What is the cause of the rapid increase of temperatures since 1980?
This question is what the AGWers (folks that believe man has caused
global warming) call "global warming" but which I call "rapid increase
in temperatures since 1980" (RIITS-1980). Pronounced "Rits 1980"

Read the below, see for yourself and you be the judge.

First, observe from link (1) below that there are two RITS in the
modern era (20th century). The first RIT happened from 1915 to 1945.
The second RIT happened from 1980 to present.

Second, observe from links (2) and (3) that indeed GHGs (greenhouse
gases) appear to be the culprit--but with one wildcard--aerosols (stuff
like soot). Aeresols have increased, but the models assume they COOL
not heat. As McKintrock in his book "Taken by Storm" says, however,
the effect of aerosols may be to heat not cool, if they cause the
surface of the earth to absorb rather than reflect light (further
research is needed).

Finally, the kicker IMO is this: El Nino and the so-called "Southern
Oscillation" (together called ENSO) increased dramatically after the
mid-1970s (see link (4) below). ENSO causes weather to get freaky,
which could increase temperatures worldwide. Observe during the two
RITS in the 20th century, there were huge El Nino (ENSO) events (see
link (0) below), in particular since 1980.

There are two camps about the effect of ENSO: ironically, the GW
deniers claim there is NO LINK between global warming and ENSO, but the
AGWers claim there is a link! The twist for the AGW'ers is that they
think GW is driving ENSO not the other way around like I claim. But in
a way the AGWers insistence that ENSO and GW are linked makes my
argument all the more persuasive, since I am arguing exactly what the
AGWers say in terms of linkage, but I'm saying causation is the other
way around.

In other words I say this: it could be that the effect of RITS is that
El Nino (ENSO) is driving global warming, not the other way around as
the AGWers claim.

Evidence of this is by looking at links (4)(II) and (4) (III). The
first link, (4)(II), says that there was a strong El Nino around the
Middle Ages, around 800 AD, and sure enough, looking at link (4) (III)
shows that there was a temperature "upsurge" (RITS) at that time.
Looking at link (4)(V) shows that a very strong El Nino coincided with
a sharp rise in temperatures. Even the rise in temperatures in the
period 1915 to 1945 is framed by two strong ENSO events (one at each
endpoint, see link 0, in particular note the 1940 ENSO event matches
exactly the huge RITS at this time--coincidence? I think not.)

Ask yourself this: is it possible (not likely, just possible) that the
AGWers are putting cart before the horse in claiming that ENSO is the
*RESULT* of RITS, when in fact it is the *CAUSE* of RITS?

Further research is needed, but I would wager 3:1 odds (i.e., 25%
probability) that the rise in temperatures since 1980 is the *RESULT*
of the strong series of El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) events that have
happened since then, consistent with the "2000 year cycle" referenced
in link (4)(II)

Food for thought, unless you're close minded. Roger? Lloyd? Dan
(LOL)? Homo? The rest of you? I want to hear your thoughts, even if
it's groupthink.

RL


Links:

(0) background on El Nino (ENSO):
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/ens...#_Hlk419684448

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/.../10elnino.html
(note the El Nino events from 1910 to 1940)

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

(2) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/

(3) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~makis/2006_04+05+06/Fig5a.txt


(4) Various links:

(I)
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...er6figure4.htm
(Figure 6-4. Likelihood of Hurricanes to Strike the United States
Based on El Niño and La Niña Occurences: more El Nino, more
hurricanes)

(II) El Nino Affects Climate On A 2,000 Year Cycle Source: ABC News
URL: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20021113_421~

- LONDON (Reuters) - El Nino, the weather phenomenon blamed for
causing devastating droughts, storms and floods around the globe, works
on a 2,000-year cycle, scientists said on Wednesday. The frequency of
El Nino events peaked about 1,200 years ago during the Middle Ages and
will probably reach another high in the early part of the 22nd century.
"El Nino operates within its own kind of 2,000-year rhythm, and because
of that, we believe these periodic changes have had a major impact on
global climate

(III) http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.htm (graph
showing temperature fairly stable but with two 'upcycles' in medieval
era and 20th century)

(IV) August 1 through October 27, 1997 Alan Schroeder and Dave Bassett,
OPEC/EE/ U.S. Department Of Energy

At the University of Houston, Texas, Dr. Wellington studies the El
Nino phenomenon. In particular the effect of global warming and El
Nino. "I suspect that global warming is exacerbating the El Nino
phenomenon, but we all know now there is a link." says Wellington. Data
from his research shows that since 1970 El Ninos have been occurring
every 2.2 years, up from every 3.4 around 1870, every 4.5 year around
1750, and every six years in the late 1600's. The data was obtained
from coral growth rings from the Galapagos Islands, where the coral are
particularly sensitive to water temperature from El Nino.

(V) The penguins' sharpest population decline appears to have come
during the El Nino of 1982-83, the strongest recorded before the
current El Nino started. Boersma originally studied the Galapagos
penguin population in 1970, 1971 and 1972. In 1971, during a La Nina
event, she found that 80 penguin chicks had fledged from 62 nests. The
following year, during an El Nino, she found that all but one of the 92
nests failed in a winter breeding period and all 108 nests failed in
the fall breeding period. She also visited breeding sites in 1978, 1988
and 1991.

(VI) http://www.junkscience.com/dec98/se120998.htm *AGW Denier Site*

Are El Ninos/La Ninas driven by global warming? Scientist Stephen
Schneider, who will grasp at almost anything to promote global warming,
will venture only that such a connection is "possible," which is as
clear an indication as any that there's no scientific evidence for it,
and there isn't. University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels,
in the November 23rd issue of his World Climate Report, cites a
just-published research paper by Professor R. Houseago of the
University of Birmingham (England) and three scientist colleagues that
looked at upper atmospheric flow patterns for three major La Ninas and
four El Ninos since 1975. The bottom line? Outside of the tropics, the
impact of every El Nino or La Nina event differs. There is no
compelling evidence that they are becoming more common. There is no
evidence that El Ninos are linked to global warming.

In an effort to give his drivel more than the zero creditability
that it deserves, Ray has cut and pasted some science URLs.
NOW, IF RAY WOULD ONLY READ THE SCIENCE!


raylopez99 wrote:

[ . . . ]

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

(2) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/

(3) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~makis/2006_04+05+06/Fig5a.txt


(4) Various links:

[ . . . ]

Another Ray Lopez Crackpot Theory of Global Warming: "Doubt is Our
Product"

raylopez99 wrote:
snipped a bunch of crackpot disconcerted ramblings



RAY LOPEZ uses the "cover story" that he is a troll and spews
flame-bait, to conceal the archived pattern that he only posts to
disrupt discussions in topic areas where fatcat corporations pay
saboteurs to disrupt and harrass and fatigue posters trying to discuuss
the issues that the corporations do not want discussed.

===========

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...067e85a?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Oct 11 2005 11:51 am

So by acting like an idiot in the sense of
using provocative flame bait (albeit asking good questions at times) I
was able to generate some answers/opinions about the topics I was
interested in. Standard flamebait tactics, that I learned from the
early 1990s when the Internet evolved (note to reader: you will not
get many responses if you don't bait your reader--that's a fact I
learned over the years from experience).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...44c7e9b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2005 3:12 pm

CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the same
camp.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...4daa4cd?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Fri, May 26 2000 12:00 am

Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see
what
morons will reply to my provocative posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...be8f1e7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 15 2006 1:17 a

You realize that a lot of what I say here is flame bait I hope.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...552dba7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 8:29 pm

Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...88b91b3?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 1:30 am

But I am a troll.

RL

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...2a9b59b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2005 10:58 pm

Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
but I do learn a few things.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...fae1d3c?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jul 12 2005 1:52 pm

and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...b1d7e52?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 9:43 am

I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...8cc8260?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 10:49 pm

Truth be told I was trying to be
provocative with my language just to flame-bait you, but you did not
rise to the occasion.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...a19d088?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 17 2000 12:00 am

Truth is, I am not JUST a troll.

Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Roger and "Bush's Global Warming Dereliction" -- you guys are supposed
to be Green champions in here, and you probably know more of the
science than I do. So I wish you're answered Ray's stupid flamebait
questions a little more adequately. Even if he's full of it.

Without knowing a hell of a lot of detail about the science, I think
there are two or three big holes in Ray's thesis just to start with:

* 1 ) If the "El Nino" effect is driving global warming, and not the
other way around -- well, what's driving El Nino? Ray offers us no
model of why the El Nino should be changing in intensity.

But it has to be changing in intensity, and changing independently of
any change in the global climate, or Ray's theory is no good at alll.
As my girlfriend the mathematical thinker says, "You can't explain a
variable by a constant."

So if the El Nino oscillation is a constant, it's hard to see why it
should be giving rise to a variable -- i.e. rising global temperatures.
If the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon is NOT a constant, though -- if it's
a variable - WHY is it a variable?

Ray offers no explanation. So to hell with his theory.

** 2) There is, on the other hand, a perfectly understandable model
suggesting why increases in "greenhouse" gas emissions, including CO2
and methane, should in fact produce global climate change.

The greenhouse gases, including CO2, are transparent to electromagnetic
radiation with the frequency of visible sunlight, which means they let
the sun's energy flow into the planetary/atmospheric system. However,
they are opaque or partly opaque to EM radioation with the frequency of
infrared rays or heat waves, which means they impede the ability of the
planetary/atmospheric system to re-radiate heat back into outer space.

The technical details are enormously complex, but this crude model
suggests that
as concentrations of greenhouse gases rise, the planet should get
warmer. The sunlight keeps coming in unimpeded, even as CO2 levels
rise. But the heat waves are blocked as they try to escape back into
space. So the system retains more of the solar energy that strikes it,
which means the average temperature rises. Which seems to correspond
with the observable facts, more or less.

**C) The principle of "Occam's Razor" holds that when you have a
relatively simple, relatively elegant model of why something happens,
and you have a rival theory that is more complicated and hard to
understand, you should choose the simple and elegant theory over the
more complex and messy one.

The mainstream theory of GW discovered by Langley, Arrhenius et al. and
refined by a host of global researchers since then, including the IPCC
panel, is much simpler and more elegant than Ray's theory of global
warming being caused by a varying El Nino effect that Ray can't easily
explain.

QED: In technical terms, Occam's Razor indicates that Ray's
explanation is full of ****.

What's your next exercise in blue smoke and mirrors, Ray?

I haven't seen you write much in here about the Nostradamus prophecies
or the "Left Behind" series yet. Are you going to offer us fantasies
about the Apocalypse, next? Or does someone else in your PR firm
specialize in that?
-----------------------------
Bush's Global Warming Dereliction of Duty wrote:
Another Ray Lopez Crackpot Theory of Global Warming: "Doubt is Our
Product"

raylopez99 wrote:
snipped a bunch of crackpot disconcerted ramblings



RAY LOPEZ uses the "cover story" that he is a troll and spews
flame-bait, to conceal the archived pattern that he only posts to
disrupt discussions in topic areas where fatcat corporations pay
saboteurs to disrupt and harrass and fatigue posters trying to discuuss
the issues that the corporations do not want discussed.

===========

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...067e85a?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Oct 11 2005 11:51 am

So by acting like an idiot in the sense of
using provocative flame bait (albeit asking good questions at times) I
was able to generate some answers/opinions about the topics I was
interested in. Standard flamebait tactics, that I learned from the
early 1990s when the Internet evolved (note to reader: you will not
get many responses if you don't bait your reader--that's a fact I
learned over the years from experience).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...44c7e9b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2005 3:12 pm

CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the same
camp.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...4daa4cd?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Fri, May 26 2000 12:00 am

Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see
what
morons will reply to my provocative posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...be8f1e7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 15 2006 1:17 a

You realize that a lot of what I say here is flame bait I hope.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...552dba7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 8:29 pm

Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...88b91b3?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 1:30 am

But I am a troll.

RL

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...2a9b59b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2005 10:58 pm

Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
but I do learn a few things.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...fae1d3c?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jul 12 2005 1:52 pm

and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...b1d7e52?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 9:43 am

I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...8cc8260?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 10:49 pm

Truth be told I was trying to be
provocative with my language just to flame-bait you, but you did not
rise to the occasion.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...a19d088?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 17 2000 12:00 am

Truth is, I am not JUST a troll.

Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

john fernbach wrote:
Roger and "Bush's Global Warming Dereliction" -- you guys are supposed
to be Green champions in here, and you probably know more of the
science than I do. So I wish you're answered Ray's questions a little more adequately.

Without knowing a hell of a lot of detail about the science, I think
there are two or three big holes in Ray's thesis just to start with:

* 1 ) If the "El Nino" effect is driving global warming, and not the
other way around -- well, what's driving El Nino? Ray offers us no
model of why the El Nino should be changing in intensity.

But would you accept one if there was one?

The fact is that for all their saturnalia the scientific world is as
much at a loss for any explanations as is Mr Lopez.

But it has to be changing in intensity, and changing independently of
any change in the global climate, or Ray's theory is no good at alll.
As my girlfriend the mathematical thinker says, "You can't explain a
variable by a constant."

And ou can't look at them with statistics either. All you will get is a
fog.

So if the El Nino oscillation is a constant, it's hard to see why it
should be giving rise to a variable -- i.e. rising global temperatures.
If the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon is NOT a constant, though -- if it's
a variable - WHY is it a variable?

Ray offers no explanation. So to hell with his theory.

But what if what he says makes sense? It's not very scientific to
detract from his complaints and the anomalies he is pointing out even
if he lacks an alternative cause. You don't have to know how many beans
make five to be able to point out to the rest of the world that it may
not be a nice round even number.

As it happens, the amazing Weatherlawyer has a perfectly acceptable
explanation ready and waiting for your perusal. It not only fits in
with the present situations and covers all variables, it explains why
exactly the same sorts of things befell our ancestors prior to the
Industrial Revolution.

How dya like dem apples?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

As it happens, the amazing Weatherlawyer has a perfectly acceptable
explanation ready and waiting for your perusal. It not only fits in
with the present situations and covers all variables, it explains why
exactly the same sorts of things befell our ancestors prior to the
Industrial Revolution.

How dya like dem apples?

Weatherlawyer--either here or in a seperate post, I'd like to hear your
alternative theory.

As to answer John, the only person decent enough to reply thoughtfully,
I have no explanation for the "2000 year cycle" ENSO (El Nina/ La Nina/
Southern Oscillation) but think about it: it's been around longer than
the Industrial Revolution (and it influences weather--even back in 800
AD as I pointed out).

I have no explantion for the solar cycle, the business cycle or any
other cycle, but I caution people from accepting a computer model that
probably does not equate with reality even if it obeys Occam's razor.

As a science major (I switched to business when I graduated) I recall
there was a thermodynamics model that explained heat transfer 100%
using "radiation" as an explanation. Then another model used
"conduction". A third model used "convection". The most amazing thing
is all three models explained the data 100%, yet each was mutually
exclusive to the other.

It also reminds me of the Matlab (math software) module that can fit
any series of datapoints with an Nth-order polynomial* (ask you
girlfriend). But the polynomial will not _predict_ the future. In
fact, you can find two polynomials that fit the datapoints exactly, but
give different outlooks going forward (the future). In other words,
the 9th order poly will 'slope down' (going forward, that is, after
accounting for all past data) and the 10th order may 'slope up', while
the 12th order is flat! Same with GCMs (computer models of
climate)--they can predict perfectly what happened, and 'explain' it,
but going forward, since weather is non-linear, anything can happen. A
wait and see approach, with some increased carbon taxes to cut down on
waste and transition to nuclear, is sound.

RL

*in fact, it was shown mathematically back in the 18th century that any
continuous function can be modeled by a polynomial--the Taylor Series
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series) which are even used in
Einstein's General theory of relativity (the famous E = mc2 is actually
a truncated Taylor Series, there are more terms than just one on the
right hand side, a fact only physics majors know)--or as a series of
sinusoidal functions (the Fourier series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series )

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:56:29 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

*in fact, it was shown mathematically back in the 18th century that any
continuous function can be modeled by a polynomial--the Taylor Series
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series) which are even used in
Einstein's General theory of relativity (the famous E = mc2 is actually
a truncated Taylor Series, there are more terms than just one on the
right hand side, a fact only physics majors know)--or as a series of
sinusoidal functions (the Fourier series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series )

OK. What are the next three terms?

E = mc**2 + ??? c**3 + ??? c**4 + ??? c**5 + ...

or maybe

E = mc**2 + ??? * m**2 + ??? * m**3 + ??? *m**4 + ...

I've not heard of this, nor can I find a web reference
--
Andronico

In article om,
"raylopez99" wrote:
What is the cause of the rapid increase of temperatures since 1980?
This question is what the AGWers (folks that believe man has caused
global warming) call "global warming" but which I call "rapid increase
in temperatures since 1980" (RIITS-1980). Pronounced "Rits 1980"


Sounds like Bush trying out "weapons-of-mass-destruction-program-related
activities."

Read the below, see for yourself and you be the judge.

First, observe from link (1) below that there are two RITS in the
modern era (20th century). The first RIT happened from 1915 to 1945.
The second RIT happened from 1980 to present.

No, the first one had a slight plateau and then continued upwards. Look at,
say, a titration curve, or a heating curve; you see this all the time in
science and nobody calls it two different processes.

In article ,
anonymous wrote:


On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:56:29 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

snip--

(the famous E = mc2 is actually a truncated Taylor Series,
there are more terms than just one on the
right hand side, a fact only physics majors know)

snip--

I've not heard of this, nor can I find a web reference

perhaps because it is not true...

raylopez99 wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

As it happens, the amazing Weatherlawyer has a perfectly acceptable
explanation ready and waiting for your perusal. It not only fits in
with the present situations and covers all variables, it explains why
exactly the same sorts of things befell our ancestors prior to the
Industrial Revolution.

How dya like dem apples?

Weatherlawyer--either here or in a seperate post, I'd like to hear your
alternative theory.

I don't have any theories, just facts. Let the academics dredge up
theories. Most of my stuff can be reviewed on alt.talk.weather and
uk.sci.weather. There is no big deal.

More abuse for the glowballers is that the various oscillations don't
seem to adhere to heat patterns. Or do they? The North Atlantic
oscillation seems to be that when there is very little difference in
the pressure of Lows and Highs, then the equatorial regions are fairly
cool and higher latitudes seem to be very warm.

Still with emotions, there are precious few facts that require
attention. I wonder what they run on when their pennies drop?

The latitudes from the region of the Azores to the Baltic are very
warm. Where are the hurricanes there then? And in the depths of winter,
why is there a band of hot water just off the shores of Antarctica?
Pollen? Fires in the Amazon basin? Too much hair spray?

Why is it that the bad storms off the Philippines and China are in
fairly cool waters?

I pity the delusional but there is nothing that can be done for them.
They must come to terms with their error. Or continue to elabourate and
get more and more vicious about facts.