Into the 'trough' of Climate.

Just to mention a concept that has been again brought up, the 'heat island concept', within regard to my previous comments. The overall rematerialing of the planetary surface is produced in a trend to follow Human Population; the production of 'cityscapes' is simply one portion of such sprawl production.

The alterations to weather patterning are being produced by redistribution (in region and rate) of land surface kinetic energy induction by the sprawl, and production of, Human Habitat. Realise that the small 0.6 degree increase in median surface temperature is the residual energy remaining within the surface after effects of the processes of Conduction and Convection; it is NOT the energy powering the processes of Turbulence.

There is the further issue with regard to 'greenhouse based models with the realisation of the 'double' inclusion of kinetic energy within calculations.

It is easily seen in the slide referenced as 'file_6' in http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348

*****
Note also the slide displaying the geographic density of Human Population (from 1994), and that in the slide 'file_6' the delay from Land 'surface median temperature rise' to that of the Ocean is around 15 years......
*****

With comparison of the displayed trend to Human Population, 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 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. Realise that Turbulence is a relationship to a 'pressure & temperature' differential, that is a RELATIVE difference, NOT as in terms of 'absolute measures' of any specific level of 'temperature and/or pressure'.

The combined 'land/ocean' plot (figure_6) is however presenting a 'double count' of much of the kinetic energy. This is just one reason as to 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.

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

The 'heat island effect' is not validly discounted, the REAL effect from this concept is both cumulative, and still in its effect yet to be OBSERVED in its full impact.

Meanwhile, the 'greenhouse paper shuffle' tries to stay plausible...

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

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 referenced as 'file_6' in http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
(With comparison of the 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. Realise that Turbulence is a relationship to a 'pressure & temperature' differential, that is a RELATIVE difference, NOT as in terms of 'absolute measures' of any specific level of 'temperature and/or pressure', so the (relatively rarified) atmosphere of Mars displays 'turbulence' as well could any atmosphere present on Pluto (for example) also have potential for such, even if the 'median atmospheric temperature' is ~5 K.

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

It is easily seen above that the rise in median temperature of the surface ocean waters run in a trend similar to that of the 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 process of convection.

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.

To the end of this 'Pat N./CH' you have infact said nothing at all, not attempted discussion, been vapidly condescending whilst becoming quite forgettable once you attempted to allude that kinetic actions with regard to the points I made where somehow linked to the 'motion' of Humans on the surface, as in running, walking or driving a vehicle.

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

Simply as Humanity would like to 'reserve' some 'space' on the surface does NOT mean that the natural oscillations of climate will 'notice'.

There is NO valid reason to run from the 'sight' calling "Doom and Woe' is upon you all!" There is no need to 'cry doom' if a 'city' is the only concern, the PEOPLE can move. Perhaps these 'Cities' should be built with differing methods and concerns, differing materials and organisations, NOW that Humanity is 'smarter'.

The trend of Human Population redistribution will continue to see sprawl over presently existing 'green' regions, like the Amazonian basin. Sprawl will continue into those presently less densely occupied regions, taking the ‘best places first.

Then population growth will ‘fill in’ the gaps to produce a ‘unified human sprawl surface material’. This ‘sprawl’ trend, along with its linked interactions with turbulence and weather patterning, is produced from Surface kinetic energy induction rate and distribution alterations.

These alterations, these redistributions, produced by ‘sprawl’ surface rematerialing will be producing further changes to weather and regional 'climates'. It is important to notice this as it is the REDISTRIBUTION and ALTERATION of kinetic energy induction by the planetary surface that is producing alterations to weather patterning seen in events associated with, rainfall, floods, snow, etc.

All these events are driven by turbulence produced by Conduction and Convection of kinetic energy.

Observations of 'Human produced effect' are not so much of ‘climate change’ but of 'weather patterning' alterations, produced by a ‘redistribution of turbulence’ induced by alterations to the planetary surface.

Humanity IS making these alterations and is doing so unheeding of the effect our constructions are having on the distribution and rate of kinetic energy inductions CONDUCTED to the atmosphere/ocean and transported as CONVECTION.

Climate alteration is a process of irregular periodicity. Those Periods that do contain multiple glacial events (see slide above), where ice and snow recedes back to the Polar Regions, and then returns across the surface, have neither consistent 'durations' or 'placement' on the 'time line'.

These total periods are within the 'troughs' of a very LONG and IRREGULAR oscillation. So the 'blocks of time' in 'glaciation period bar chart' represent the placement of 'troughs' within the overall Planetary Climate oscillation.

Within these 'troughs' occurs an EVIDENCED secondary set of oscillations, producing the fall and rise, the ebb and flow' of ICE & SNOW across the surface.

All of this activity is WITHIN the OVERALL 'trough' of the LONG term irregularly periodic oscillation. Within these 'short and ice prone' Periods, Million of years are encompassed; the present PERIOD is only TWO MILLION years into its progression.

Periods of (for example) 20 to 80 Million years ago are in a 'Primary Crest' and the Secondary "Peak and Dip" are 'marked' in geological evidence by sea level alterations, as there where no glaciation periods, and Turbulence does not leave traces. The sea levels where higher beyond the last ~3 Million years, but that is not within a situation that is presently observed.

The contrivance of a 'imposing names', exampled with the phrase "Polar Amplification", seems to be made with little regard to the existent natural processes (the 'Polar Regions' are NOT 'reacting first', but are in FACT acting in turn and are LAST) that still (and NOW) show the effects of warming that began ~15,000 years ago, when the snow cover began to move back from the edge of what is now just north of the State of Texas.

The Ice and Snow are gone from that region, but the warming cycle still continues. Thus it is that those charts of 'temperature', and the NUMBERS incorporated, are only showing a 'tide returning', NOT 'unnatural warming'.
Humanity will need to 'ebb and flow', as does all of 'nature', across the surface of this Planet.

There is no need to 'cry doom' if a 'city' is the only concern, the PEOPLE can move. Perhaps these 'Cities' should be built with differing methods and concerns, differing materials and organisations, NOW that Humanity is 'smarter'.

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

I've never said the oceans weren't important.

It's not containing salt that makes the oceans a heat sink, it's the fact there's so much water in them.

You don't even know who I am.

Maybe my "inability to speak in a consistent manner" is actually due to the fact that I am a different person to the one you're feuding with.

I'm tired of asking questions of you when you don't answer them. If I'm slipping over into "ad hominem" attacks it's because you're in this solipsistic world where whatever I say to you doesn't penetrate through. I can claim what i like, but you "know" who I really am because you think I behave like someone else (by disagreeing with you?)

Yet you keep pretending that you're presenting science.

It is KINETIC ENERGY that powers our 'weather', by its influence to atmospheric pressure. It is the measure of 'kinetic energy' that is related as TEMPERATURE by the link to the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms that comprise the atmosphere.

This measure of TEMPERATURE and the links to PRESSURE alterations produces the observed 'weather patterning' and powers the 'events' enclosed. Lifting and transporting water as molecules/vapor, warming the surface and through conduction and convection giving the atmosphere and the ocean waters the 'heat' we measure today. This process has been occurring for BILLIONS of years, and is NOT just 'new'.

It is the alterations to the PLANETARY surface materialing, MADE by the production of Human Habitat, which is creating the alterations in distribution of, and rate of INDUCTION of kinetic energy. This is altering WHERE 'weather' will move, and by regulation (in increase of) kinetic energy WHAT events can be 'produced'.

This is due to the alterations made in the materials presented on the surface, and thus the interactional behaviors of the materials presented, to the energy incident photons. This is being done by Humanity, with the production of the sprawl OF the habitat of humanity as it is made.

**Hence the small alterations so far seen IN the recorded median surface temperature OF the surface.

Humanity does NOT like to live in deserts, and so the rematerialing produced BY Humanity is instead produced upon the REMOVAL of photosynthetic mass.

It is KNOWN that the PROCESS of photosynthesis consumes the energy of incident photons within the Upper and Lower visible Spectrums, this energy allowing the production of O2 as a side product, and the carbohydrates the plant requires, and are the real purpose FOR the photosynthetic process. There is NO 'destruction of energy'.

However, by removing the photosynthetic covering, the materials placed instead by sprawl are better able to generator intrinsic kinetic energy gains. This is readily known by all as common knowledge; grassed lawn will be 'cooler' than a spread of concrete.

On a large scale, the cityscape begins too place substantial amounts of kinetic energy into that atmosphere at places that are NOT 'natural' in their positioning. Over time, the increase in sprawl range, and 'internal sprawl density' further increases this effect in a cumulative manner.

Where a city grows too close to its 'water catchments', as example, it is already being seen that the precipitation into those catchments will dwindle.

'Rain' will fall less often, when it does it will be short and a 'heavy' fall as if there is 'less water' being held aloft by the increases in kinetic energy available across the distance of the now 'cityscape sprawl', it will continue until it reaches, for example a near by Mountain Range, where it might be 'dumped out' as snow on a more consistent basis than previously seen in the last 200 years.

It is the input of kinetic energy that suspends water, determining how MUCH water can be lifted, and how LONG a time that water CAN be suspended. The DIRECTION of transport is determined by PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS.

This is very much the case observed in and around Sydney (Australia) at present, for instance.

To observe some FACTS as to what IS 'temperature', please note the quotes below, again from standard texts as common knowledge. Notice also in the quotes below the TIMING of the divergence of two concepts.

One stayed stuck (it seems) on study of hypothetical constructs (the 'thermodynamic studies') of matter (like the 'Ideal Gas' and 'Uniform Blackbody' hypotheses).

The other attempted to make more direct study of the ACTUAL materials ('Molecular Dynamics') that led to 'Quantum' considerations and 'Quantum Theory'.

At the 'schism', there where those that thought that a 'cascade' of photons, and/or quantum objects was not possible, that a CHAIN REACTION was not feasible. To an unfortunate extent, they where very WRONG, but some are seeming still trying to live a 'thermodynamical dream'.

Quotes from (numerous) standard texts, just for today:-
-----
["What is Temperature? In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it."]

["About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale."]
["The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K)."]
-----

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

There is little to nothing valid in the 'greenhouse concepts', they where never validated due to their inherent flaws, see:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
for more details of viable mechanisms of weather patterning alteration. Even the materials, CO2 etc, involved do NOT present a 'greenhouse behavior', the 'greenhouse theory' is detached from reality, as are so many of those that platform 'greenhouse concerns'.

You will see in the reference to the 'nature' of 'temperature' that it encompasses commonality with PRESSURE and concepts regardful of the kinetic velocity of atoms/molecules as 'units' i.e. a (very small) WHOLE.

It is the link to pressure that drives alterations to weather patterning.

Notice in the quotes below the TIMING of the divergence of two concepts.

One stayed stuck on study of hypothetical constructs of matter (the 'thermodynamic studies').

The other attempted to make more direct study of the ACTUAL materials ('molecular dynamics') that led to 'Quantum' considerations and 'Quantum Theory'.

To clarify, there has been no mention of 'people moving about' Pat N./'CH' on MY part as being a 'source' of weather patterning alterations. To be direct and blunt, you are making a lie of you representation Pat N./'CH' by trying to contrive a lie as the position you would like to argue against.

This is the common method touted by the 'greenhouse platformers' and is encountered everywhere. TO those who come here to read the articles I place is do apologise, but identities like Pat N./'CH' cannot be avoided, read around them or study their commonly displayed 'common 'behavioral traits.

SO again, Quotes from (numerous) standard texts:-

["What is Temperature? In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it."]

["About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale."]
["The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K)."]

You should retire Pat N./'CH' from this 'discussion', you simply seem intent of trying to 'spoil', with complete fabrications and developed LIES, as I have NOT mentioned the MOVEMENT of people on the surface as in any manner relevant to weather pattering alterations.

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

I have outlined the processes by which material CAN induct a kinetic energy gain FROM incident Radiation on NUMEROUS occasions.

You find NUMEROUS indication of this process mentioned in:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
And
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348

It is that not ONLY CO2 is 'warmed' by this process. CO2 is in NO WAY 'special' in this regard and infact is POORLY able to generate intrinsic kinetic energy gains due to its heightened ability to produce remittance of energy as secondary photons.

YOU do not 'feel' the photons incident to you Pat N./'CH', you nerves are cells, all cells are filled with saline water, you are infact interacting as many small 'saline water-bags' with the energy of incident Photons.

It is indeed good enough Pat N./'CH' to outine the failures in this continuance of your charade, many HAVE heard the 'greenhouse story' and now RELAISE what iswas they heard.

It was NOT the 'brillant few' in battle with SCIENCE to bring a warning to the 'people', it was a BELLIGERENT FEW who could NOT understand that the 'old science' was being left behind. I have no need to show further the situation Pat N./'CH', the platforming of the 'greenhouse concepts' has mentioend these events often enough, it is just the 'greenhouse platform' tries to spin a LIE as a façade to the REALITY (still).

IN all, your 'replies' make no attempt to discuss what I actually mention.

You attempt to produce a fabrication for you, on your part Pat N./'Ch', to 'argue down' unrelated to what I mention which is all very convienient for yourself Pat N./'CH', but is infact within your allusions an OUTRIGHT telling of a LIE. There is no reason to believe much of what you say at all Pat N./'CH' which extends to WHO and WHERE you are.

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

You seem unable to form a 'solid opinion' Pat N. / 'CH', first the oceans are of no concern, now all important.

The waters of the oceans are warmed primarily by conduction/convection. The saline state of the ocean water produces a 'heat sink' effect to stabilise the overall fluctuations of 'temperature' within our biosphere.

The Radiation that can become surface incident is not within a spectrum that will produce strong interactions of the energy load WITH water, as is seen in slide of atmospheric absorbance in both
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
And
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348

It is also Pat N. / "CH" that the transport by conduction is from inland water outpouring from river systems, where the water is run across the surface.

IN coastal margin strips, where the shallow waters allow the 'floor' to gain 'heat' from interaction with photons so incident. This kinetic energy is conducted to the waters in contact and convected by the creation of and addition to 'water current' or simply measured as 'warmth' of those waters.

It is VERY OBVIOUS Pat N./'CH" that the trend of surface rematerialing with Human Population IS directly linked to the alterations to median surface temperature, in a DIRECT and NOTICED manner.

Also, now we know NOW 'you' have SOME awareness of 'correlation' Pat N./'CH', it SHOULD be it no longer heard from you (under any name) how 'CO2', by presenting a plot ,MUST have a supposed indication of a 'greenhouse warming' effect' when the materials involved CANNOT produce even 'greenhouse behavior', let alone a 'greenhouse effect'.

It is ALSO very obvious Pat N./'CH' your inability to speak in a consistent manner, to only show NOW only attempts to belittle me whilst avoiding any direct mentions of SCIENCE places you the CH identity firmly into the 'spoiler category' of 'non-discussion'ist identities'. Your 'location' is of no relevance, you can CLAIM what you like, as you seem to be doing anyway, your behavior marks the 'person' behind the façade.

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

What's at issue is you don't accept that radiation can raise the temperature / kinetic energy / whatever of CO2 molecules.

Trying as hard as I can to remember what sunlight and being warm feels like, I can tell you the air does get warmer when the sun is out.

As for the 3 imaginary failures of greenhouse theory (which wasn't fully developed till a lot later than) "in the mid 1930's; the late 1940's; and the mid 1950's. Three failures, failures all, all three of those failures, mentioned now in sufficient quantity I am sure"
- No. That's not good enough, those are 3 decades, not 3 literature references, 3 scientists who carried out this alleged work or 3 universities where it was done.

I'm not a yahoo mailbox any more than I'm a hydrologist but if you don't believe I exist then please ignore me.

The oceans, 2/3 of the planet's surface and I don't know how much water, have such a high thermal mass that they dwarf the possible effects of any "kinetic energy induction" changes. You'll be waiting a long time in the North Sea to get warm off of heat transmitted by conduction from Edinburgh.

"symmetry to the overall plot of human population"
- do you know the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Just because you've made 2 graphs with similar curves doesn't mean that one process causes the other.

(Still in Glasgow, despite having posted comments underneath postings from people living in Minnesota, Australia and London.)

The references to 'temperature' indicate the kinetic nature OF the energy being so measured. I notice you avoid even noticing that, along with the link to PRESSURE and kinetic velocity (the expression of kinetic energy) of the molecular unit.

I have not 'backed away' but I am not going to repeat endlessly for such an ignorant individual as you Pat N.

I have indeed provided you with the material you need Pat N. You yourself have cited articles that outline the three failures. The History is there for any to read, the 'greenhouse fringe' simply try to cite the situation of SCIENCE being 'bad' whilst the 'brilliant few' took their 'warning of greenhouse danger' to the 'people' and simply talked as is they had 'the solution'. Again there where 3 attempts at validation, all ending in failures; in the mid 1930's; the late 1940's; and the mid 1950's. Three failures, failures all, all three of those failures, mentioned now in sufficient quantity I am sure.

There is little also relevant in the continuance of trying to present yourself as being 'from anywhere', your identity is anonymous, a Yahoo mail address form memory. Much harassment is made at me from such 'communally used' mail box identities.

Your mannerisms and material ARE however 'pure Pat N.', with the "Chanhassen snow hydrologist" seen in:-
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
-: altering from Pat N. to CH

For more (if anyone is interested in 'CH' being boresome, see
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/112836/index.php

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

The ALTERATION noted so often is to the MEDIAN surface temperature, this is induced by the alterations TO the materials comprising the SURFACE made by Human Habitat sprawl.

This is NOT 'climate change'; it IS inducing an alteration to the patterning of WEATHER events across the surface.

Your point regarding the 'oceans' is irrelevant; it is not the ocean surface that is producing an induction of kinetic energy with any alteration to distribution of induction (by placement on the surface) and rate of induction (from the alteration to materials due to actions by Humanity).

If you look at the graph above, you will see the ocean is tracking behind the land surface. This is as conduction and convection are moving kinetic energy TO the ocean waters from the land based induction zones, as i have outlined.

You reference to the amount of 'natural covering' remaining is again irrelevant. It is the alterations already produced that are creating the seen effect of that 0.6 degrees C. increase.

Also, humanity is NOT rematerialing in a consistent manner; Humanity does not build over deserts.

Humanity likes instead to build over photosynthetic mass. Humanity replaces the process of Photosynthesis with its sprawl, so more energy is also now available to the processes of kinetic energy induction (see slides in article above).

You will also notice the symmetry to the overall plot of human population.

These mechanisms are indeed VERY valid and well KNOWN also.

Overall, there is little relevant in your attempts to give scrutiny to the article.

There is little also relevant in the continuance of trying to present yourself as being 'from anywhere', your identity is anonymous. Your mannerisms and material ARE however 'pure Pat N.', with the "Chanhassen snow hydrologist" seen in:-
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
-:altering from Pat N. to CH

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

3 quotes about temperature, followed by your usual untrue claim that greenhouse theory has not been validated. (I notice that you're backing away from your previous "3 failed attempts" claim now you've been asked to provide a literature reference)

Who "knows me widely as Pat Neuman"? No-one at any of the projects I volunteer at. In Glasgow, Scotland. Bampot.

Pretty, nice idea, worth doing. Will not stop human-induced climate chage.

70% of the world's surface is water, unchanged by human activity. Most of the land still has natural covering. Urban Sprawl is not going to have so great an effect.

Even if the mechanism you propose were valid, which it plainly is not.

ILIVEINGLASGOWYOULIVEINCLOUDCUCKOOLAND

There are many such concepts, in relation to the 'greening' of 'rooflines'. The problem is that many are NOT involving the proper rationale, and purpose, for doing so. This being on a basis of reducing the kinetic energy (see comment this thread 'Regarding the getting of (Temperature) Scale.') production OF the cityscape.

There are few inclusions of a specific wind energy harvesting plant within the large buildings present within the cityscape.

The construction of buildings will need to be begun with a plan to facilitate the capping with a ‘green roofline’. Older will be able to have such, new construction WILL need to have ‘planned inclusions’ however and ASAP. There will need to be the turbine/generator ‘room’ connected to the ‘wind channels’, imagine the equivalent to the Egyptian Pyramids and the enclosed ‘sun channels’ to allow sun ‘light’ to penetrate the structure. Now it is 'Let there be Wind'.

This is a specific engineering, NOT a beautification program for ‘tower dwellers’, although the side effect OF the engineering will be to add aesthetic living space TO the cityscape.

The first step would be to combine, on a historic basis, with reconstruction of the image held of Ancient Babylon and a wonder of that time, the ‘Hanging Gardens’. New York has ‘Central Park’ as a known tourist location, but the idea of watching live theatre in a rooftop garden stage built with ‘all weather facilities’ ‘off Broadway’ would NOT be a draw?

Are the blocks of New York not so large that a suitable rooftop ‘floral walk’ could not be made a commercial concern also? Suitable blocks could have ‘themes’, eateries and cafes would abound. ALl on suitable roof tops.

Walking trails could be made for the athletic or the ‘tour guide led’ with enclosed walk ways tween the ‘garden roofline’ ‘stages', enclosed at the edges with large screens of ‘impact plastic’, unseen, being covered with ‘greenery’ anyway.

Spread amongst the tall plantings’ could be ‘wind flutes’ like those on older ships, turned with the wind to channel it all down towards and into the turbine/generator chamber. Auxiliary flutes along the building façade could harvest the even stronger ‘winds’ that channel between the buildings. These might look like the vents of a ‘jump jet’ and lay ‘flat’ against the building but still be meters in size anyway.

SO by reducing kinetic induction, and removing kinetic energy already conducted into the convection process the city scape has its effect on the weather patterning reduced, and the city scape is beautified as well.

On top of this, and the REAL fiscal advantages, you also have the reduced need to push electricity into the city grid from external sources especially for high draw utility such as air conditioning. I do note that there are few opening windows in New York building designs so air conditioning would seem to be producing a very large current draw.

There could even be moderation of temperature swings over a long term being possible. Realise that many large cityscapes ARE beginning to display the ‘weather’ seen in natural ‘Desert Mountains’ (adjusted to the local ‘regime’ of base temperature/humidity). So New York will be seeing more often extreme high and extreme low temperatures (heat-wave and heavy snow), even Japan is reporting this, the Japanese, however like so many others, are failing to REALISE the significance of this, being ‘blinded by greenhouse concerns’ instead.

Is this suitable incentive, increases to Tourism, Employment, and Beautification, with good Power generation advantages and cleaner, less turbulent air? Less pedestrian clutter at street level might allow reconformation of street use for the new hybrid electric/bio oil fuel vehicular traffic.

A Modern Babylon with modern Gardens with a more modern PURPOSE. Those able go to the Museums of NY, the Library, and look for reference to the Babylonian Gardens. Not only beauty, but protection of water courses, the great aqueducts’, that allowed that city to function in its time.

“More GREEN, more CLEAN.” -Feel free to quote me. :-0

Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

Quotes from (numerous) standard texts, just for today:-

["What is Temperature? In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it."]

["About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale."]
["The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K)."]

There is little to nothing valid in the 'greenhouse concepts', they where never validated due to their inherent flaws, see:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

Now, onto "CH", 'Chanhassen snow hydrologist', otherwise known widely as Pat Neuman (Chanhassen, Minnesota). Your actions are being seen as the harassment of myself that they really are, and common from within the 'geenhouse fringe', all unable to otherwise maintain their 'concepts' under scrutiny.

Perhaps you should retire 'CH', it is not the first time Pat N. you have hidden behind the 'Chanhassen Hydrologist' alter ego and you simply seem intent of trying to spoil, with complete fabrications, only yourself Pat N. mentioning the MOVEMENT of people on the surface as in any manner relevant.

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

Kinetic energy involved in temperature and climate movements: massive.
Kinetic energy emitted by people moving around: tiny. Multiplied by billions: still tiny.

Increase in CO2 concentrations: significant and growing, with a known and valid mechanism of action.

CH aka CH
From the laptop of CH
Glasgow, Scotland

It is KINETIC ENERGY that powers our 'weather' Pat N.

It is the measure of 'kinetic energy' that is related as TEMPERATURE Pat N.

It is the alterations to the PLANETARY surface materialing, MADE by the production of Human Habitat that is creating the alterations in distribution of, and rate of INDUCTION of kinetic energy.

This is due to the alterations made in the materials presented, and thus the interactional behaviors of the materials presented, to the energy incident photons. This is being done by Humanity, with the production of the sprawl OF the habitat of humanity as it is made.

**Hence the small alterations so far seen IN the recorded median surface temperature OF the surface.

You have not managed to show any displayed ability to comprehend, or have too little actual understanding (so far displayed) OF, the SCIENCE related to you.

You are also FABRICATING a position for me, a position that does NOT incorporate what I have actually mentioned and related.

From that FABRICATION, that CONTRIVENCE, you still attempt to 'argue your points from'.

As such you have made still NO relevant or even VALID point. Certainly you are NOT attempting to discuss what I mention.

Your rhetoric is amazingly pointless infact Pat N.

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

...I'm trying to point out errors in the pseudo scientific world view of someone who refuses to believe I even exist.

"Stop moving around so much, people! Your "kinetic energy induction" is causing crazy weather patterns".

It's obvious nonsense cloaked in long words and graphs.

Maybe it's true what they say about not feeding the trolls.

As you can see, I do have a problem with typing, and my lexical skills are better applied with a slide rule than a keyboard, but i hope my meanings are still clear.

There is nothing wrong with how we live; we do not need to heed the bookselling 'radical alterations' so often presented 'by Author' rather than 'by substance'.

We can still drive a personal vehicle, into a greened cityscape where the people can lunch on the roof gardens, overlooking other roof gardens, perhaps joined into 'garden walks' by covered and enclosed 'inter block' walkways. Lunchtime exercise would be improved, as would the general living within the cityscape, now perhaps a 'garden-scape'?

Fuel will continue to develop a greater bio-component, but it is not needed to rapidly develop new 'power systems'. Emissions are air pollution, the result of the FUEL being combusted, not the combustion process itself. High mix bio-fuel oils can remove near 70% of all byproduct pollution using simple compression based 'engine processes', such as the "Diesel" process (named after the inventor) or the modern turbine.

Simple and efficient, well tested and reliable, practical and AVAILABLE technologies will allow RAPID remediations, which is what is preferred for NOW. The petroleum combustion process, the 'sparked ignition engine' was the 'ring in', made to power the first mass produced vehicles with an engine small enough to 'fit into the car'. Ethyl Alcohol was mooted as fuel; we have all heard the 'quote' given as from Mr. Ford regarding the 'future of ethyl alcohol', but that was made before it was realised that such volume as needed for a mass produced vehicle was not producible.

As such what was producible was mixed with Fossil Oil derived components. So was born 'petroleum' and 'gasoline'. The direct solution today is to gradually replace the Fossil-Oil with a Bio-Oil. Then remove the sparked ignition process as TODAY it IS superfluous, and concentrate on the compression based designs, for their MULTIFUEL capability.

Fossil oil is still required to produce ALL the other materials we associate 'modern living' with, like 'nylon' for instance, so we shall need to continue to extract such fossil oils for decades yet.

HOWEVER, the over complication of 'solutions' favors only a FEW, those involved in the perpetuation of, and production of, RESEARCH, and some 'authors'.

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

Those who have read my article have asked how such a situation could be remedied.

What Humanity needs to realise is the association of surface materialing that is produced within the construction of its habitat, and the redistribution to kinetic loading if the atmosphere due to and from this rematerialing.

By altering the materialing, weather patterning is being altered. Humanity is moving the induction sites, and rates of induction of the kinetic loading of our atmosphere (and oceans). The final slide in the article highlights the correlations.

As example, a large 'metropolis' produces updrafts similar to a small 'mountain range', but not in a natural style, or place. It is the 'Concrete (mountain) Desert' that humanity produces, NOT the 'jungle'.

One easy way to limit the energy being conducted / convected into the atmosphere by these sprawl constructions would be to use it, as well as limit the amount generated.

TO limit the production of kinetic energy, one easy way would be rooftop gardens in as many 'city block buildings' as possible. Take the 'green' to the top of the 'towers'. Rather than build INTO the ground, or just UPON the ground, wear the 'earth' as a cap.

Next, use the cityscape wind, the product of convection, and channel it into 'wind generators', like a naturally powered wind tunnel/chamber, with a turbine/generator within it. This will further remove kinetic energy from the surrounding air.

So we have a more livable cityscape, 'roof covering' gardens, with a reduced surface temperature and with lower wind velocity generations i.e. turbulence is reduced.

Also, the cityscape is producing less draw of power INTO the least inefficient grid region TO supply from remote locations, whilst reducing the consumption of power in a major draw factor, that being air conditioning of the tower complexes.

Replacing plaza of ceramic pavers with a supported turf covering will help also.

This will begin to reduce the rate of alterations to weather patterning, reduce the energy input to, as example, storm creation, and stabilise rainfall patterning way from its present 'walking' and associated droughts and floods.

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

If you cannot still use your actual identity Pat N. you cannot expect to garner any credibility for you 'opinions'. You have attempted in the past to produce "mountains from mole mounds", now you try to produce them from nothing.

I have gone into great detail Pat N, see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 but it is that all you wish to do is make allusion and belittlement, and waste time, not make discussion.

You should consider your attitude in all the places you attempt to display it, as I have been mentioning in private discussion, it is nearing an obvious level of irrationality and should not be broadcast as you feel it needs to be.

If you had considered the number of words form the number of sources directed at you regarding you inferred opinion with its methodological basis, taken a step back and LOOKED at the validity of what you try, today you might still be employed AND able to express your OPINION in your private time.

You cannot express long term processes like climate with a simple running average of a few decades, others HAVE told you this. What is being observed is WEATHER PATTERNING ALTERATION, not 'climate change'.

As to any ability for a 'greenhouse' effect to even exist, Pat N. can be seen trying to validate such within http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 .

It is OBVIOUS Pat N. that you have a totally belligerent and near automatic opposition to those who can express the inherit flaws of the 'greenhouse concept' and an equally belligerent attachment to the opinions that would seem to be involved in the situation regarding your past workplace. Pat N., I am not responsible for your dismissal from your workplace.

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

I would encourage anyone who might be confused by this (and other denialist nonsense) to take a look at http://realclimate.org for some actual climate science.

A summary of the above is:
* "We only have 400 years of climate records" (untrue).
* "Look at this graph! It points the same direction as this graph" (yep. pretty. and meaningless).
* "climate has fluctuated in the past" (yes but this time there is a lot more CO2 / other GHGs in the atmosphere)
* "...so this means that climate change is a fraud" (those sinister scientists with their publishing of results and data, peer review of theories and answering questions put to them.

Make your own mind up about Mr Anderson's motivations and sincerity. And if you're feeling brave, try to question him about the "science" he's using and pin him down to specifics rather than grand assertions. I've found it to be a waste of time.