numerous temperature plots about, you might note the 'symmetry' of the 'wobble' exhibited.

See the link again www.climateimc.org/ and additional comments.

If the overall oscillation was still upwards, there would be additive effects for the 'Positive secondary oscillator output' with the 'primary waveform'; this would also limit the 'subtractive interactions' effects as these would be working against the overall effect. You would see smaller periods of rapid rise into warmth with cooler periods in between.

If the overall oscillation was past peak and descending again, the 'secondary positive additions' would be 'subtractive' and the 'negative secondary additions' would be 'additive'. You would see rapid descent into mini cold period's tween small periods of relative 'warmth'. It is presently considered that the climate is in a warming period tween periods of cooling, or even glaciation.

The primary oscillation will 'carry' this mini (secondary) oscillation along, varying the extremes of the 'mini peaks and troughs' and the RATE of rise/decline between these shorter periods. You can reference any number of 'temperature' plots to note the symmetry of the 'wobble'.

This will be the case unless the primary oscillation is at a peak or trough, where the 'flatness' of the primary oscillator effect is made 'transparent' in effect, and we can see the secondary effects with greatest CLARITY.

Climate is never still, never has been still, and never will. It is Humanity that has labeled behavior and developed concepts relating to 'permanence' when perhaps the notion of 'persistence' would have been the better basis of definition.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

For those who may still choose to have doubts on climate changing, ...

There hasn't been a "decent" winter in southern Minnesota and Wisconsin (the heart of the Upper Midwest) since 2001. Lake ice this year never got thick enough for ice fishing.

The really unusual thing about the winter of 2006 was the absence of cold air. Climate stations in eight states in the north central U.S. had record high January average daily mean temperatures (100-110 year long periods of record to current). At stations in the far north, only a few days in February in the far north had sub zero F temperatures, with most of February coming in mild by old Upper Midwest standards.

Snow depths and rankings in Minnesota are shown at the link below. On Feb 23rd there was less than one inch of no snow cover in a band from southwest Minnesota through the southern Twin Cities area into western Wisconsin. That area is near or at the bottom of the snow depth ranking scale, as compared to historical records of snow depth. Weather forecasts try to account for the bare ground heating in their forecast adjustments from the modeled forecasts, especially on days with lots of sun, but it still often gets warmer than what they issue. The explanation given to the public is that it's getting so unusually warm because of all the bare ground around which usually isn't snow free in late February. There is rarely if ever any mention of climate change or global warming in the explanations given to the public.

climate.umn.edu/doc/snowmap/snowmap_060223.htm
Also, some of you may be interested in

"The ultimate source for snow ... The National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) National Snow Analysis.

NOHRSC is the third NWS office in Chanhassen, MN, one building for 3 NWS offices.

NWS NOHRSC has national operational responsibility for modeling and measuring snow depth and snow water equivalent. NOHRSC measures the water equivalent of a snowpack by making many flights above hundreds of established flight lines. NOHRSC has been operational for the last 25 years. The water equivalent flight line data is used to update snow hydrologic models which are used in NWS river forecast center probabilistic spring flood outlooks, and river forecasting. Is the data worth the cost in money and GHG emissions? What do you think is the public value of NOAA NWS NOHRSC National Snow Analysis? Positive or negative?

For more info, please see:
www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/

* Highest of record (1897-2006) for January Avg. Daily Mean Temp.
--------------------
*Leech Lake Dam MN
*Milan 1 NW, MN
*Park Rapids 2 S MN
*Pine River Dam MN
*Dickinson ND
*Jamestown ND
*Langdon ND
*Forestburg SD
*Brodhead WI
*Lancaster WI
*Oconto WI
*Prairie Du Chein WI
*New London WI
*Solon Springs WI
*Spooner Exp Stn WI
*Stevens Point WI
*Ironwood MI
*Atlantic IA
*Windsor IL
*Lamar, MO
*Salem, MO
*David City NE
22
Temperature plots at:
pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos

I'm monitoring the monthly temperature averages for the period of record in the regions for each of the NWS Cooperative Climate Stations (rural, forested and small town areas) and creating average monthly temperature plots because I think someone needs to be doing this. This should be a government agency function but I don't see any government agency people doing it. I think the gov people are afraid to stick their neck out and show the public that the climate is indeed warming. The proof is in the data, but the agencies that collect the data aren't doing anything with it to show the public what's happening, nor are they monitoring what's really going on.

In my opinion, the government agencies in the U.S. are failing badly in serving the public good on climate change. They're not doing what they should be doing in a time of global crisis... then they fired me for wanting to do what I believed was my job - to evaluate and take account of climate changes on the hydrology within the NC states of the U.S. for modeling and flood prediction purposes. It made no sense to me to use the same one set of calibrated parameters for snowmelt, evaporation and transpiration in a basin where I knew climate change was going on within the historical period of runoff calibration for the river basin.

PS Upper Midwest Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook: Forecast for Minneapolis, MN for March 1, 2006: high temp.43 F, rain. It is too early in the season for specific numerical guidance that means anything. River ice action will be below normal due to not much ice.

Regarding "First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook for the Upper Midwest"

What you are trying Pat N. (and others) is however to avoid notice of there not being any REAL worry regarding those REAL 'climate alterations', that are ALWAYS occurring, at this point.

With no ability at all to PLACE the 'present' into the current oscillation, climate science' has climbed onto a 'soapbox' to platform more 'doom and woe', now into its 30th year.

What you try Pat, is to platform an opinion regarding a supposed 'greenhouse cause' for this ongoing series of alterations, whilst really observing the natural oscillations at work, but 'blaming CO2'. Then you trot out your 'temperature plots' to justify such opinion, when it is obvious that these plots are NOT produced in a manner that validly supports the inferences you would attempt to make.

There are FEW Pat "who may still choose to have doubts on climate changing", what the MAJORITY are saying is it is NOT due to a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. You paucity of method, and the scrutiny of such, is what you are running from.

The 'greenhouse' effect has never been even shown validly to be possible, let alone exist, and by attempting to constantly run from scrutiny of your methodology in regard to your 'temperature plots', it is little wonder you still rely on regarding the false positives of the 'greenhouse platform' in as positive light as you can produce.

Climate is never still, never has been still, and never will. It is Humanity that has labeled behavior and developed concepts relating to 'permanence' when perhaps the notion of 'persistence' would have been the better basis of definition. I can almost see the ancient port authorities hearing the lamentation of Merchant Princes a thousand years ago as the notion of the port being moved is realised, along with the reestablishment of business and warehouses.

There is nothing in SCIENCE to link any claim relating to a 'greenhouse concept' or a supposed 'greenhouse effect' as even being existent, even down to the level of the actual behaviors of the materials involved. This is due to the actual THEORY presented for the production of a ‘greenhouse effect’ is completed with numerous errors. To add to this problem, poor theoretical construction and implementation, you than add issues of poor methodology within ‘experimental detailing’ of the supposed ‘greenhouse effect’.

You only wish to look only at a ‘second’ division of an hour Pat, how could you expect to predict the rest of the 'day' from your detailed 'one second plots'?

It is also, it seems, that few if any of the ‘climate experts’, so often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation, how then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? If lost, the best and most correct response is to wait, help will surely arrive, for if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.

As on overall 'regarding' of the methodology:-
"If you look only at a ‘second’ division of time but are not aware of WHEN within a day period that 'second' is, how can you be even remotely expect to describe the remainder of the day?’

There is no value in attempting to justify ‘greenhouse actions’ simply by producing a supposed ‘precautionary principle’ application, there is little valid methodology or analytical method within attempts at self justification, and 'greenhouse science' runs from scrutiny even today behind howls of ‘comment censorship'.

Human produced surface materials become much HOTTER than natural surface materialing; these materials can induct greater kinetic energy from interaction with the available energy of incident photons, so the average surface temperature rises as there becomes greater surface so affected with Human made materials placed within the sprawl of Humanity. Realise also that the so far measured 0.6 degree C rise in average surface temperature is recording only that kinetic energy NOT conducted into the atmosphere, and moved about within processes of convection. It is conduction and convection of this generated kinetic energy that produces WEATHER, and events like ‘Katrina’, not that still measured within the surface.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com
See: www.climateimc.org/

**************
*************
The most important point is that this is not the first instance of silencing of those who warn of global warming. The mainstream media will be interested in this story when they see the connection with the NASA specialist who was recently threatened by a Bush appointee for speaking about the threat of global warming. This article needs more specific information. How can we contact this man? Who is responsible for the decision? See the NYT opinion piece titled "silencing truth"

Julie, what is being asked of the 'scientists' is to begin to justify their opinion BEFORE trying to hold media conferences to express the 'doom and woe'.

It is also, it seems, that few if any of the ‘climate experts’, so often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation, how then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? If lost, the best and most correct response is to wait, help will surely arrive, for if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.

The issue is not 'censorship', but the cessation of the platforming of ideologies AS 'science', and the production of some actual detail that can withstand scrutiny without howls of 'injustice' or 'environmental angst' from the rallying 'supporters'.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

Regarding "First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook for the Upper Midwest"

What you are doing Pat N. (and others) is however avoiding notice of there NOT being any REAL worry regarding those REAL 'climate alterations', that are ALWAYS occurring, as they simply occuring 'now', i.e. at this point in time.

With no ability at all to PLACE the 'present' into the current oscillation, 'climate science' has climbed onto a 'soapbox' to platform more 'doom and woe', now into its 30th year.

What you try Pat, is to platform an opinion regarding a supposed 'greenhouse cause' for this ongoing series of alterations, whilst really observing the natural oscillations at work, but 'blaming CO2'. Then you 'trot out' your 'temperature plots' to justify such opinion, when it is obvious that these plots are NOT produced in a manner that validly supports the inferences you would attempt to make.

There are FEW Pat "who may still choose to have doubts on climate changing", what the MAJORITY are saying is it is NOT due to a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. Your paucity of method, and the scrutiny of such, is what you are running from.

The 'greenhouse' effect has never been even shown validly to be possible, let alone exist, and by attempting to constantly run from scrutiny of your methodology in regard to your 'temperature plots', it is little wonder you still rely on regarding the false positives of the 'greenhouse platform' in as positive light as you can produce.

Climate is never still, never has been still, and never will. It is Humanity that has labeled behavior and developed concepts relating to 'permanence' when perhaps the notion of 'persistence' would have been the better basis of definition. I can almost see the ancient port authorities hearing the lamentation of Merchant Princes a thousand years ago as the notion of the port being moved is realised, along with the reestablishment of business and warehouses.

There is nothing in SCIENCE to link any claim relating to a 'greenhouse concept' or a supposed 'greenhouse effect' as even being existent, even down to the level of the actual behaviors of the materials involved. This is due to the actual THEORY presented for the production of a ‘greenhouse effect’ is completed with numerous errors. To add to this problem, poor theoretical construction and implementation, you than add issues of poor methodology within ‘experimental detailing’ of the supposed ‘greenhouse effect’.

You only wish to look only at a ‘second’ division of an hour Pat, how could you expect to predict the rest of the 'day' from your detailed 'one second plots'?

It is also, it seems, that few if any of the ‘climate experts’, so often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation, how then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? If lost, the best and most correct response is to wait, help will surely arrive, for if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.

As on overall 'regarding' of the methodology:-
"If you look only at a ‘second’ division of time but are not aware of WHEN within a day period that 'second' is, how can you be even remotely expect to describe the remainder of the day?"

There is no value in attempting to justify ‘greenhouse actions’ simply by producing a supposed ‘precautionary principle’ application, there is little valid methodology or analytical method within attempts at self justification, and 'greenhouse science' runs from scrutiny even today behind howls of ‘comment censorship'.

Human produced surface materials become much HOTTER than natural surface materialing; these materials can induct greater kinetic energy from interaction with the available energy of incident photons, so the average surface temperature rises as there becomes greater surface so affected with Human made materials placed within the sprawl of Humanity. Realise also that the so far measured 0.6 degree C rise in average surface temperature is recording only that kinetic energy NOT conducted into the atmosphere, and moved about within processes of convection. It is conduction and convection of this generated kinetic energy that produces WEATHER, and events like ‘Katrina’, not that still measured within the surface.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

Excerpt below from an article of Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) by Paul D. Thacker dated June 22, 2005 called: "Blowing the whistle on climate change: Interview with Rick Piltz"

pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/jun/policy/pt_piltz.html

Excerpt:

"[Note: In a brief interview, James R. Mahoney, the director of the Climate
Change Science Program, confirmed that the program has been restricted “on our
use of information” from the National Assessment." ...

Paper I wrote and presented in 2003 (at a 20-24 Oct 2003 NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center conference in Reno ("Nugget" casino, Sparks), Nevada. Links to my paper and the Press Release, are below.

Link to 2003 paper:
www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm

Link to 30 Oct 2003 Press Release:
"Senior Scientist: Rapid Global Warming is Happening Now" - 10/30/2003

8:28:00 AM, U.S. Newswire
releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp

"Greenhouse theory" is not in an "invalid state". It is accepted by almost all scientists in the field. The only deniers are loud eccentrics with dubious funding and motivations. The impression that we don't really know what's happening only serves the interests of those who are profitting from doing nothing.

You keep spamming climate sites with irrelevant nonsense attempting to create that impression. Get a fucking job. What does plastic coatings on biuldings have to do with anything (don't answer that, you'll only cut and paste the same text you always use).

You claim the "greenhouse hypothesis" failed to be verified 3 times, you don't say how. In peer-reviewed scientific papers? Let's see the citations. Peer-reviewed papers that show their sources, data and reasoning overwhelmingly support the picture of human-caused climate change that is starting to take effect.

You have your own theory, good for you. Please spend your time in having it scientifically tested and its validity judged that way instead of using it to pretend that climate trends aren't clear.

"CH", you are as full of rhetoric as you are void of seeming knowledge. What i present is already validated SCIENCE, what you misrepresent is the clarity of my presentation. What you attempt to misinform others about is the directly correlated link of surface rematerialing and kinetic energy induction, the redistribution of which is directly indiczted by alteratons to weather patterning. You "CH" should cease pretending 'authoritive understanding', it has not at all aided Pat N. to do so, it shall not aid yourself either. I note Pat N. still confuses the JOURNALIST that is 'science editor' as someone who expresses SCIENCE, also.

TO reprise:-
The reason for there NOT being a 'greenhouse effect' is two fold. Firstly, the actual materials do not behave in such a manner naturally to exhibit the 'greenhouse behavior' as played into the 'theory'.

The concepts contained within the 'greenhouse theory' are based in hypothetical constructs of 'matter' and 'interactions' from a time when direct study was not available. In this period theory, such as the 'Ideal Gas' or the 'Uniform Blackbody', which are not infact REAL materials, where devised to aid philosophical concerns.

The 'ideal gas' concept is applicable, in a universal manner, only at low pressure. This was realised in the late 1800's even within the design process of the 'gas thermometer'. As such, the best 'ideal gas' is at near vacuum levels of 'pressure'.

The 'blackbody' has various assumption used that need to be maintained to use the theory validly. That the star Sol can produce a 'blackbody' output, but is not in any manner within the definition of being a 'uniform blackbody' again highlights limits of use for this theory also.

It is that the 'greenhouse theory' was not validated in the 3 attempts of the 20th century as the knowledge of SCIENCE regarding the ACTUAL materials present was improving. BY the 3rd attempt, it was clear to all that it was not possible to 'fit' validly the 'greenhouse theory' into the reality known at that point. It has never been seen that this situation has altered.

So the second problem involves the 'greenhouse THEORY', as it cannot produce the 'greenhouse effect', with the materials it involves, in the manner it 'produces'. It is really that simple.

The 'theory' was however run into politics and played upon scare and innuendo to garner 'interest'. This lobby group would today be represented as the UCS, the product of the lobby action being the IPCC.

There are no 'relevant scientists' per sec, there is relevant SCIENCE. It is the constant attempt to bring focus on the 'talking head' that is the product of the 'lobby politic', the 'media image' more relevant than the information. There is not a limit to 'relevant scientists', as there an be no 'closed shop' due to the commonality of both the SCIENCE and the materials involved.

Is there 'compelling evidence' for this being 'the warmest period in the past 1000 years', the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of 'warming' for the past 10000 years with all this related to 'greenhouse concepts'?

No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.

Are we at or near a peak in the NATURAL climate oscillation? If you look AT the numerous temperature plots about, you might note the 'symmetry' of the 'wobble' exhibited.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, please look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing alterations to the induction rate of, and to the redistribution of kinetic energy induction, and so is leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

It is also, it seems, that few if any of the labeled ‘climate experts’, the supposed 'relevant scientists', so often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation, so how then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? If lost, the best and most correct response is to wait, help will surely arrive, for if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.

*****
As on overall 'regarding' of the methodology:- "If you look only at a ‘second’ division of time but are not aware of WHEN within a day period that 'second' is, how can you be even be remotely expected to describe the remainder of the day?’
*****

It is infact, more simply, that 'climate science' has become a collection of 'buzz words', to remove the 'descriptions' from 'reality' to 'match' the 'science'. In the past 30 years we have listened to 'doom and woe' of 'global cooling', 'global warming' and now 'global greenhouse warming'.

An example is "Polar Amplification", attempting to cite a process involving the Polar Regions being 'first' to react to 'change'. It is infact that the climate is coming away from an glaciation, and so the Polar regions are infact the LAST place to react, it is just NOW that they are reacting. It seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense).

Next, "Greenhouse science" methodology is bogged in predetermination, studying a false positive. It is attaching "CO2" to warming, induced in a more directly seen manner by Human produced surface rematerialing. The 'climate alteration' is simply part of the natural processes that never cease. "Greenhouse Science" is and always was a total false positive being run as a formal 'study'.

The plots of 'temperature' cannot produce any validation of inferences of 'greenhouse warming'; the period is too small in comparison to the over all cycle.

All this is standard and known SCIENCE and aspects of methodology; it does not need to be 'validated' any further or specificallyto belligerent 'pro greenhouse wagon pushers' or even those who ride on the wagon. So how about you all make a reference to WHEN in the real and known climate cycle we are NOW. WE are around 2 million years into a period of repeating glaciations. Most ran when they are asked this question, they realise that their 'greenhouse opinion' IS on very 'slippery ground'.

It is not 'uncertainty' that is the problem with 'greenhouse models', it is the total lack of correlation to REALITY that they contain, the poor methodologies and the predetermination that leads to instituted 'convenient numeracy' as seen in the 'regard' 'climate science' gives to 'temperature plots' of only a few decades duration.

What ALL of you seem to AVOID notice of is the NATURAL state of climate change, and are attempting to cite that 'rapid change' is all due to 'greenhouse' effects which cannot be produced by the flawed and mis-constructed 'greenhouse theory' platformed.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

www.smh.com.au/news/science/global-warming-may-be-evenhotter/2006/02/28/1141095741142.html#

Global warming may be even hotter
By Deborah Smith Science Editor
March 1, 2006

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will warn the world's politicians that the Earth's temperature could rise far higher in
response to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought.

A secret draft version of the next report by the United Nation's influential panel of climate experts, to be given to governments in April, will say a reliable upper limit can no longer be put on how quickly the world will warm, according to the British newspaper The Guardian.

Australian scientists said the reported warning reflected a growing body of recent research showing that climate change was occurring
more rapidly than expected.

Some computer models had forseen temperature increases of as much as 11 degrees from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere. The climate change panel had assumed a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would lead to a temperature rise of between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees.

Dr Barrie Pittock, a retired CSIRO researcher and the author of Climate Change, Turning up the Heat, said models of climate change always involved a range of uncertainty, but the possibility of a large increase in temperature had to be taken very seriously. "If you're taking a risk-management approach and want to avoid what is disastrous you have got to go to the upper end of the range and avoid that," he said.

Professor Ian Lowe, an environmental scientist and president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said he hoped the report would
convince the Australian Government of the seriousness of the issue because it was still listening to the "10 or 12 sceptics of the
world".

Update - Plotted temperature averages (1888-2006) at:

pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos

Global warming, let's do something about it. Our heart should be where our home is.

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

The reason for there NOT being a 'greenhouse effect' is two fold. Firstly, the actual materials do not behave in such a manner naturally to exhibit the 'greenhouse behavior' as played into the 'theory'.

The concepts contained within the 'greenhouse theory' are based in hypothetical constructs of 'matter' and 'interactions' from a time when direct study was not available. In this period theory, such as the 'Ideal Gas' or the 'Uniform Blackbody', which are not infact REAL materials, where devised to aid philosophical concerns.

The 'ideal gas' concept is applicable, in a universal manner, only at low pressure. This was realised in the late 1800's even within the design process of the 'gas thermometer'. As such, the best 'ideal gas' is at near vacuum levels of 'pressure'.

The 'blackbody' has various assumption used that need to be maintained to use the theory validly. That the star Sol can produce a 'blackbody' output, but is not in any manner within the definition of being a 'uniform blackbody' again highlights limits of use for this theory also.

It is that the 'greenhouse theory' was not validated in the 3 attempts of the 20th century as the knowledge of SCIENCE regarding the ACTUAL materials present was improving. BY the 3rd attempt, it was clear to all that it was not possible to 'fit' validly the 'greenhouse theory' into the reality known at that point. It has never been seen that this situation has altered.

So the second problem involves the 'greenhouse THEORY', as it cannot produce the 'greenhouse effect', with the materials it involves, in the manner it 'produces'. It is really that simple.

The 'theory' was however run into politics and played upon scare and innuendo to garner 'interest'. This lobby group would today be represented as the UCS, the product of the lobby action being the IPCC.

There are no 'relevant scientists' per sec, there is relevant SCIENCE. It is the constant attempt to bring focus on the 'talking head' that is the product of the 'lobby politic', the 'media image' more relevant than the information. There is not a limit to 'relevant scientists', as there an be no 'closed shop' due to the commonality of both the SCIENCE and the materials involved.

Is there 'compelling evidence' for this being 'the warmest period in the past 1000 years', the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of 'warming' for the past 10000 years with all this related to 'greenhouse concepts'?

No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.

Are we at or near a peak in the NATURAL climate oscillation? If you look AT the numerous temperature plots about, you might note the 'symmetry' of the 'wobble' exhibited.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, please look at
www.climateimc.org/
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing alterations to the induction rate of, and to the redistribution of kinetic energy induction, and so is leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

It is also, it seems, that few if any of the labeled ‘climate experts’, the supposed 'relevant scientists', so often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation, so how then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? If lost, the best and most correct response is to wait, help will surely arrive, for if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.

*****
As on overall 'regarding' of the methodology:- "If you look only at a ‘second’ division of time but are not aware of WHEN within a day period that 'second' is, how can you be even be remotely expected to describe the remainder of the day?’
*****

It is infact, more simply, that 'climate science' has become a collection of 'buzz words', to remove the 'descriptions' from 'reality' to 'match' the 'science'. In the past 30 years we have listened to 'doom and woe' of 'global cooling', 'global warming' and now 'global greenhouse warming'.

An example is "Polar Amplification", attempting to cite a process involving the Polar Regions being 'first' to react to 'change'. It is infact that the climate is coming away from an glaciation, and so the Polar regions are infact the LAST place to react, it is just NOW that hey are reacting. It seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense).

Next, "Greenhouse science" methodology is bogged in predetermination, studying a false positive. It is attaching "CO2" to warming, induced in a more directly seen manner by Human produced surface rematerialing. The 'climate alteration' is simply part of the natural processes that never cease. "Greenhouse Science" is and always was a total false positive being run as a formal 'study'.

The plots of 'temperature' cannot produce any validation of inferences of 'greenhouse warming'; the period is too small in comparison to the over all cycle.

All this is standard and known SCIENCE; it does not need to be 'validated' any further. So how about you all make a reference to WHEN in the real and known climate cycle we are NOW. WE are around 2 million years into a period of repeating glaciations. Most ran when they are asked this question, they realise that their 'greenhouse opinion' IS on very 'slippery ground'.

It is not 'uncertainty' that is the problem with 'greenhouse models', it is the total lack of correlation to REALITY that they contain, the poor methodologies and the predetermination that leads to instituted 'convenient numeracy' as seen in the 'regard' 'climate science' gives to 'temperature plots' of only a few decades duration.

What ALL of you seem to AVOID notice of is the NATURAL state of climate change, and are attempting to cite that 'rapid change' is all due to 'greenhouse' effects which cannot be produced by the flawed and mis-constructed 'greenhouse theory' platformed.


Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

There is nothing NATURAL about the current rise in temperatures. If Earth's ocean, surface and troposphic temperature levels were following historic "natural" cycles, they would be on their way down, not up as they have been particularly in the last 30-35 years, and bound to go much, much higher because the latent effects of rising volumes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The National Weather Service personnel who fired Neuman for being truthful about this ought be taken to task for being derelict in their duties and in violation of fair employment laws.

And you know this HOW 'pooper'? How 'pooper' do YOU know what the NATURAL oscillation that carried climate out of the last glaciation 15,000 odd years ago is doing now and is how placed NOW.

To quote from a link I have given often enough:-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals."]

["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred. For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."]

["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today."]

***["Our modern climate represents a very short,]***
***[ warm period between glacial advances."] ***

With regard to other common knowledge:-

--------------------
'A chronology of climate change'
.
.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
-------------------

The TRUTH 'pooper is that you do NOT KNOW, you are seemingly accepting a FABRICATION of a reality to suit an 'opinion you would like to believe'.

There is NOTHING of valid science in the 'material' you attempt to relate however. The period of glaciation we are in now has extended for 2 MILLION years, in to and out off glaciations.

The 'greenhouse effect' cannot produce 'latent' anything, the materials do NOT behave in any manner remotely like the 'greenhouse theory' outlines.
See slide 'Atmospheric interaction, by % energy'.
Realise that absorbance is associated with remittance, a standard process well known in SCIENCE, and that CO2 reemit's much more energy that H2O. Thus H2O produces much 'stronger' kinetic energy gains than CO2, H2O thus is getting much 'hotter' than CO2, nothing 'latent' in this process.
The energy reemitted as PHOTONS is separate from the molecules of the atmosphere and is NOT measurable as 'heat' as 'heat' is the average measure of the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms of the 'sample'. This measure no longer CAN contain the energy that now exists as photons.

To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
www.climateimc.org/

I include a plot of expected population redistribution; notice the strong growth in presently lesser developed nations over the stagnation of the presently 'developed' nations. This growth will take sprawl into presently 'green' surface, like the Amazonian basin.

Pat was 'fired' for reasons we do not know, but would seem to be involving belligerently attempting to disseminate opinion, and not SCIENCE. Those who 'fired' Pat did so, if this was the reason, as they needed to employ people who can conduct the employment offered within manners of SCIENCE.

So too are many other 'scientists' being scrutinised before making 'media placements' proffering 'doom and woe', or that new BOOK release. It is it seemingly been too 'easy' being a 'climatologist' up to now. It is that to avoid scrutiny that the 'scientists' 'cry censorship', but after 20-30 years of 'doom and woe' it is falling on deafened ears.

Pat's attitude is seen best in his attempts to start 'hate hartlod' discussions, as I make scrutiny of his 'opinions'. It is that the 'sad sac' (seen in this thread) of recently from Pat N. is perhaps his solution to his dismissal, too blame his employer whilst trying to 'highline' the opinion Pat likes to express, but cannot validate in SCIENCE otherwise.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

In response to:-
_______________
Current rating: 0
01 Mar 2006
by Pooper
Reply to this comment
There is nothing NATURAL about the current rise in temperatures. If Earth's ocean, surface and troposphic temperature levels were following historic "natural" cycles, they would be on their way down, not up as they have been particularly in the last 30-35 years, and bound to go much, much higher because the latent effects of rising volumes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The National Weather Service personnel who fired Neuman for being truthful about this ought be taken to task for being derelict in their duties and in violation of fair employment laws.
_______________

I found it out by asking Dr. Stephen Vavrus after one of his lectures on the how the atmosphere and the sun work together to keep the earth's surface from freezing over due to it's long distance from the sun (93 million miles).

Dr. Vavrus is an associate scientist who works in the University of Wisconsin "Center for Climatic Research", and has been studying the earth's atmospheric cycles for 15 years, he said.

When I asked him following his lecture if the earth's natural cycles should have dictated a warming or a cooling trend over the past 3-4 decades, he answered that we should have seen evidence of more cooling, not warming, and attributed the difference to the increased volumes of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere today, which are projected to dramatically increase further in this century if we don't slow the rate at which we are adding to those volumes by the excessive burning of fuels, especially fossil derived fuels, to meet our energy needs.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2004/ann/glob_jan-dec_pg.gif

Bio on Steven Vavrus
ccr.aos.wisc.edu/contacts/stephenvavrus.html

--------------------
From 'A chronology of climate change'
.
.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
-------------------

It is very simply 'pooper' there is no trend viable from only '15 years', there is no trend viable from the past 150 to 400 years, and no matter how many data points you place into that period, you will still not get a valid trend of 'global climate'. This is known of statistical process, often ignored within the opinion and inference (doom and woe) proffered in regard to 'greenhouse climate change'.

If you look at the plot of SURFACE temperature you link to 'pooper' you will notice the trend linked to HUMAN POPULATION for the period. I again provide the most relevant plots. The rise in average surface temperature (Chart 2) is in tandem with rematerialing produced by the rise in population (Chart 1).

Greater definition of population rise and redistribution is seen in chart 3, with geographic redistribution of Human population seen in chart 4.

The trend of Human Population redistribution will continue to see sprawl over presently existing 'green' regions, like the Amazonian basin. This trend, along with its linked interactions with turbulence and weather patterning, from surface kinetic energy induction rate and distribution alterations, will follow this redistrtibtion produced by surface rematerialing producing further changes to weather and regional 'climates'.

There is no possiblity in SCIENCE however for a 'greenhouse effect' to even be produced by the materials such 'greenhouse concepts' would involve as the actual materials do not posses the properties outlined as 'greenhouse behavior'. To save typing again, please read www.climateimc.org/ and additional comments.

So it is only an opinion upon which you base your premise 'pooper'? What about considering SCIENCE. An OPINION from a 'scientist', or a journalist 'science editor', are NEITHER expressions of SCIENCE. It is that few if any of the labeled ‘climate experts’, the supposed 'relevant scientists' often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation.

How then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? Effectively they are 'lost' and if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s. You focus too much on WHO is "saying" 'pooper', not what SCIENCE is being expressed, hence the 'bio' as a reference/defense, rather than a rational of defense of the 'greenhouse concept' in SCIENCE.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

In regard to:-

Re: And you know this HOW 'pooper'?
02 Mar 2006 by Pooper

I found it out by asking Dr. Stephen Vavrus after one of his lectures on the how the atmosphere and the sun work together to keep the earth's surface from freezing over due to it's long distance from the sun (93 million miles).
Dr. Vavrus is an associate scientist who works in the University of Wisconsin "Center for Climatic Research", and has been studying the earth's atmospheric cycles for 15 years, he said.
When I asked him following his lecture if the earth's natural cycles should have dictated a warming or a cooling trend over the past 3-4 decades, he answered that we should have seen evidence of more cooling, not warming, and attributed the difference to the increased volumes of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere today, which are projected to dramatically increase further in this century if we don't slow the rate at which we are adding to those volumes by the excessive burning of fuels, especially fossil derived fuels, to meet our energy needs.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2004/ann/glob_jan-dec_pg.gif
Bio on Steven Vavrus
ccr.aos.wisc.edu/contacts/stephenvavrus.html

Just to be sure the message gets through to being read by Pat N., his seemingly determined attempts to harass myself, showing reasonings beyond rational comprehension and behavior.

As has been related to Pat N. already, there is no ban, and never has been, of myself except from the usual (like Pat) few prone to delusional misrepresentations. This latest little flurry of harassment from Pat, directed against myself, has been progressed in a number of locations already, all ending with Pat looking as he is.

Notice also I have only ever bothered to make one reply TO the 'realclimate' site, spending most of my time in the REAL world, dealing in facsimile.

A mentioned previously to Pat in yet another 'hate hartlod' thread he has begun:-
-----
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 p
Is that it Pat, all you can do is call those who scrutinise your ‘material’ names?

AS you well know Pat, my name is Peter K Anderson, known also as “Hartlod”, this word being my username in forums and so I have registered it as a trademark against my name.

I do not ’spam’ either Pat, of the two of us it is not myself that makes over 500 attempts to produce reference to themselves with repeated postings of a single article, that would be the action of Pat N. in reality.

The reality that the rest of us all exist in Pat N., sees the situation as being:-

Beware: Pat N., belligerent stalker, spammer and liar.

Why do I have to notice what Pat N. is doing?
He has developed a habit of beginning ‘hate hartlod threads’ like pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22607.php
so now I must waste some more time on Pat N. simply as he cannot withstand scrutiny of his opinionation.
-----

Again, notice also I have only ever bothered to make one reply TO the 'realclimate' site, spending most of my time in the REAL world, dealing in facsimile.
With regard to and for the NOTICE of Pat N.:-

-----Original Message-----
From: contrib (at) realclimate.org [mailto:contrib (at) realclimate.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:02 AM
To: Hartlod
Subject: Re: Regarding supposed ban?

We are not responsible for either comments made elsewhere that refer to our site and we do not endorse any comments that are made on RC either. No one is 'banned' on our site, although comments are moderated according to our comment policy. Your dispute with Pat Neuman appears to have nothing to do with us.

Gavin
----------

Next to 'ICE' and to quote:-
[“Of all the water on the Earth, only three per cent is fresh water. Two-thirds of this three per cent is locked in polar ice caps, glaciers, the atmosphere and soil. That leaves only one per cent of the Earth's water available for use."]

There is little to justify Pat's 'doom and woe', or that platformed by any number of journalists (Pats favored article sources) or 'climate experts' regarding 'doom and woe' directly or indirectly related to 'ice melting', there is NOT enough water retained as such.

It is infact that the climate is coming away from a glaciation, and so the Polar Regions are infact the LAST place to react, it is just NOW that they are reacting and winters will be in general milder for a period of time, with increases in turbulence seeing large precipitations as 'events'.

Is there 'compelling evidence' for this being 'the warmest period in the past 1000 years', the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of 'warming' for the past 10000 years with all this related to 'greenhouse concepts'?

No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.

Are we at or near a peak in the NATURAL climate oscillation? If you look AT the numerous temperature plots about, you might note the 'symmetry' of the 'wobble' exhibited. REALISE Pat it is NOT the absolute NUMBERS of your 'plots' that are relevant, but the 'wobble' defined within them.

The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

To save time retyping, please look at www.climateimc.org/ where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing alterations to the induction rate of, and to the redistribution of kinetic energy induction, and so is leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see www.climateimc.org/ for more detail.

It is infact, more simply, that 'climate science' has become a collection of 'buzz words', to remove the 'descriptions' from 'reality' to 'match' the 'science'. In the past 30 years we have listened to 'doom and woe' of 'global cooling', 'global warming' and now 'global greenhouse warming'.

An example is "Polar Amplification", attempting to cite a process involving the Polar Regions being 'first' to react to 'change'. It is infact that the climate is coming away from an glaciation, and so the Polar regions are infact the LAST place to react, it is just NOW that hey are reacting. It seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense).

Next, "Greenhouse science" methodology is bogged in predetermination, studying a false positive. It is attaching "CO2" to warming, induced in a more directly seen manner by Human produced surface rematerialing. The 'climate alteration' is simply part of the natural processes that never cease. "Greenhouse Science" is and always was a total false positive being run as a formal 'study'.

The plots of 'temperature' cannot produce any validation of inferences of 'greenhouse warming'; the period is too small in comparison to the over all cycle. Increases in data points within such insignificant time periods will not increase the 'significance' of the period, only better define an insignificant period of a much longer 'process'. This has led 'greenhouse science' to 'model' a 'tangential solution' to the actual process functioning.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

You do indeed need valid theory if you would indicate that your remediations CAN be helpful. Apart from much opinion expressed, there is little to support the 'greenhouse concepts' that is consistent with the actualities seen in the environment about us.
The warming we see is the 'end play' of a process that began ~15,000 years ago.
The alterations to weather patterning is due to the redistribution of kinetic energy induction by the surface, seen in the small rise in media surface temperature.
This is directly evident in notice of the plot above.

Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)

To continue relating some of the issues of 'fault' within the 'greenhouse climate models', apart from the obvious discrepancies of the included materials behavior to those actually presented, there is the further exasperations from the realisation of the 'double' inclusion of kinetic energy within the calculations'.

It is easily seen in the slide ' glob_jan-dec_pg' in:-
www.climateimc.org/
(along with the comparative version of a displayed trend to Human Population)
, that the rise in median temperature of the surface ocean waters runs in a trend similar to that of the land surface, but with a delay, and in a muted manner.

The delay is due to the direct Conduction processes transferring the kinetic energy from the land to water surface within the actions of Convection. It would appear to have been ~15 years in 1930, for example.

The dampening of the trend is due to the ability of the liquids of the ocean being able to produce Turbulence in reaction to these gains of kinetic energy. As such these processes of Turbulence lower the residual energy that is recordable as 'temperature'.

So the water surface will show a lagging trend of lower and more moderate increases whilst the dry land surface continues to be rematerialed and present a generally rising median temperature from altering interactions with incident radiation produced by the altering of the materials OF the surface made within the sprawl of Human Habitat.

The atmosphere being a gas is able to display much more readily the effects induced by Turbulence, hence the observed weather patterning alterations.

The combined 'land/ocean' plot is however presenting a 'double count' of much of the kinetic energy. This is WHY the 'models' are NOT preemptive AND give scenarios of such 'alarming fantasies' as they include TOO MUCH energy (as well as NOT handling the 'energy calculations' in a valid manner). Certainly much MORE 'energy' is included than is actually present.

(This situation I have been attempting to indicate for a few years, and is seen in many differing portions of 'calculation conceptualisations' including the remittance behaviors of molecules being presented as 'blackbody' radiation linked to 'atmospheric temperature' when the reverse is the reality, these photons present the energy NOT retained as a 'kinetic gain', thus have no link to 'atmospheric' molecular temperature.)

This (and other) 'misnomer(s)' is(/are) reason for WHY there are still some attempting to platform 'greenhouse concepts', as the claim is made of a need to 'account' for the 'energy observed'. It is just that the energy is not actually present in the amounts 'inferred'.

Again I mention this to play the difference of OBSERVATION to INFERENCE.

You need to avoid PREDETERMINATION as this psychological behavioralism 'taints' inferences of even the most reliable observations.

Too often we all see INFERENCE (especially as platformed 'opinions') being given precedence over OBSERVATION in relation to 'greenhouse (and related) concepts'.

Your's,
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com

To save more typing

www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php

Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)

With regard to:- www.climateimc.org/ with title:- "Earth First! In US initiates EF! Climate Caucus"

There is no SCIENCE to support the 'anti corporate mentality' so often expressed (as within the above link), to make possible even the 'greenhouse effect' (see below *) that is platformed to justify so much of this misdirected angst.

Meanwhile, the Amazonian Forests, the people who live within it AND those trying to protect it are being MURDERED with little indication such 'groups' as mentioned in the link above are even aware, let alone concerned.

Let US ALL notice a section from this (May 5th 2006) mornings paper ('The Daily Telegraph' in NSW) on page 22 (no internet link), under the title "Atomic Power: a great bright hope" attributed to Bob Carr (yes the ex-NSW Premier signed up by the "Climate Institute"):-
["The debate is over. Yesterday WWF Australia, one of the nation's largest environmental groups, accepted the realist of peaceful nuclear power."]

["In other words you won't save the planet from global warming without Nuclear Power."]

["As Premier I made similar comments. I was surprised by the response. It wasn't the outrage and indignation that one would have got in the 70's and 80's."]

["Renewable energy -wind, solar- is a part of the solution. But a smallish part. WE could build windmills from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and they would not provide the seven-day-a-week flow of energy that we call base load power."]

These individuals (as in the above link), and the 'groups' they have overrun (as exampled in the above link) are now IGNORING reality, ignoring the Public, and ignoring the Environment, expressing only their 'self interests' wrapped in a veneer of 'environmental concern'.

I would also reprise (in short) my outlines, given as warning, over the past YEARS in various Yahoo groups (especially). "Greenhouse platforming" will be rendered moot by:-
1) The increased use of hybrid bio-diesel vehicles.
2) The increased use of Uranium Fuelled Power generation as backbone generation.

So infact there will be a vast reduction in 'greenhouse pollution'. Thus the incessant (and POINTELESS) 'greenhouse rhetoric' will fall from 'public notice' (from what ever level that is NOW) as pollution OVERALL is reduced. Any INTEREST in listening to CONTINUED claims of 'climate change due to greenhouse warming' will also disappear, as the ENTIRE 'climate/greenhouse' sociopolitical VAPIDITY is rendered MOOT as 'Human additions' of supposed 'greenhouse gases' ARE infact removed in reality AND as a 'climate issue'.

=========
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
=========

Next with regard to www.climateimc.org/ with the title "New Film: The Great Warming":- To quote from the MOVIE script:- ["Over the past 10,000 years, the amount of 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere has been relatively constant"]

Well INFACT over the past ~15000 years the CLIMATE has been rising from a GLACIATION, so it seems that in terms of CLIMATE 'greenhouse concepts' have NO application.

To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Without greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be -19 degrees C instead of 14 degrees C, or 33 degrees C colder.']

As yet NO valid reason to even BELIEVE these figures has been provided (see *), just a LOT of OPINION being REPEATED.

To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Earth is heated by sunlight. Most of the Sun's energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the earths surface, oceans and atmosphere."]

Blatantly incorrect as can be seen in slides I have already provided in links, ONLY those photons within the upper and lower VISIBLE spectrum as well as the lower THIRD of the UV spectrum are able to become surface incident. This is on the 'inward' leg, i.e. FROM the outer edge of the atmosphere.

To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, in order to keep the atmosphere's energy budget in balance, the warmed earth also emits heat energy back to space as infrared radiation."]

WRONG AGAIN, the photons escaping the CASCADE are infact NOT representing 'heat energy' in ANY manner. These PHOTONS represent NON kinetic interactions by the molecules of the atmosphere with PHOTONS within the cascade. It is the energy NOT released by the interaction that is retained as HEAT. This is the energy recorded within measures of ALBEDO

To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, because the energy is recycled downward, surface temperatures become much warmer than if the greenhouse gases were absent form the atmosphere."]

Complete nonsense, the energy is NOT recycled downward with ANY trend, again ALL photons within the atmosphere are absorbed as seen in the slides I have already provided within links.

(*) INFACT photons NOT in the upper/lower VISIBLE spectrum, or the lowest one third of the UV spectrum, or that small portion in and just above the RADIO spectrum DO NOT become surface incident, EVER. So there is NOT POSSIBLE any 'surface warming' from a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. The WARMING that is seen as unnatural is due to humanity rematerialing the surface, end of 'debate'.

This (and other) 'movie(s)' is(are) dispensing POINTLESS nonsense which is leading us all into the URANIUM age.
Boycott these movies, and they will cease attempting to produce their PROPAGANDA.
Ignore those attempting to defend and support these 'movies' and the 'information' they propaganda, THEY are leading us all into the URANIUM AGE.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com