news-1: global warming – Larry Victor


Richard Moore

Bcc: Larry

Begin forwarded message:

From: Larry Victor
Date: 15 December 2009 00:47:21 GMT
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: re-4: global warming – science & sources

Richard, I understand your problem, but you MUST provide, somewhere, access to ALL the info your receive. I understand the awesome volume of replies, but you cannot censor this, or you lose your credibility.  You might want to categorize your responses, but make access to everything!

I sent you a recent email making this distinction.  

“Just had a simple physics insight that might clarify issues about temperature changes re global warming. 

Warming involves heat input, which can result in temp change, phase changes or both. The exemplar is a pot of ice cold water with much ice floating in it on a stove.  As the water heats, the temp doesn’t change until all the ice melts.  This may be a real factor in the glacier and ice cap melting today – holding back temp increases.  What other phase changes may also be occurring that reduces the temp increase? 

Also, there are many processes also underway that result in cooling – such as cloud cover – another phase change example. These mask the fact that the planet is warming, even though the overall temperature may not be increasing as much as it might.  It is only in pseudo-scientific discourse that temperature rise is identified with warming. Once the ice is gone and the cloud cover at maximum, then the temperature can begin to climb.  This is why the greenhouse gas content is more relevant than temperature. Climate scientists are well aware of this but probably have been trapped into the temperature metaphor by the media and in a naive attempt to communicate with the public.”

See above.  It was sent recently, by email.  

As to the two graphs.  The data at the contemporary end must be tentative, probably the result of extrapolation by the data presenters.  The “numbers” may be “correct”, but have not yet had the chance of being “corrected” by data collection and other factors. There are SO MANY different ways of measuring these variables that it takes time to work out the problems.

Richard, I have LONG been a severe critic of establishment science. The issues are very complex. A source for the social/economic/political influence on all professional activity, read Steve Fuller.  I was introduced to him serendipitously through his SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY  (1988)  at a $2.99  sale at Borders.  I may never had discovered Fuller if not by this.  I have since read most of Fuller, which as for every mind, I have some critiques..

I am now reading THE EDUCATED MIND by Egan Kieran.  I am in my 4th library renewal. I can read only a few pages before I have to stop and contemplate. He is shocking my basic assumptions: yet Egan provides a template for me to comprehend my madness. Older books retain relevance. Recency vs Relevancy is a critical issue. Please read this! His views on the “Philosophic’ paradigm may clarify “our” critique of establishment science.

Richard, WHY are  you doing as you are doing?  PLEASE stop and ask this of yourself !!!!!

Richard,  The COSMOS, GAIA, HUMANITY are at stake!  Why are the most able to take on this challenge on so competitive?

I am not at all “stable” in my thinking,  but I am far from ready to submit to the dictates of others.

Weekly I am shocked by new insights, some internally and some from new information.  MY WORLD is undergoing rapid change, most of which I cannot fully comprehend. But, we must quickly learn to do what we can do. 

How OFTEN do you have shocking insights?  If you have few, please self evaluate.

Truly, THE most critical issue today is how the BEST MIND can be facilitated!!!!!!!



Hi Larry,
Thanks for your message. There are a few of you folks who are unhappy with your material not being shared, so I’ll be posting those messages to newslog, and I’ll post the URLs on cyberjournal. On cyberjournal itself I want to focus on a systematic investigation into the data, so we can figure out what’s real for ourselves. As we saw with ice-core data, figuring things out isn’t rocket science. 
I understand what you’re saying about phase changes etc. Started as a physics major myself at Stanford, but was soon seduced into math and computer science. Has anyone done any numbers, about how much heat might be stored up, or found any evidence that it is being stored up? The evidence I’ve been looking at indicates there are mechanisms for radiating the heat back out to space, despite extra Co2. If you know of any relevant data, let me know.
I don’t understand where you’re going with your last few comments. Stop and ask myself what? Why I want to understand what’s really going on with global warming? Everyone says it’s a big deal, so I’d like to understand it. What’s strange about that? And I don’t understand what you mean about ‘the BEST MIND’ and ‘most critical issue’.
a bit puzzled,