How to get the damaging leaked University of East Anglia CRU files about AGW

well

But he did promise higher taxes for successful people. He is delivering=20 on that.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

It seems to be discrediting science itself. Then left without any=20 means to detect falsehood, the sheeple will be more controllable. Can you say 1984?

the

scientific

and

be=20

=20

=20

So you did not view any of the videos and are dissing on command of your=20 controllers? I can blast Algore directly from my own ability.

the

used

scientific

and

be

that

so

case

locked

have

champagne

being

of

published

on_denialist_dujour/

=20

Really? Maybe it is your command of fact and fact testing that is = lacking.

=20

Politicians knowing a fact that bites them in the face? Never happen.=20 Politician missing a chance to tax? Never happen. There never was any science to it, it was/is always politics, nothing = else. =20 I refer you to attempted suppression of the middle ages warm period and=20 attempted suppression of the "the little ice age" by AGWists.

Please retract that claim.

BTW your memory is failing. I last stated my position on this on s.e.d in a reply to you about 18 months ago - Google groups is handy:

I am on record from the release of Al Gores film saying that I did *not* think it appropriate or helpful to show it in UK schools and that I think he is a hypocrite. My position is clear enough. eg.

Regards, Martin Brown

Please retract that claim.

BTW your memory is failing. I last stated my position on this on s.e.d in a reply to you about 18 months ago - Google groups is handy:

I am on record from the release of Al Gores film saying that I did *not* think it appropriate or helpful to show it in UK schools and that I think he is a hypocrite. My position is clear enough. eg.

Regards, Martin Brown

Where did you get those three months from ?

In the most Northern parts of Finland at 70N, the sun sets on Nov 24th and rises again on Jan 17th, which is nearly two months.

On the pole, the sun is below the horizon for 179 days

The twilight is not significant for the melting process :-).

Snell´s law only describe the reflection and refraction angles.

It appears that the reflectance can be calculated from the Fresnel equation

One calculator at

and a diagram of the air/water boundary is at The angles are measured from the normal (vertical in this case) and for unpolarized sunlight, the reflectance is the average of the two polarization reflectance Rs and Rp.

Looking at the diagram and assuming calm water at the North pole, the sun is in the middle of summer 23.5 degrees above the horizon and only

10 % of the sun energy is reflected directly and 90 % is refracted into water and finally absorbed. However in April/May and September, the sun is less than 6.5 degrees above the horizon and more than 50 % of the rays are reflected.

Between the Arctic circle and the pole, in the summer during the day, the refraction into water is strong, but during the midnight sun hours, the sun is so low that most of the rays are reflected, thus, only the hours around noon will effectively warm the water.

The daily energy levels that I used, are at the surface of the earth for horizontal surfaces. You might get 1 kW/m² on the equator at noon, but at other times and other locations, the power levels are significantly less due to geometry and extinction losses.

Without the atmosphere losses, the summer time daily energy levels are much higher at high latitudes than on the equator.

I'm used to reading financials, so I made a spreadsheet and, after jockeying to group them logically, got those pg. 21 numbers to tally up. The columns are just screwy.

That estimate says the bill costs the Federal government a trillion dollars over ten years, which is paid by $500B in Medicare cuts, $64B in fines & penalties, a dab of hope and change, and $400B(?) in new taxes. At the end of 10 years they project ~$100B left over.

That assumes 10 years' taxes, but only 6 years of paying benefits.

The actual cost to the American people is far higher--

o Rather than tax them for the money, many Americans will be compelled by force of law to buy insurance. Reid doesn't count that as a tax, or as a cost to him. If you don't, you'll be prosecuted under the Internal Revenue Code as a tax cheat, but Reid doesn't count these trillions of forced payments. They'd triple the cost.

o The bill foists millions of Americans onto Medicaid, at states' expense. Reid counts that as a savings to him, though it's a loss for America and the states.

o The House bill counts on $250B in reduced reimbursements to doctors. But, they had a separate bill restoring those cuts, so it was a sham savings: it made that one bill's total seem less, but the overall spending was increased.

The upshot is that the average American will pay about 20% of gross income for health care.

That follows, as we pay just a bit under that now (~16% of GDP), and the bill throws 20 about million Americans onto Medicaid. Obviously,

20 million new Medicaiders isn't free. So, the average premium will go up (it has to, to cover more people). And, it will be taxed.

The only way your premiums will go down is if you're subsidized, which means everyone else pays more.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Oh, also-- The typical policy will go up additionally because the law requires it to cover more things, with lower deductibles, and more benefits. Obviously, that costs more.

Restrictions on the insurance companies' profits are meaningless, as they're only making on the order of 2% profit anyhow these days, and

5% in the best of times. Medicare, by contrast, loses about 14-odd% annually to _fraud_.

Likewise, restrictions on their executives' pay are ineffective, because it just doesn't add up to that much.

Besides, federal government workers earn more than private sector health insurance workers, and under this bill your policy will be paying for both.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

The Dems *want* their health plan to be bad and expensive. They will blame all the people they have just bought off (drug companies, insurance companies, doctors, states) and then move in to fix the problem.

The pre-existing-conditions thing will cause chaos. They won't enforce the mandatory insurance thing, so the insurance companies will be crushed by people who wait until they are really sick before they sign up.

I'm going to send money to Sarah.

John

I don't see how that is going to work. Why wouldn't everyone who is

*really* sick sign up for the very best insurance out there? Hmm.. maybe I do see what will happen.

When the solar rays hit the ice or water surface, part of the power is reflected directly back to space, while part is refracted into the ice or water and finally absorbed.

If I understand correctly, the reflected part is determined by the reflection coefficient according to the Fresnel equations.

The reflective constant depends of the refractive index and the angle, at which the rays hit the surface.

The refractive index for water is 1.333, while for ice, 1.31 seems to be listed. Thus, when comparing the reflective coefficient and hence the transmission coefficient into ice/water for a flat ice surface and a calm water surface, the amount of power refracted into ice/water is practically the same.

Thus, from the power balance point of view, what difference does it make, if the Arctic ice melts and there are open waters a few months each year ?

While fresh clean white snow will reflect most of the power back to space, in the arid polar desert, how often are there fresh snow ?

How long will the fresh snow remain white and clean, when the contamination from industry etc. will increase the absorbtion, speeding up the melting of the snow and ice ?

I'd favor making it possible for individuals to buy their own insurance independent of their employment. That way, like with life insurance, you'd buy a policy when you're young, and carry it with you through life wherever you go.

That solves the pre-existing conditions issue, and the portability issue.

Unfortunately, it's Congress that has passed a number of laws to prevent this, laws that exactly tie insurance to employment. IOW, they MADE the problem.

That's dumb.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

,

I don't know what they're thinking. Maybe they just really can't add, i.e., they don't get it. You're right that they'll blame industry when it flops--that's what they do.

They haven't bought off the doctors though, just the 17% in the AMA.

More than 50% of doctors are vehemently opposed:

Medical Assn. of Georgia website:

12.08 40-plus groups representing some 475,000 doctors now opposing H.R. 3590

This brief, excellent letter lists some of their concerns:

-- Cheers, James Arthur

This came from the lower color coded map at:

The lower one is after atmosphere and clouds. The upper one is before.

Both maps appear to me to be reasonable.

Insolation at the equator on an equinox averaged over a day is 435 W/m^2 above the atmosphere. (1366 W/m^2 divided by pi)

Insolation at a pole on summer solstice above atmosphere is 543 W/m^2. (1366 W/m^2 times sine of 23.439 degrees)

Insolation at a pole year-round average above atmosphere is 172.8 W/m^2. (543 W/m^2 divided by pi)

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:59:20 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in part, namely this analysis (I hope I got the thread history correct):

20.1 -5.2 +20.2 is 35.1, not 1.8. 1.8 million is the discrepancy between a gain in 35.1 million insureds and a reduction of 33.3 million uninsureds.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Ice is generally more reflective than water, since it tends to be more white in color. I is usually not transparent but white to light gray, as photos of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice show. It often even has snow on it.

It snows there, and actually somewhat often - just usually not a lot.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

...

...

illion

--
> >TOTALS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0372.5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0374.3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1.8
>
> >NET ADDITIONAL INSURED =A0-------------------^^^
>
> =A0 20.1 -5.2 +20.2 is 35.1, not 1.8. =A01.8 million is the discrepancy
> between a gain in 35.1 million insureds and a reduction of 33.3
> million uninsureds.
>
> =A0- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

Shit.  You're right--I slipped.  20.1 million more heaped onto
Medicaid,
5 million who lose their employer-based insurance, and 20.2 million
who'll have to buy private insurance.

The uninsured are covered in large part by simply passing a law
that they have to buy insurance.  Voila.

So that is, after a fashion, 35 million more insurance customers.
(As distinguished from getting health care.  There are many fewer--
only about 8-12 million--Americans who want insurance, don't have
it, and aren't eligible for assistance.[1])

Thanks for correcting me on the 1.8 million Don.

[1] e.g. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3D2550

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

There's a whole lot of stuff about that in the remote sensing literature, e.g. the ERIM Infrared Handbook.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs