A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Debating an Ann Coulter Fan

Commenter georgesdelatour asks me:
Hi.

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=66

includes the comment: "Any time you want to put me up to debate “climate change” with a “scientist” I’m happy to do it."

Would YOU do it?
As I have previously disclosed, I am not a climate scientist, but I would indeed accept this challenge.

Georges? Send him over, and let him take the first shot. If Mark wishes to, he could start with what problem he has with the following factual statement:

"The earth has warmed rapidly over the last century and it is due primarily to anthropogenic GHG emissions"

Labels:

posted by coby @ 7/09/2006 04:51:00 PM  

25 Comments:

  • At July 10, 2006 6:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Unbelievable! That laymen cannot fathom the signficant gap in knowledge between themselves and scientists on the cutting edge of their field has got to be the height of arrogance.

     

  • At July 10, 2006 9:03 AM, Blogger coby said…

    I know. This comes from the toxic soup that passes for political discussion, where all opinions are equal and reality is never distinguished from spin.

    But, perhaps Mark knows what he is talking about...

     

  • At July 12, 2006 1:52 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Not knowing Ms Coulter's considerations, I can however relate the situation attempted within the 'greenhouse theatre'. The issue is that the is overplay of 'greenhouse theatre' is of the OPINION of supposed 'experts' who regularly ignore SCIENCE. The 'gap' is within the 'greenhouse platform' in its attempt to play OPINION over what is known.

    It is readily seen, there cannot be existent a 'greenhouse effect' due to the known and REAL properties of the materials involved within the situation observed. There is NOT observed sufficient alteration in Energy to power a "Greenhouse Effect" especially with the materials presented within the Atmosphere AND the surface. There never has been sufficient Energy within the Infrared Region surface incident if one observes even the evolutionary processes outputs, all being overly sensitive to Radiation within the Infrared Region (due to a high water content).

    It is perhaps time that the 'greenhouse theatre' realises that it has become disassociated from reality and is surviving only on 'spin', which is also how the 'greenhouse platform was borne into the Political Arena. It was the 'greenhouse platform' being taken INTO the Political Arena that has placed it there, when it was removed from the arena of SCIENCE so there is little sympathy to be had for those attempting to support the 'greenhouse platform' either.

    The attempt to avoid open discussion is still being seen in attempts to justify the fear of such by platforming that the 'greenhouse theory' is the practice of 'cutting edge experts', 'experts' however whose output is still so far removed from describing REALITY that it is only by OPINION (of 'distant pasts' or 'possible scenarios') that these few preserve their '(greenhouse) situation'. Certainly it is NOT by observed performance of the '(greenhouse) climate sciences' that such opinion of 'expertise' can be regarded as being presented with any veracity.

    What 'anonymous' avoids is that there are MANY people within the 500 MILLION tertiary educated alive now that CAN look at the '(greenhouse) climate science' and rend it to 'small pieces' as the common materials involved by 'greenhouse science' are well known and have properties utilised DAILY in many areas of SCIENCE. This situation can now include the attempt within 'greenhouse' related 'climate science' to produce supposed differentials in isotopical behaviours to 'plaster' up some more 'cracks', but the 'creaking' is simply remaining obvious AND noticed....

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

     

  • At July 13, 2006 5:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    hartlod(tm):
    your CAPS lock may be BROKEN I think. YOU should get it looked AT.

    -themusicgod1

     

  • At July 14, 2006 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hartlod (no tm - sue me):
    Lots of opinion, not one scientific fact.

     

  • At July 19, 2006 2:46 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    There is neither a thing wrong with CAPS 'anonymous', get used to their use and read such as 'bold' or 'italics' in plain text.
    'Dano', it is very easy to establish from tertiary education figures an approximate number in real terms for the quantity of people alive NOW that have tertiary education.
    This is generally expressed as a percentage in 'degree qualifications' from which relative enrolments in tertiary equivalent institutions can be made then applied to the Population expectation of NOW.
    The figure for tertiary education was ~300 million a few years ago, the addition of degree equivalent enrolments and population growth make that previous 'rough number' now around ~500 Million.
    Again, 'Brian' there is a trademark on the word Hartlod and any attachment with reference to myself requires that recognised, and also IF I litigate it will not be to 'sue' YOU 'Brian', but the company hosting this blog and trademark LAW being as it is that company WILL readily avoid fiscal penalty to comply with my 'requests'.

    So to avoid any FURTHER unpleasantness, 'Brian' you or do not realise the veracity of my points so can you be more specific and mention directly a point I make that you do not understand the relevance of to further discussion?

    Again I notice the rabid attempt to avoid what I mention and attempt attack on myself, and this IS noticed by those of the MAJORITY that look at these 'sites' I attend.

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

     

  • At July 19, 2006 7:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What 'anonymous' avoids is that there are MANY people within the 500 MILLION tertiary educated alive now that CAN look at the '(greenhouse) climate science' and rend it to 'small pieces' as the common materials involved by 'greenhouse science' are well known and have properties utilised DAILY in many areas of SCIENCE.

    Oh Peter...

    What you avoid is that there is a name for the above practice: cherrypicking.

     

  • At July 20, 2006 8:54 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Again 'anonymous' you avoid any mention to detail what is your point and try only to nominate and attack 'the individual'. Is there some point in SCIENCE you can make 'anonymous'?.

    There is NOT any ability to 'trap heat' as outlined by a 'greenhouse theory', even the Energy mentioned by the 'greenhouse theory' is suspended as Photons.

    The attempt is to present Photons within the Infrared Region' as being 'heat' but 'heat' is the expression of Kinetic Energy as is the measure of Heat (on a scale) as Temperature. Energy is propagated by 'Conduction, Convection and Radiation'. 'Heat' is propagated by Conduction and Convection, 'Heat' being a property of MATTER. Photons propagate Energy in and as 'Radiation', and can also propagated Energy through a Vacuum. Realise that the counter part of expressions of Kinetic energy as measured by 'Temperature' is 'Pressure' (and measures of).

    So the 'greenhouse theory' IS infact attempting to classify the Atmospheric Cascade of Photons as a 'heat trap' WHEN infact this cascade is presenting the behavior of Photons present within the boundaries of the Atmosphere of this Planet and the interaction of these Photons with the materials) of the Atmosphere AND the Surface. It is seen that ONLY Photons within the Visible AND the Lower UV Spectrum are (and can be) surface incident on a persistent basis with sufficient Energy to effect the warming that is noticed. It is ALSO noticed that Life as it is bio-formed, ESPECIALLY that life present on the Planetary Land Surface (including Humanity), could NOT exist in any environment where large alterations to incident Energy within the Infrared Region presented Energy sufficient to produce (within the Materials present) the 'warming' platformed by the 'greenhouse platformers'.

    Even the 'secondary effect' is implausible, Photons within the "Region" treated by 'greenhouse science' trend to move outwards, NOT 'downwards' within the atmosphere as the gravitation stratification increase Atmospheric density towards the surface and this along with its unique properties also constrains Atmospheric Water to the lower atmosphere. Water in interaction with the Photons treated by the 'greenhouse science' produces an intrinsic Kinetic gain by the Water Molecule, i.e. that molecule beings to move faster. There is little remittance of Energy form Water Molecules as secondary Photons within the situation the Atmosphere presents them.

    So, as this Infrared Region Energy is NOT seen presently surface incident in sufficient intensity nor has any alteration in such sufficient (within the last 50 years) either been noticed, and the present Bio-form of Humanity is now seen as being the 'NOW' of a 7 Million year 'long' progression (and precluding from existence a supposed 'greenhouse effect') it is required 'anonymous' that to 'you' should be attempting to state HOW a 'greenhouse effect' can be even rationally expected to EXIST, rather than continuing to attack individuals.

    The WARMING of the surface noticed is due to the alterations TO the surface created by Humanity. The ALTERATIONS to the materials presented is the base issue, NOT any supposed alteration to 'greenhouse energy' that is platformed beneath the attempted PROXY of CO2 quantity for 'temperature'. These 'CO2 proxies' attempt to avoid notice that the HEAT produced from incident Photons is dependant on the Material incident as well as the Photons intrinsic properties.

    It is NOT an alteration to Energy, but to the surface materials that is raising the Median Surface Temperature. It is the Land surface that is LEADING the trend in 'time', size' and 'trend profile' this IS seen in plots even presented BY the 'greenhouse platform'. This is noticed in those slides seen at http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ .

    Humanity is not 'heated by Energy in the surface incident UV Spectrum, the cells of the bio-form are infact directly damaged by these 'Photons' in interaction with the molecules constituting that cellular structure. Energy within the Infrared Region sufficient to produce the "greenhouse warming" platformed would infact stop the cellular processes as the WATER encapsulated began too 'heated' and the contained chemistry ceased (directly or due to a cells 'internal organelles' failing) with the cells then dying. "Anonymous" there is not 'cherry picking' within what I am presenting, what 'you' seem desperate to have unnoticed is the lack of SCIENCE beneath the 'greenhouse' veneer and the inconsistencies 'greenhouse science' contains in its near disassociated 'attitudes', best highlighted by 'greenhouse attempts' to cite 'isotopical differentiations' as being 'greenhouse relevant'.

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

     

  • At July 21, 2006 12:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Peter,

    Your SCIENCE is in deed too advanced for us poor mortals...
    So Earth atmosfere does not allow for a Greenhouse effect to exist... so, if I may ask how is Venus with an average temperature in the whole planet of 400 Celsius and Mercury (without an atmosfere) has a diference of some 1000 Celsius betwen the part of the planet exposed to the Sun and the dark part of the planet?
    How do you explain the differences of temperature between Earth and Mars?
    How do you even explain the temperature diferences in your car wether the windows are open or closed under the same Sun at the same time of the day?
    I think, and I bullshit you not, that you and your 500 million terciary whatever can grab your avant-garde SCIENCE and shove up where the photons of the any star do not shine... :)

     

  • At July 21, 2006 2:09 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Those answers have already been given, you will find most already within the articles and comments at http://hartlod.blogspot.com

    However, as the 'chuckle-festing- seems to try to continue, just for you 'lowlander':-

    To deal with the Moon and those surfaces otherwise not covered by an atmosphere, you need to remember that Space is not filled with 'heat' but radiation. The Lunar surface, as one example, presents a biased MEDIAN temperature as the 'heating' from incident radiation is limited to that possible for the materials incident to the Radiation with the Energy presented by that Radiation. With out Energy being incident the 'heat' conducts away until the surface reaches an equilibrium with underlying strata. There is no (well very little) surface contact to an atmosphere into which conduction can transport Kinetic Energy to produce then Turbulence.
    The question for Mercury is why it is infact so cool, not so hot and just as in the case of the Luna surface the materials react to the incident Radiation, and the absence of such incident Energy. That part of the SURFACE of Mercury is being heated obviously is it not? Again the induced kinetic energy will reach equilibrium with underlying strata but there is not an atmosphere (or very little) into which kinetic energy can be conducted and in which there can be produced Turbulence.
    Venus is also mentioned at the above link 'lowlander' and the warming involved in the last one billion years involves the reduction in the planetary Magnetic Field of Venus shifting the passage of ENERGY into the 'biosphere' of that planet.
    Again 'lowlander' there is nothing of a mystery in Mars either. The thinner atmosphere is less able to accept via conduction the Kinetic Energy inducted into the planetary surface from the reduced energy available at the orbit of Mars.
    Remember 'lowlander' that the Earth's atmosphere AND magnetic field reduce the Energy that CAN enter this planets biosphere and eventually ONLY energy within the visible AND the lower UV spectrum can be surface incident.

    Then there is turbulence 'Lowlander', the relation of pressure and temperature and the obvious relation to a window being open or closed. If the air cannot escape then it will increase in gaining kinetic energy from the conduction from the surfaces within the car inducting such kinetic energy from the energy interactions with incident Photons The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that the 'heat' will attempt to gain an 'equilibrium state' so the air will be heated as will then other surfaces in contact with that enclosed air not otherwise with a direct incidence to available Photons.

    The car example is infact the perfect example of 'greenhouse nonsense' 'lowlander', the car shell is the open Space enclosing the atmosphere with the planetary surface beneath. The difference is that the open window is allowing the warmed air to escape, that is not possible in the planetary example as that represent the atmosphere escaping the constraints placed by Gravity.

    As to your last paragraph 'lowlander' , all it presents is the typical ignorance of that usual & anonymous 'Average Greenhouse Platformer', and the 'attitude' they so often revert to when unable to otherwise present a coherent discussion when faced with SCIENCE.

    There is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' 'lowlander' it is that very simple to realise. There is a very strong need for you 'lowlander' to start noticing that 500 Million tertiary educated, realise that many USE the materials the supposed 'greenhouse science' attempts to form inconsistent opinions on. The DAILY productions of those other areas in SCIENCE (including MEDICINE) would NOT 'function' as they do IF the 'greenhouse theory' was EVER correct, and this is BEFORE even notice of ALL the other obvious flaws in 'greenhouse theory' are considered.

    The materials do NOT produce such, and the errors and misinformation regarding the production of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' are obvious both in their presentation AND in how that presentation is 'protected' (by usually anonymous identities like 'lowlander').

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

     

  • At July 21, 2006 7:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Peter"

    At the risk of repeating my self I must say that that SCIENCE is really avant-garde...

    1) For your information the Universe is not empty, as it has a temperature which is above 0 Kelvin and it is decreasing.

    2) What do you call the phenomenon where heat is trapped inside a car because there is a barrier which delays it´s conduction to the outside air? Here´s a hint: begins with a G.

    3) So after all that blabing about moon, mercury and venus it is still hard to see how the obscure part of Venus (which is not recieving any direct radiation from the Sun) is still over 400 Celcius when on a plante much closer to the same sun temperatures plunge to a a hundred negative... since the Greenhouse effect does not exist it must be MAGIC, pardon me, SCIENCE.

    But "Peter", please don´t let a poor "defender of the greenhouse" deter you from international recognition, write to the Swedish Nobel academy, SCIENCE such as yours will surely snatch a prize before you can say Greenhouse...

     

  • At July 21, 2006 9:38 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    With regard to 1) the Universe is indeed not empty, however gravity does tend to produce aggregations of material. The MEDIAN 'temperature' you mention is however of the MATERIAL present and you need to notice the difference 'lowlander' tween that measure of Kinetic Energy that is expressed as a 'temperature' and measures of Energy relating to the presence of Photons (i.e. radiation). Realise that the output of our local star HAS been measured "far beyond the outer limits" of what is considered (generally) to be the 'boundary' tween the local 'Solar System' and the enclosing 'Open Space'. There is simply insufficient matter to induct kinetic energy from interaction with those Photons 'lowlander' outside of the 'gravitational aggregations'. There is just enough however to raise the base 'temperature' to be above that zero point of the Kelvin Scale.
    There is still nothing at all relevant in your comment to showing a 'greenhouse effect' as produced in 'theory' is present.

    With regard to 2) you again miss the point you made of windows being opened and closed, I did NOT however miss that point perhaps you did not comprehend my response. You 'lowlander' need to notice the production of Turbulence and take more 'than a hint' in noticing the relation that exists tween 'Temperature' & "Pressure', both expressions of the Kinetic Energy present within a system.
    Again there is nothing in your comment 'lowlander' producing any reality for a supposed 'greenhouse effect.

    With regard to 3) it is noticed that still 'lowlander' you try to avoid SCIENCE by producing personal attacks. If you actually comprehended SCIENCE 'lowlander' the basic situation of Venus would be much 'clearer'. There was over the past One Billion years a rapid reduction in the planetary magnetic field, there is no longer anything to 'divert' energy within the Gamma and X-Ray Spectrums present around Venus. On Earth the Ambient Plasma produced by initial interactions with such Photons, the Earths Magnetic Field and the outer Atmospheric edge protects the biosphere FROM those Photons within the Gamma and X-Ray spectrums.

    Further Oxygen interacts with UV-C to form O3 in a Quantum Energy interaction and then O3 beings to interact with Photons in the upper UV-B spectrum. There is little free O2 in the atmosphere of Venus either. The situation on Venus isn't due to a supposed 'greenhouse effect' the temperature is due to the influx of more ENERGY from that incident to Venus as that Planets 'magnetic field' dwindled.

    As to Mercury 'lowlander' you avoid notice that the VARIATION of temperature is in the SURFACE of that planet and has again NOTHING to do with a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. That is the Atmosphere has conducted INTO it kinetic energy 'lowlander' and it is the effort within material to CONDUCT/CONVECT kinetic energy into equilibrium states that keeps the Planet Earth liveable. The surface of Mercury varies the induction of Kinetic Energy (represented by the 'temperature' you cite 'lowlander') in relation to the Energy incident and again there is NOT any 'greenhouse effect' present or even produced, and such is NOT 'required' to explain anything real' that is observed.

    Again 'lowlander' (not wishing to repeat MYSELF) you avoid notice that it SUBCOMMITTEE reporting' from within various 'academies' attempting to platform a 'supposed consensus' and those individuals have no better ability to defend their 'greenhouse opinion' that you do 'lowlander'. I (and others) again notice 'lowland' your only 'defence' is too attempt to cite 'who' is speaking and then try to avoid notice of what is being said. The 'persons' you mention hide behind the LABEL (reputation) of 'institutions', but what they attempt to say is not SCIENCE, it is opinion and all that they CAN say IS 'greenhouse' with NOTHING to validly produce the effect in REALITY. Their OPINION will NOT do that and there is NOT possible in any manner a 'greenhouse effect' from notice of the materials present in the situation they present in and the REAL properties of this materials.

    Try SCIENCE 'lowlander', your 'anonymous chuckle-festing' training is no longer viable, you need to learn some SCIENCE and this is NOT going to include very much at all from anything including mention of "greenhouse" 'lowlander'.

    Your's (as a REAL person),
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) (real trademark)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson (real pc of real person)
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com (real ISP service email account of Peter K Anderson)

     

  • At July 22, 2006 3:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Dear "REAL PERSON"

    1) Irrelevant how matter agregates, as long as there is matter to transmit molecular kinetic energy and therefore dissipation of heat from planets to outer space.

    2) YOU my dear friend fail to recognize some basic planetary science, which is natural as SCIENCE must ocupy too much space in your mind... the temperature in Venus is in the surface of the planet as well as on the atmosphere which is only natural as temperature distributes itself untill equilibrium, same phenomenum in Mercury... so still that SCIENCE still fails to clarify how the dark side of Mercury behaves so differently from the dark side of Venus, since Greenhouse does not exist, some other extraordinary forcing event must be happening in the absence of direct radiation.

    3) Radiation moves in straight lines unless difration occurs so I find it funny how does gamma radiation reaches dark sides of planets or planetoids...

    4) The most laughable item of your speech untill now... so... Venus does not have a magnetic shield... right... neither does Mercury or Mars or the Moon... you what these 3 have in common? No atmosphere either as solar wind blew it all away, Earth has one, it is actually thought that Mars had one in the past when there was actually an atmosphere there, liquid water and maybe even life... the drop in average temperature of Mars is another mistery obviously because if greenhouse effect does not exist existence or absence of atmospheres should make no difference in planetary average temperatures. Oh yes, by the way, for your SCIENCE FILES: Venus has a magnetic shield.

    5) Again, at the risk of repeating myself, your SCIENCE dear "REAL PERSON" is worth being in the X-files or more appropriatelly the Monty Pithon...

    The people that hide behind labels (LOLOLOLOL) only have reputed scientific work peer-reviewed and honoured internationally with scientific awards on their filed of expertise, you on the other hand dear "REAL PERSON" have a load of SCIENCE, that is to said bullshit. You think that using words like kinetic, terciary or turbulence give an impression on the receptor that you are some sort of expert... tough luck, scraping a litle under the surface the stink of the underlying SCIENCE (see above definition) takes over and people see that in fact what you are is a "REAL IDIOT".

     

  • At July 22, 2006 3:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    PS to 1)

    Since the Universe temperature is above 0 Kelvin there is obviously molecules moving...

    And quite franckly that whole concept that heat can not be dissipated to space is another fine pearl from your SCIENCE... since radiation keeps interacting with matter in planets degrading energy to the form of temperature and this (apparently) can not be dissipated to outer space, one could only conclude that planets temperature would tend to rise indefinetly as more radiation is recieved and no heat is dissipated... funny SCIENCE, a real laugh I'll give you that... do send that one to the Nobel academy, I can see the prize already: REAL PERSON Nobel for SCIENCE... lolololol

     

  • At July 23, 2006 12:56 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Perhaps 'lowlander of you discussion points that I HAVE made rather than attempt fabrication of those you prefer to make a reply to....

    ----------------------------------------
    As response to (1):- There is indeed relevance to aggregation 'lowlander' as in interstellar space the Median density of matter is ONE molecule/particle per cubic metre (approx) and this DOES severely restrict the Conduction of Kinetic Energy as these molecules do need to CONTACT each other to produce that effect. Also, the passage of Photons is near unhindered as even the Photon needs to become incident (i.e. make contact) with a molecule to interact. You are obviously mistaken in your opinion 'lowlander' as open space behaves as a 'near perfect' VACUUM (and this is commonly known).
    -+-

    As response to (2):- You repeat what I have already mentioned 'lowlander' so you are agreeing with me then I see.... Indeed a 'Greenhouse effect' is not existent indeed and there isn't need to produce 'other magic' to detail why a portion of a planet NOT being directly bombarded by Radiation presents materials that are NOT being heated to the same extent as those under direct bombardment, is there...
    -+-

    As response to 3):- Was there mention of 'Gamma Radiation' reaching those PERMANENTLY 'dark sides' "lowlander" as I haven't mentioned such at all, and generally most planetary objects present a rotating face to their local star if this solar system is indicative. That the Earths Magnetic Field protects the planetary surface from X-ray AND Gamma Spectrum Photons IS also common knowledge with the produced ambient plasma seen when concentrated within the Polar magnetic field convergences.
    -+-

    As response to 4):- Again you attempt erroneous allusions 'lowlander' so give reference to:-
    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
    and learn a little 'lowlander' and again refer to
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com
    for more details as to WHY this such considerations are relevant.
    To quote from the above link ["..events in the history and evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with practically no intrinsic magnetic field. The consequences for the space environment and atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an 'induced' magnetotail in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being scavenged by the passing solar wind."]
    Which is relevant to those 'planets' with no 'field' AND 'no atmosphere'...

    TO further quote form the above link:- [" When Mariner 2 flew by Venus in 1962 at a distance of 6.6 planetary radii (Rv), it did not detect any evidence of an Earth-size magnetosphere. Mariner 5, passing within 1.4 Rv in 1967, detected the signatures in the solar wind of deflection around an 'obstacle' at Venus. The small inferred size of that obstacle placed an upper limit on the magnetic dipole moment of Venus of ~ 10-3 that of Earth. Later Venera 4 made magnetic measurements down to 200 km altitude, still detecting no planetary field but providing data that reduced this estimate by about an order of magnitude. In a 1974 flyby, Mariner 10 merely confirmed the existence of a small, nearly planet- size obstacle. Venera 9 and 10 were put into orbit around Venus in 1975, but did not approach Venus closer than ~ 1500 km. Nevertheless, the data that these spacecraft obtained in the wake of the planet provided the first evidence that an Earth-like magnetotail was absent, and that instead a structure related to the interplanetary magnetic field occupied that region of space. The most definitive measurements of the magnetic moment of Venus were obtained during the Pioneer Venus Orbiter mission in its first years of operation (1979-1981). Repeated low-altitude (~ 150 km) passes by that spacecraft over the antisolar region, coupled with dayside observations to the same altitude, proved the insignificance of a field of internal origin in near-Venus space. The observed fields for the most part could be explained as solar wind interaction-induced features, to be described below. The new upper limit on the dipole moment obtained from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter wake measurements placed the Venus intrinsic magnetic field at ~0.000010 times that of Earth."]

    Perhaps 'lowlander' if you where less intent on contriving a supposed 'position' for my discussion and noticed what I WAS saying...
    -+-

    As response to 5):- Your 'opinion' seems shrouded in the attempt to be misinforming and belligerent 'lowlander' as you clearly do NOT comprehend SCIENCE. AS such you would not realise that the people hiding are only peer reviewing each others 'work' which is HOW the 'greenhouse nonsense' is platformed, protected by anonymously by a (to quote you 'lowlander') ["REAL IDIOT"] like yourself 'lowlander'.
    -+-

    As response to PS of 1):- Temperature is the measure of the intrinsic kinetic energy of material. IN a system with multiple materials in various 'state phases' there 'temperature' in a particular material is that residual to that material as there will also be Kinetic Energy involved in Conduction and Convection, processes initiated to produce the 'thermal (kinetic energy) equilibrium' sought by the collection of those materials in total regardless of 'state phase' (solid, liquid or Gas). The Kinetic Energy induced in the molecules of the materials within this planets biosphere from interaction with incident Photons (Radiation) is presented as a VELOCITY alteration to that molecular unit within the 'phase state' of the material it is encompassed within.
    Next, you need to UNDERSTAND the production of Turbulence 'lowlander' as that Kinetic Energy that is PRODUCING the WORK (as defined in Physics) is NOT also measurable as a TEMPERATURE and hence Temperature IS a measure of the residual Kinetic Energy to the materials present that are being placed into motion. Hence the DEFORMATION of the SURFACE is produced and there isn't any reason to expect an 'infinite rise in temperature'. AS such the EXTREME Turbulence on Venus is masking much more Kinetic Energy than is being inducted and the REAL level of Kinetic Induction within the Venus 'bio-systems'.
    See http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
    -+-

    As a 'general response' to 'lowlander' and others so inclined to be 'time wasting infants':- As to your comments 'lowlander' , all you present is the typical ignorance of that usual & anonymous 'Average Greenhouse Platformer', and the 'attitude' they so often revert to when unable to otherwise present a coherent discussion when faced with SCIENCE. There is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' 'lowlander' it is that very simple to realise. There is a very strong need for you 'lowlander' to start noticing that 500 Million tertiary educated, realise that many USE the materials the supposed 'greenhouse science' attempts to form inconsistent opinions on. The DAILY productions of those other areas in SCIENCE (including MEDICINE) would NOT 'function' as they do IF the 'greenhouse theory' was EVER correct, and this is BEFORE even notice of ALL the other obvious flaws in 'greenhouse theory' are considered.
    The materials do NOT produce such, and the errors and misinformation regarding the production of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' are obvious both in their presentation AND in how that presentation is 'protected' (by usually anonymous identities like 'lowlander').

    Try SCIENCE 'lowlander' (which you obviously LACK along with 'adult manners'), your 'anonymous chuckle-festing' training is no longer viable, you need to learn some SCIENCE and this is NOT going to include very much at all from anything including mention of "greenhouse" 'lowlander'.
    -+-

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

     

  • At July 24, 2006 4:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "REAL PERSON",

    Boy you must be carrying around a shovel with the amount of SCIENCE you produce per second...

    1) I repeat myself: it is irrelevant how matter is distributed, basic thermodynamics says that as long as you have molecules moving you have heat being dissipated, besides even if have a small amount of colisions to transfer heat since molecules in space are so close to 0 Kelvin, the transfer of heat is more than enough to compensate any lack of colisions.

    1a) and once again, if heat is not dissipated to outer space, and since energy is never destroyed only transformed to more entropic states, and since heat is the most entropic state known. You still need to explain how planets are able to keep their temperatures constant, since energy is constantly being inputed to planetary systems through radiation but is being dissipated through heat, the systems should be building up temperatures constantly... plus the core of planets is always hotter than it's surface which is starnge in the absence of heat dissipation to outer space since temperatures tend to an equilibrium and the amount of energy coming through radiation is imensely higher than the one still trapped in the core, the surface should always be hotter than the core.

    The fact of the matter is that your bullshit is not even close to explain reality...

    2) So let me get this straight:

    a) Venus and mercury recieve radiation from the Sun on their light side.
    b) Both stop recieving radiation on their dark side
    c) Venus temperature on the dark side is several hundred degrees Celsius positive, while Mercury is a hundred negative.
    d) So... since no radiation is reaching the dark side, and heat does not dissipate to outer space how does:

    di) Mercury gets so cold when it rotates to the dark side?
    dii) Venus remains so hot on the dark side?

    And when I ask you how to explain such data on the absence of Greenhouse effect you say I am admiting you are right? Boy you tell me what substance you are on cause it must be good stuff...

    3) Radiation does not "surround" planets... It travels in straight lines untill it interact with matter at which point you either observe: difraction, reflection or absorbtion. Since difraction is always limited and planets are spherical bodies, there are side of the sphere that will not recieve any radiation from the Sun.

    4) If there is no magnetic shield in Venus then logically there should also be no atmosphere as these fields protect plantes from solar wind, and if you bothere to look through the Solar System you will notice that all planetoid bodies WITHOUT magnetic fields lack as well an atmosphere. Your claim that Venus does not have one is therefore another big load of bul... SCIENCE!

    5) Tipical answer from lesser minds... when faced with the proven qualities of others, conspiracy theories follow shortly...

    The only ignorant my dear "REAL PERSON" is you, who even think for a moment that bullshit in nice packages can actually allow you to discuss matters which you obviously know nothing about with people even with some basic knowledge of thermodynamics or even simples socratic logic.
    Not one of your statements is either suported by a valid theory or an even remote glimpse of a correlation with reality or observable phenomena. This is the core definition of bullshit, complete and utter rubish with the sole intent of possible self gloat and perhaps a troop of idiot followers.
    Arrogance and lack of shame is to claim that people who spend their whole life studying these matters using the scientific method, who are controled quite closely by other people as well dedicated to these matters actually are morons but that instead some "REAL PERSON" with a keyboard, a caps lock permenantly locked on and an infinite load of bullshit know better... have some shame, dedicate your pittyfull existence to some more productive ends and quite frankly stop being a clown.

     

  • At July 24, 2006 6:01 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    In response to 1):- The Aggregation of matter is entirely relevant 'lowlander' not only from gravitational concerns, but as for 'heat' to be 'conducted' there must be some 'contact' tween molecules. The measure of Heat is dependant on matter and with (as the median) One molecule/particle per cubic metre there is not the opportunity for the process of Conduction to propagate Kinetic Energy. I have also detailed how planets keep their 'temperature' within persistent ranges also, you simply (again) only avoid to notice the already given details and I will not repeat myself, see instead http://hartlod.blogspot.com
    As Space IS considered to be a near perfect vacuum BY ITS OBSERVED behavior, there is little to me made for you grandstanding 'lowlander'... Kinetic Energy cannot enter 'Space' and the 'dissipation' is by and within the production of Turbulence and the WORK Produced by the processes of Turbulence to place into motion materials in, on and about the planetary surface. You should pay attention to what is being discussed 'lowlander'.

    In response to 2):- You avoid to notice that without the induction of kinetic energy there is not any Energy being produced as 'Heat' and the usual processes of conduction will be in play 'lowlander'. This I have already mentioned 'lowlander' with the presence of an Atmosphere on Venus facilitating the conduction of heat more readily within the Gas, which is why the Atmosphere of Venus behaves as you mention. Again this has been explained,..
    You are admitting I am right 'lowlander' by your near rabid attempt to avoid my answers and you have yet to show even how a 'greenhouse effect' can actually function, let alone show it is present in any of the 'examples' you have 'given' ... I have presented outlines to show how the 'examples' are readily and easily detailed without resorting to the contrivances of the platformed 'greenhouse effect'.

    In response to 3):- Read the material in the link I gave regarding 'Venus' and realise that the Earth travels through space with a little 'trailing tail' the 'gases' of that being retained by the interactions of the Planetary Magnetic Field, Radiation and the upper edges of the Atmosphere. With out gravity and the Planetary Magnetic Field the 'Planetary Tail' would be lost constantly until there was little to no atmosphere remaining. Your attempt is incorrect in its application 'lowlander' abd the errors of you 'statement' have already been detailed.

    In response to 4):- Again you need to read the link and the extracts I gave regarding Venus then produce a 'question' that is founded in what I SAY, rather than what 'lowlander' would like to respond to...See (again)
    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
    Realise that one 'concept' to explain the 'atmospheric density' of Venus was that the 'present' atmosphere is a production of the reaction to the loss of the original 'atmosphere' as the Magnetic field reduced to 'practically nothing'. The rapidity of the 'field reduction' (still needing 'mission time) if sufficiently 'rapid' would create a 'pressure boil' and increase 'atmospheric density'. The greater 'atmospheric density', due to larger molecules perhaps or simply 'more molecules' (again needing mission time) is then able to support higher residual measures of kinetic energy. That is the atmosphere would be able to support and then display as 'its measure' a 'higher temperature'...

    In response to 5):- As to 'point 5', you continue to prove me correct in my estimations 'lowlander' by your observed behaviours. I see again 'lowlander' you avoid that detail you cannot face (the replay to your previous 'Postscript' for example). There was not any mention by myself of a 'conspiracy' and it is clear that you do not have the comprehension 'lowlander' to understand my responses yet 'lowlander' you persist is attempting to 'present as being authoritive knowledge' whilst dodging my answers...
    And this IS being noticed...

    Try reading my previous post again 'lowlander' and this time read what I type, not what you prefer to 'see'...Your anonymous 'chuckle fest training' is no longer viable 'lowlander' most certainly it seems to under prepare you with SCIENCE' (and adult manners).

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

     

  • At July 24, 2006 11:31 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    When it is noticed that Venus is potentially losing its Atmosphere at a rate related to overall gravity well determinations and the Atmospheric density is potentially due to loss of a planetary 'magnetic dipole' with then a relationship linking the notice of which 'Planets' in this Solar System present 'Earth-like Dipoles', the CONTINUANCE of 'life as we know it' is NOT in any study of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' or even other Planet's Atmospheres.

    The study needed to protect 'life as we know it' in it's persistence is in the study of the Earth's Planetary Dipole and the PRODUCTION of that Dipole in it's process and continuance, NOT in any supposed 'greenhouse effect'.

    PS: Perhaps 'thermal power generation' should be 'banned' via a 'motorium' for being 'detrimental to the possible persistence future generations' and every effort should be made to retain the 'geothermal heat' within the Planet to keep molten the 'Planetary Core'... a big 'thermal plug' for all the Volcanoes perhaps?

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

     

  • At July 25, 2006 12:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Dear "REAL PERSON",

    Right... so claiming that other main-stream scientist are blocking your SCIENCE is not a conspiracy theory... In deed that makes it all clear.

    Your answers are either ilogical, incoherent with previous statements or lies. So no, you have answered to NONE of my questions, not even one.

    As for the links to your so called blog or website, give me a break... if you are not even able to answer simple questions here you expect me to feed your litle shithole with another hit for the statistics... guess again, tough luck...

    YOU failed to present a valid case for your "theory". YOU failed to answer simple questions without contradictions or, ate spaces, LIES.

    Finally, the ad hominem tactic about the suposed reality of your person and my suposed anonimous nature is old and tired. Anyone who wants to know who I am can easily access my personal detail, this is the world wide web, secondly, who we are is irrelevant, what you writte is the essence. And essenciatially all you have been presenting for the past 3 or 4 days has been pure bullshit, dodging questions or making statements which are clearly untrue.

    And since, after 3 days we are still in the same place, I will will lose no more time with you as George Bernard Shaw put it much better than me "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and besides the pig likes it".

    Time to go clean myself.

     

  • At July 25, 2006 3:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Just as final notes to end this load of bullshit.

    There is heat dissipation to space for even in the vacuum, all bodies lose heat.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Temperature_of_the_vacuum

    The non-existent magnetic field in Venus does exist after all...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Magnetic_field_and_core

    As we say in my country "it is easier to catch a liar than a one leg man".

     

  • At July 25, 2006 10:46 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Has it been said that there is no magnetic dipole for Venus? No, not at all you still seem intent on vitriol 'lowlander', and equally intent to simply fabricate a position for 'yourself' to argue from that is disassociated totally from the points and issues being made. Again, notice the link I have given 'lowlander', that being now for the third time:-

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/

    The magnetic dipole is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of this Planet, you would notice that if you spent your time reading what I have already mentioned. It is that the magnetic dipole of Venus is said to be 'practically nil', that is 'lowlander' that for practical purposes, it is effectively NIL. Try reading the material within the link I have again given...

    It is not I intent on 'repeat' 'lowlander' as all your points have been countered numerous times already, but just for you 'lowlander'...
    The situation in Open Space is generally considered a near perfect Vacuum (already mentioned) and it is mentioned in that link 'lowlander', and I quote:-
    ["A thermometer orbiting the Earth can easily absorb energy from sunlight faster than it can radiate it away. This can lead to a dramatic temperature increase."]
    However there is not an ability for Turbulence to be produced within the material encapsulated in a traditional Thermometer, infact the capillary style capacity is designed to prevent such to avoid 'hiding kinetic energy' from the measurements. Also the 'temperature increase' is within the MATERIAL of the thermometer also and it is NOT only being placed incident to that same Radiation in orbit as is surface incident either, there is no longer any 'atmospheric filtering' of the available Photons.

    There is again the misnomer made that Energy of Radiation is presentable as a 'temperature' and the colloquial 'Temperature of Space' is infact the BACKGROUND ENERGY LEVEL of Open Space.
    Realise that the 'Ideal Gas Law' (mentioned in the 'wiki links' is infact only UNIFORMLY 'true and held' when the Gas is at LOW PRESSURE. This was determined so when the Gas Thermometer was being developed. Realise that there are limits to the application of the oft mentioned 'blackbody effect' and that the hypothetical situation there in presented is ONLY useful when more detailed MODERN knowledge is unable to be applied (for remote objects perhaps). For example the active producer of radiation as is the Star Sol is NOT fitting into the 'black body definition' and the fitting of a 'stellar output' is not a' win' for the 'blackbody theory' but a loss, the Star is NOT includable into that theory and so there are LIMITS to the application of that old theory obviously also (just as with the 'Ideal Gas Law').

    There is not notice either of PHASE alterations in Matter and the STRUCTURES formed in differing 'phases' with alterations to incident Photon (Energy) interactions. That is as the '18th and 19th century science' IN this 'wiki item' IGNORES anything made after and only mentions the Kinetic Theory in passing. Realise that in a gas the Molecules when incident to Photons do NOT present secondary Photons in relation to any 'blackbody' concept as those secondary Photons represent Energy that was NOT part of any kinetic (Induction) interaction but a Photonic Interaction and so does NOT present information on the 'temperature' of the involved molecule.

    Realise that the Quantum Wave-Kinetic and Photonic Interactions are ALL involving Energy that is incident as a Photon, the Quantum 'Photonic Interactions' are NOT the limited set for 'Photon interactions only'.

    There is NOT any place for 'entropy' in the discussion regarding Climate 'lowlander' as the modern SCIENCE would have involved concepts of Turbulence and 'fluid dynamics' along with surface solid/liquid interactions with incident Radiation. 'entropy' is an old generalisation, being oft mentioned 'lowlander' to try to introduce 'uncertainty' as explanation for the poor performance of 'greenhouse science' to 'fit reality' into its 'greenhouse opinions'.

    All bodies can lose ENERGY 'lowlander', HEAT is the measure of the Median intrinsic Kinetic Energy of the Molecules/Atoms of the 'sample', and when measured on a SCALE is termed 'temperature' of that sample. "Heat" is propagated by the processes of Conduction and Convection with relationship to MATTER, Radiation propagates Energy as Photons which propagate INDEPENDENT of MATTER and can traverse a Vacuum.
    There is not possible a 'greenhouse effect', it is that very simple to realise if one looks at what the 'greenhouse theory' presents, then compares to how the materials involved behave within the situation they are presented in. It is time 'lowlander' for the 'greenhouse minority' to move into the 20th Century so as to then rejoin SCIENCE in the 21st Century... At the most BASE level the 'greenhouse theory confuses Energy as 'heat' and as Radiation rendering ALL its 'calculations' invalid and 'greenhouse onion' as irrelevant and disassociated form the REALITY we all inhabit.

    I am not illogical 'lowlander' you simply do NOT understand the difference tween 'HEAT' and Energy and are intent on avoiding notice of this difference (if not actively trying to 'protect the misnomer). This is 'along with' the 'related misnomers' involved in 'greenhouse science' regarding the Quantum Wave-Kinetic interactions, this 'set' being simply another part of 'interactions with Photons' as are those interactions listed as 'Photonic'. One interaction set produces an intrinsic 'molecular' 'Kinetic Gain from and incident Photon's energy, the other presents the situation of a remittance event for a secondary Photon. These events are not 'mutually exclusive' and the incident energy is shared tween these interaction styles.

    This mistake has lead the 'greenhouse wagon' down the wrong path and it is using secondary photons from atmospheric molecules as being 'representative of heat' and so is erroneously presenting CO2 as getting 'warmer' by looking only at it secondary remittance of Photons. This Energy IS infact the Energy within the Cascade of photons within the boundary of the Atmosphere but does NOT represent a 'temperature' of the surrounding and SEPARATE molecules.


    As to your continued puerile attacks on myself 'lowlander':-
    1) I have not mentioned any 'conspiracy', you have simply fabricated one
    2) You have not looked at what I discuss 'lowlander' and you only contrive a platform to produce vitriol from
    3) The links to the site http://hartlod.blogspot.com server to save me typing and provide slides to illustrate points (as mentioned already)
    4) I have answered your points 'lowlander', you simply try to avoid noticing so to continue your 'ad hominem' vitriol (still..)
    5) The 'ad hominem attacks' are being produced by you 'lowlander'. This is obvious and noticed... I would point out that your entire production of theatre is a 'near reprise' of the 'vitriolic theatre' produced by another anonymous heckler (titled "CH") in another 'internet place'. and which was equally intent on fabrication rather than discussion.

    There is a difference from being directly identifiable in the REAL world as I am, and as the anonymous identity that is all 'lowlander' is. This difference, from a REAL person to an 'anonymous identity' is not 'old and tired' 'lowlander' you simply hope have others 'believe' it is. Try reading the links I have given, refrain from vulgarity and attempt to comprehend SCIENCE 'lowlander'.

    I have not presented material/theory that would be titled by any HONEST individual as being 'my theory' in any manner related, or derived, from how I have attempted discussion.
    Nor would an honest individual hide behind anonymous identities intent only to produce harassment of ME.
    Consider yourself "caught" 'lowlander'..

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

     

  • At July 27, 2006 2:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If theres any lurkers who think Hartlod might have a point, please say and we shall explain how he doesnt.
    guthrie

     

  • At July 28, 2006 1:16 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Perhaps there should be attempted an outline of "your issues" 'anonymous Guthrie', as it is in the production of a REAL discussion that such should be made, not in any monologous 'greenhouse theatre'. So to give such discussion a beginning:-

    The greatest effort of 'greenhouse politics' is platforming of 'innuendo of climate change' as justification...there isn't possible a 'greenhouse effect or a 'greenhouse induced climate change'. The rising Temperature of the Planetary Surface (the actuality behind the 'it is getting warmer' within the 'greenhouse platforming') is rising as the materials OF the surface are altered within (and by) Human 'constructions' and the materials there in used. The invalid assumptions tacitly made in 'greenhouse related proposal justifications' include errors in differentiation tween 'HEAT' (the measure of intrinsic kinetic energy) and Energy (in general AND as presented by the Photon especially), as just one example of such 'greenhouse misnomers'.

    The proposed process relating a supposed 'greenhouse heat trapping' misuses interactions, the Quantum 'Wave-Kinetic' and 'Photonic' Interactions (all part of the 'interactions with Photons Science'), where in is described situations of Photon's Energy in 'Wave-Kinetic' interactions producing in the 'molecular unit' a 'Kinetic Gain' (measurable as a 'heat gain') whilst the 'Photonic' interactions is made remittance (release) of Energy as a secondary Photon from the molecular unit. These events aren't 'mutually exclusive' within interactions with the incident energy shared tween these interaction styles.

    The 'interpretation errors' has the 'greenhouse theory' using Energy existent as secondary photons as being 'representative of heat' and then of the 'temperature' of the interacting molecules. This Energy, as presented in these (reemitted) photons is the Energy within the Cascade of Photons existing within the boundary of the Atmosphere. This Energy doesn't however represent a 'temperature' of the surrounding and SEPARATE molecules. The Energy of secondary photons wasn't related in its production to the Temperature of the original molecule to begin with and isn't 'blackbody' sourced or derived in ANY (valid and real) manner.

    Thus the 'demonstrative greenhouse model' presents not the reality we observe but only a processing of OPINION and in very expensive computer simulations.

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

     

  • At July 31, 2006 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    FYI: from wikipedia:

    Cherry picking, literally meaning harvesting cherries, is used metaphorically to accuse someone of pointing at individual cases which seem to confirm his or her position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict it.

    It does not refer to the 'individual' nor is it an 'attack' but specifies the type of arguments made.

     

  • At July 31, 2006 5:13 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Perhaps the term of SCIENCE, i.e. Predetermination, should be used to describe the process at 'the root' of the contrivances within so much of 'greenhouse analysis'. The PROCESS that 'made' the 'hockey stick plot' is clearly PREDETERMINISTIC in its observed traits of DATA handling. As such the PLOT is of little value as it is FILTERED to expunge those points that show temperature aberrations, the VERY ISSUE attempting to be addressed.

    Also is seen, and commented on elsewhere (framed with reference to 'wiki' being 'politically correct' with a paucity of SCIENCE) the increasingly inconsistent content of 'wiki', due mainly to the 'self styled editing' of that blogs 'articles'. There is NOT any point in 'quoting wiki' when the ISSUE is so plainly outlined in validation errors of implemented processes of SCIENCE in the 'experiment'. Predetermination is the process of taking DATA and perhaps even unconsciously treating it in a manner determined by an 'opinion of correctness'. This is sometimes confused by those involved as the 'testing of a hypothesis', but infact is 'fitting data' to suit a hypothesis.

    FYI 'anonymous' there is no reference of worth in 'quoting wiki' ESPECIALLY from behind anonymity, try going to a REAL library.

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

     

Post a Comment

<< Home