Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:16:23 -0500 To: From: Bob Armstrong On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:58:04 -0500, Blay Tarnoff wrote: >=A0Bob Armstrong wrote: >=A0> >=A0>=A0>=A0I don't know what most of this means, but >=A0>=A0>=A0I think it is hogwash anyway. >=A0> >=A0>=A0Now THAT sounds dogmatic . > >=A0Saying one "thinks" something is true cannot be dogmatic. =A0You= may want >=A0to look in a dictionary. Ok , it only SOUNDS dogmatic . >=A0>=A0>=A0Can you explain it in English? >=A0> >=A0>=A0Look up the words . > >=A0No, I don't have endless time to look up complex jargon to= disprove >=A0theories about perpetual motion machines, alien abductions, or= other >=A0implausible theories. =A0If you expect me to understand what= you're >=A0saying, you will have to explain it in plain English. =A0There is= no >=A0theory so complex that it cannot be explained in English to an >=A0intelligent audience. =A0If you don't care enough about whether= I >=A0understand your theory to explain it, then you will just have= to live >=A0with the fact that I think it's hogwash. I fail to understand what you find so complex . There are only= a couple of uncommon words and the statement is essentially= simple geometry . Average the temperature around a sphere and that= will be the average temperature of the sphere . I am neglecting the relatively small internal heat from the= earth and anthropogenic heat sources tho . >=A0>=A0>=A0Then, explain how if it were possible to encase >=A0>=A0>=A0the Earth in a glass bubble 100 miles up that we >=A0>=A0>=A0would not be any hotter down here. >=A0> >=A0>=A0I don't know . > >=A0I thought you said that no matter what we did down here it= wouldn't >=A0affect the climate. No I didn't . >=A0>=A0But the MEAN temperature of that sphere would be >=A0>=A0the same as it is now . > >=A0What does that mean? =A0That the center of the Earth will not= change >=A0temperature? I believe it can be proven for the mean over any spherical shell= . >=A0>=A0>=A0So, you admit that atmospheric conditions can affect >=A0>=A0>=A0global temperature. =A0Isn't your thesis that atmospheric >=A0>=A0>=A0conditions (or, anything else that we can possibly do >=A0>=A0>=A0on the surface of this planet, for that matter) are >=A0>=A0>=A0irrelevant? =A0This sounds like a fatal contradiction >=A0>=A0>=A0to me. >=A0> >=A0>=A0My statement is about MEAN temperature . THAT , we can >=A0>=A0have NO effect on . > >=A0Sorry, I don't know what that MEANs. =A0You are trying to= disprove global >=A0warming theory based on the notion that, even if greenhouse= gases are >=A0being pumped into the atmosphere, and even if they do trap= heat, that >=A0global climate will not change, right? =A0Well, will it or won't= it? =A0What >=A0has "MEAN temperature" got to do with it? If they trap heat , ie , are insulative , they also keep it out= . If there were such a thing as one way insulation , then you= could build a perpetual motion machine . You do appreciate that the empirical facts show a virtual= perfect correlation with measures of solar output leaving very little unexplained variance don't you . ( A Morgan Stanley guy like you , I expect knows ANOVA . ) --=A0 =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 CoSy MidWinter Party : http://cosy.com/y04/MidWinter17.htm