Breezes Of Confirmation Pdf Editor
Aug 28, 2017. You can customize your form with many different field types and it makes data collection a breeze. To get started, we're going to setup the template of our mortgage application using a fillable PDF. Inside our PDF editor, we're going to add PDF fields for our data to be populated. We're going to. Of the reader and does not constitute an endorsement by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group or its member agencies. The FBFRG was last updated in 1992 and last published in 2001. The reason for discontinuing the guide was primarily lack of funding to maintain, update, publish and distribute the.
From the “smoke and mirrors” department. Two leading USA scientists have acclaimed a little known book for its ability to show everyday people, not just scientists, the wonder of the climate system and how carbon dioxide is not driving modern climate change. The accolades are from world famous physicist, Emeritus Professor William Happer (who has advised President Trump on climate change), Princeton University, and Dr Willie Soon, Senior Researcher, Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. The short 175 page book, titled Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate, was written by Dr. Howard Thomas Brady, an Australian scientist who studied in the USA and went on 4 expeditions to Antarctica with the US Office of Polar Programs. The reader is invited to enter the climate debate, likened to a twisting maze or hall of mirrors, with dead-ends, illusions, traps – that are the lies, misinformation, over-simplifications and false prophecies.
The paperback version (2nd Edition) was released earlier in March 2017, but is now being released with Happer and Soon’s recommendations on the back cover. The book is also being released for the first time as a Kindle ebook. The recommendations are: “Mirrors and Mazes is written for intelligent laymen who like to think for themselves. The book reviews all of the issues that touch on the current climate debate: the nature of greenhouse gases; clouds; the sun; sea level; extreme weather; polar ice; etc. The author, Dr Howard Thomas Brady, is uniquely qualified to write this guide through the climate debate. Leaving a youthful career as a Catholic priest to pursue his fascination with science, Dr Brady made many important contributions to geology, notably in studies of Antarctica, where he did extensive fieldwork during the Ross Ice Shelf Drilling Program.
Equations are avoided, but numbers are given when essential, for example, in discussions of rising sea level, where Dr Brady is an expert. There are well-chosen illustrations and good references for those who would like to dig deeper. Dr Brady’s discussions of the complicated interplay of the climate movement with religion, politics and the media are especially insightful, perhaps because of his youthful training in theology. I am especially fond of Mirrors and Mazes. It would be an excellent addition to the personal library of anyone who wants to understand climate facts, stripped of propaganda and emotion.” William Happer- Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University and also “Mirrors and Mazes is a beacon of light to see through the cloudy attempts to demonize CO2 as the satanic gas of our times.
It is a must read and welcome contribution to the educational aspect of this hot scientific debate.” Dr Willie Soon – Senior Researcher, Solar and Stellar Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics The book is as a Kindle eBook or as a Paperback. About the Author. In 2011, Howard received the Alumnus Scientist of the Year Award from Northern Illinois University, for his contributions to climate science and the community. He worked in Antarctica on four mainland expeditions, under grants from the United States Office of Polar Programs. He has published scientific articles in periodicals such as the Journal of Glaciology, Nature Magazine and Science Magazine. He also contributed to Antarctic Geoscience, a book released by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Science in 1982.
He is a member of the Explorers Club of New York and the Australian Microscope and Microanalysis Society. In 2015, He was elected a Member of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences due to a lifelong interest in human error as a factor in serious accidents. For more information visit. How can it be wildly off topic? Aren’t we talking about how the alarmist view can be refuted? Let it be, and let’s hear what other people have to say!!
Or is your prejudice against Nikolov and Zeller now ruling your editing? Censorship on WUWT too? I hurled no insults and my comment was meant to provoke a response– I want to hear why the obvious fact of the influence of planetary pressures on temperature is not a game-changer. Maybe someone can show me the light– yes, I, and others, want to learn. Everyone complains how the skeptic view is censored? Seriously, Anthony, get a grip.
Writing Observer: In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel.
However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Obd Software Free Windows 7. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions. Since we are at a temperature of less than 33 C and a partial pressure of less than.6096 of CO2 why should I not think CO2 has no effect when it has a ZERO emissivity in almost all of earths atmosphere? By the way Hottel wrote books on heat transfer in combustion chambers and his charts are in engineering heat transfer books.
So please explain. Writing Observer– but SOMETHING is going on such that the equation that frolly, e.g., has given us holds true.
The equations are telling us something. Sorry, but they are. I understand that compression heats a gas but steady pressure does not, but my supposition is that SOMETHING is going on with our atmosphere that we don’t quite understand.
In any case, Anthony, thanks for posting. For the rest, I have to tell you: I’m siding with the Connollys and with “frolly,” Wilde, and N&Z. I don’t think anyone has explained why atmospheric pressure isn’t significant in determining temperature except to say that it can’t be, whereas the equations tell us it is. The atmosphere, my friends, is decidedly not like a bicycle tire that we pump up. And no, I did not read any of the book in question. I have no doubt it’s a fine book that answers the alarmists. But for me, the obvious answer is that CO2 has no effect to speak of, and the greenhouse effect never existed and never will, and in fact cannot exist.
That truth has hit me like a bolt from heaven– but then again, I must be exceptionally dense. “nobody wants to hear about gravity = heat because it doesn’t.” Gravity causes compression, which increases kinetic interactions, which results in warming. Just as we have no meaningful way to separate natural and human influences on climate, we have no way to separate the adiabatic and radiative influences on the lapse rate. Radiative effects are potentiated by adiabatic compression, e.g. Pressure broadening, scattering, etc.
There is plenty of room in our current lack of understanding for both radiative and adiabatic warming. To be adamant at this point that it is all either one or the other is just silly.
Gnomish November 27, 2017 at 3:56 pm don- nobody wants to hear about gravity = heat because it doesn’t. It’s crazy talk. There is no correspondence with reality. And who wants crazy ppl ranting around the place? The atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation so it gets heated by conduction/sensible heat by the surface and also by evaporation of water vapor. Thus the molecules at the bottom of the atmosphere are given increased kinetic energy by collision and therefore try to take up more space and/or increase pressure.
The effect is that the more energetic molecules take up more room the volume of atmosphere is less dense so convects upward. As it rises the pressure drops and there are less molecules in the volume – so the sum of the kinetic energy of the molecules is less – which is a drop in temperature.
This drop in temperature as a volume of air convects upward is known as the adiabatic lapse rate (look up the meaning of adiabatic). If the air contains water molecules that change state releasing energy then the lapse rate is different and is known as the wet adiabatic lapse rate. So in the absence of wind – the atmosphere is warmer at the surface due to conduction (gas molecules being given kinetic energy) and then as the volume of warm air rises the pressure drops and the temperature drops following Charles’ Law in line with the adiabatic lapse rate. You were looking at the causation backwards.
That being said there are phenomena known as ‘Heat Bursts’: In meteorology, a heat burst is a rare atmospheric phenomenon characterized by gusty winds and a rapid increase in temperature and decrease in dew point (moisture). Heat bursts typically occur during night-time and are associated with decaying thunderstorms.
A downburst of air that rises in temperature due to its rise in temperature. I believe that you may owe an apology to Don. A thought experiment: You have a container filled with air at constant pressure floating in space. You apply a heat source to the container like the sun. The gases will warm up and since there is no gravity the temperature of all sides of the container should be equal.
Now move the container into a gravity field. The molecules of the gases moving upward and hitting the top of the container are slowed down by gravity and the gases hitting the bottom of the container are sped up by gravity. Shouldn’t this lead to the temperature of the bottom of the container being warmer than the top? Wouldn’t this also form a temperature gradient from the top to the bottom?
In other words, a lapse rate. But the gravity field container will not have more energy than the one floating in space. We haven’t added any extra energy to the system and yet the gases nearest the gravity source will be warmer. What has happened is the kinetic energy of the molecules has increased at the bottom while the potential energy has increased at the top. The concept of temperature just looks at the kinetic energy. While it is true the overall energy is still unchanged it is distributed differently between kinetic and potential energy.
In essence it is the way we are measuring energy as heat that makes us think the bottom is more energetic. In a gravity field temperature is only part of the picture. From a complete energy perspective the composite within the container is still equally divided. It’s too funny, this is well known and accepted in all science except climate science. Gravity is a force applied to an atmosphere, any air that falls converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and heat. Without gravity, an atmosphere would simply disperse into space. And without a heat source, gravity would pull all the air to the surface and all the energy in it would eventually dissipate as radiation into space.
Together, the atmosphere is heated from a source and gravitational compression retains much of that heat within the atmosphere. The heavier the atmosphere, the more kinetic energy and heat there will be within it, nearly irrespective of the composition. Essentially, it is basic conservation of energy applied to an open system in a gravitational field. When you add a gravitational field you add a massive amount of potential energy to work into the energy balance equations. This appears to us as an increased density as you get closer to the source of the gravity. It is simply the overall system trying to achieve equilibrium.
In addition, the potential energy is a direct result of the overall mass of the system. More mass = more potential energy = more kinetic energy needed at surface to balance COE. Back in older discussions the claim was made that an atmosphere without GHGs would become isothermal. It would if there was no gravity. However, when you have gravity you change the energy balance depending on where you are in the field.
This leads to more kinetic energy closer to the surface to balance out the large potential energy away from the surface. Now, what happens when a GHG absorbs a photon in this picture? Yes, that energy adds to the kinetic energy as well. However, with an open system this just expands the atmosphere creating more space between particles.
The temperature won’t increase at the surface because it also changes the lapse rate. And, the expansion then allows that energy to escape.
Equilibrium with no temperature increase. Finally, in no way does the gravity add any increased thermal energy to the atmosphere. However, it does change the COE dynamics. It is those dynamics that cause the surface to be warmer. OK, thanks for comments. My point is that we can prove there is no GH effect because PV=nRT for planets above 0.1 bar gives us (close to) the temperature, so that tells us that this formula applied to planetary atmospheres is highly significant. Frolly’s reformulation, T=Pn/Rp (where “p” = rho) is more accurate.
This is the simplest way I know to state it. If the mainstream contention is that we need a GH effect because the blackbody temperature of earth is 255K and the GH effect adds the extra 33K that we need to get up to a comfortable 288K, then we can easily prove this is wrong because T=Pn/Rp gives us 288K without invoking the actual identity of the gases that compose this, or any, atmosphere. My larger point in relation to “Mirrors and Mazes” is that I’m sure it’s an excellent book, but the science, so far as I can see, really is settled, and settled in a big way: no GH effect that matters, period. The “GH effect” is baked into the atmosphere from the start before we even consider whether the gases composing the atmosphere are radiative or not. We say that CO2 raises the emissions height of the atmosphere because the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR radiation. But DOES the emissions height of the atmosphere get raised?
Or is this just modeled? Have we built up an elaborate narrative to explain what we think the radiative gases must be doing? What if they’re actually doing/not doing something else? “The atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation so it gets heated by conduction/sensible heat by the surface and also by evaporation of water vapor. ” Conduction is not very important since gases have very low conductivity. Most of the heating is by evaporation and LWIR from the surface (this is where LWIR is actually important) and then most of this heat is convected away from the surface.
Convection dominates the climate system. Sea breezes = convection, Land breezes = convection, Cumulonimbus clouds = convection, Thunder storms = convection, Hurricanes = convection, Monsoons/Hadley cells = convection. “and gravitational compression retains much of that heat within the atmosphere.” Sorry – but no. If it did then we would have a source of perpetual energy.
Gravity is important in that it gives rise (largely) to the lapse rate, in the relation -g/Cp. The atmosphere is a heat-pump not just equator>pole but top to bottom as well. As the Earth spins under a heat source the atmosphere is being churned around most places. Heat is pumped down because of subsidence and cooled by ascent. That maintains a basic LR which is modified by LH absorption/release and to some extent by the GHE. Heat is not retained by the atmosphere after compression under gravity once that “work” has stopped. I said: “with an open system this just expands the atmosphere creating more space between particles.
The temperature won’t increase at the surface because it also changes the lapse rate. And, the expansion then allows that energy to escape. Equilibrium with no temperature increase.” This is wrong. Guess I got carried away. There would be a temperature increase.
So, we are left with two possible causes of warming 1) The adiabatic effects of gases in a gravitational field and 2) The poorly named Greenhouse effect. I believe what happens is an atmosphere without GHGs would have a significantly smaller transfer of energy into the atmosphere. If we look at the energy balance diagrams we see conduction is extremely small. Most of the energy transferred into the atmosphere comes from radiation and latent heat. As a result an atmosphere with GHGs has more energy to work with and will be warmer.
Removing GHGs is essentially identical to reducing the amount of energy entering the atmosphere. What it looks like is identical to simply turning down the input energy. What this means is you need BOTH.
You need an atmosphere with GHGs to allow more energy into the system, AND you need to understand the energy profile of an atmosphere within a gravitational field. You will not be able to describe the system without considering both factors. What I think the ideal gas law is telling us is that the system has a maximum energy level associated with the overall mass of the system and the amount of energy input into the system. There is only so much energy entering the system. We cannot create additional energy. If we are at the maximum temperature profile for the atmosphere it can’t be raised without adding more energy as all the energy is already captured.
MarkW: “The atmosphere is not a closed container. When molecules of air heat up, the top of the atmosphere moves up a smidgen. However since the total number of molecules in the atmosphere doesn’t change, the pressure doesn’t change either.” Except you already said the air heats up. The pressure may not change but so what?
The reason the air heated up was because of more energy input into the system by the absorption of more energy by a GHG. When the atmosphere moves up that smidgen it increases the distance where the adiabatic warming operates so the surface warms. I got this wrong initially too. As long as there is more energy available that can be absorbed, then adding more absorbers will increase the energy in the system.
OTOH, climate activists assume there is an infinite amount of energy available to be absorbed which is nonsense. The problem with CO2 is almost all the energy available to it is already being absorbed by current CO2 molecules or water vapor. And, as you add more CO2 you reduce high altitude water vapor which nearly balances out the already small effects of the nearly saturated CO2 frequency bands. “and gravitational compression retains much of that heat within the atmosphere.” Sorry – but no. If it did then we would have a source of perpetual energy. Still d-nyeing basic physics I see. Think of the Earth’s atmosphere as a greenhouse, but instead of a roof acting as a barrier to convection, gravity is the barrier.
If that barrier wasn’t there, atmospheres would not exist. Instead, it does exist, and with a constant source of energy at the surface that starts the convection process, conservation of this energy through gravitational potential energy is very important. And the more mass the atmosphere has, the more important it becomes. This is really not at all hard to understand, I fail to see how people continue to be confused.
You don’t have a source of perpetual energy, some of the heat is lost due to radiation and conduction in the upper troposphere, but the bulk of the convection is constrained to the troposphere and energy input from the sun that lifted air is returned to the surface via WORK DONE BY GRAVITY. This process helps explain why many areas on the planet, where air descends in Hadley Cells, actually radiate more energy into space than they receive from the sun. If I had the software, I’d create a trend map for the CERES data for outgoing longwave radiation, and then grid that map with the actual data to produce a residual map.
I’d wager the latitudes corresponding to the descending legs of Hadley Cells would show positive residuals for OLWR for their corresponding latitudes, moreso even than they already do in the actual data. @ Richard M, I think you’re missing the mark with the GHG “adding” energy, since when we compare the atmosphere of Venus at an altitude where its atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth’s atmospheric pressure, the ONLY thing needed to differentiate between the temperature of the two planetsis the distance from the Sun.
DESPITE Venus having an atmosphere that consists of over 95% CO2, thus being virtually ALL “GHGs,” as opposed to the “trace” amount (less than 0.1%) GHG for Earth’s atmosphere. If GHGs added heat, then you would need more than the distance from the energy source to explain the temperature difference, but you don’t.
Observation trumps theory, as they say. AGW is not Science ” “@ Richard M, I think you’re missing the mark with the GHG “adding” energy, since when we compare the atmosphere of Venus at an altitude where its atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth’s atmospheric pressure, the ONLY thing needed to differentiate between the temperature of the two planetsis the distance from the Sun. DESPITE Venus having an atmosphere that consists of over 95% CO2, thus being virtually ALL “GHGs,” as opposed to the “trace” amount (less than 0.1%) GHG for Earth’s atmosphere.” GHGs are not adding heat above the energy supplied by the sun. They are transferring that heat to the atmosphere. The warmer temperatures at the surface are a result of the kinetic energy profile, however, without the GHGs you wouldn’t have enough energy moved into the atmosphere to create a particular profile.
I think you are assuming that without GHGs the atmospheric energy level would be the same. “If GHGs added heat, then you would need more than the distance from the energy source to explain the temperature difference, but you don’t. Observation trumps theory, as they say.” Like I said they don’t add any heat.
They just allow the solar energy to be absorbed more completely. Both Earth and Venus have sufficient GHGs to move most of the solar energy through the atmosphere and hence they will show the same kind of profile. Since Venus has more mass it’s profile is much taller leading to a warmer surface.
Richard M, You say, November 27, 2017 at 10:57 pm: Now, what happens when a GHG absorbs a photon in this picture? Yes, that energy adds to the kinetic energy as well. However, with an open system this just expands the atmosphere creating more space between particles. I am afraid you are making a fundamental conceptual mistake. We are talking about a thermodynamic system at steady state. For each photon that does what you suggest (get annihilated and cause a rise in KE) another will do the opposite (e.g.
Radiate away to space). If that were not true then the system would not be at steady state and the atmosphere would go on expanding for ever!! So whatever you are arguing for cannot be supported by your comment.
Texasjim Note the word “increase”. The gravity value does not change, so a standing column of air will not ‘retain its heat’ over time if it contains GHG’s radiating energy into space. Lost energy has to be replenished, which of course happens daily.
The gravity=heat idea is silly. I can increase the pressure in the tank of my air-powered nail gun. The air is heated by the increase in pressure.
Then the tank loses that heat into the surroundings until it matches the ambient temperature. This shows that static pressure is not a source of heat nor is pressurized air an insulator. I am sorry there are so many people taking up space on this blog talking up two errors at the same time. First, air can be pressurized, heated as that happens, then cool down over time if there is no external added energy source. Second, the idea that the atmosphere is colder with elevation is only true part of the time, for part of the height. Balloon-borne instruments show the temperature drops with altitude, then rises. At the edge of space air molecules must be considered differently according to the gas: hydrogen, oxygen, CO2 and so on.
Non-GHG’s are very hot because a) they are continually heated by various forms of radiation and b) they are not able to emit IR (or emit very little). They can cool by bumping into a colder molecule, which is difficult in a near-vacuum. The top of the atmosphere is not ‘cold by conduction to space’. It is not true that space it ‘cold’. A vacuum doesn’t have a temperature. Physical matter does. Individual molecules of air at high altitude can have a temperature much higher than other identical molecules lower down.
The common pressure-temperature equation only holds for certain cases at certain (low) altitudes when it comes to a real atmosphere, which is what we have been handed. It will not take much research to discover that the air column does not conform to the PV=nRT formula. Note the qualification that the formula only works above 0.1 bars air pressure. Sid Abma If the CO2 can be removed from the combusted fossil fuel exhaust and be transformed into useable-saleable products, then why not do so.
But there is NO worldwide, nation-wide, nor even region-wide MARKET for such mass of CO2 as it is found in exhaust stacks: low pressure, slightly mixed with trace contaminates and the unburned nitrogen, at low pressure and modestly high (or very high) temperatures. Let the market decide – but NOT the worldwide government represented by eco-terrorists and academic wanna-be’s now in control of the UN/IPCC/global CAGW communities of despotic socialists. There IS NO such market globally, so – if a market exists locally, let it determine price and opportunities.
But the CAGW catastrologists do not want that to be an option. It is extremely expensive in terms of the expenditure of energy required to separate it out. And it is not dangerous, is in fact beneficial.
And disposing of it will be very hazardous and expensive, because as noted, the amount that would make a hill of beans worth of difference to the atmosphere is ginormous compared to any industrial uses that might exist. Maybe we can store it temporarily, and then convert it into biomass, some of which may be edible, some useful as a versatile structural material, some used as clothing and fabrics, animal feed, soil amendments, etcand do all of this via a self replicating biochemical synthesis, powered 100% from renewable sunshine, while at the same time the processing facilities that absorb the CO2 and create the biomass exert a range of synergistic beneficial effects on the environment. Maybe we could figure out a place to store it that would be readily accessible by any of these biochemical synthesis units, cost us nothing to put it there or transport from the source to where it is needed, and which in the meantime would make every plant and tree on Earth require less water just by being on hand in this handy and readily available storage place. I think that would be a great thing to do with it.
And since this is what we are already doing with it, we will not even have to change anything. Sid, I have three comments on your post: 1. What is the point of extracting some CO2 from process A just to use it in another process at point B (at some additional deadweight cost), when carbon and the oxygen are freely available anyway?
There is no economic benefit if the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit, e.g. The so-called ‘clean coal’ technology which increases the cost of coal-fired electricity by at least 30%, for a minuscule reduction in a trace gas called CO2. If CO2 does not cause ‘global warming’, and the world is a better place with more CO2 (due to faster plant growth and therefore higher crop yields), why should anyone care about CO2 ’emissions’? CAGW is a huge edifice and there are many angles of attack because there it has many flaws. The only way the alarmists can sustain the illusion is by snowing us with word salad. When we demand answers for the obvious simple questions, the bull crap becomes obvious. The answers always follow the formula: bull crap baffles brains.
This book will resonate with many people and they will become skeptics. The joy of a relatively simple book is that people are more likely to read it. Every skeptic has an aha moment.
My own was when ‘they’ tried to erase the MWP and LIA. I didn’t need a dozen pages of equations to know that if CAGW were real, ‘they’ wouldn’t have to resort to obvious lies. Many people will find their own aha moment in Mirrors and Mazes.
Code for: disparage the climate experts or at least ignore their findings, and disparage every other “layman” who is not willing to ignore their findings as Unable to think for themselves of course. Worshipping experts is dangerous. They are more likely to lead you astray than help you. Since we’re talking about scientific experts, let’s start with the fact that most published research findings are false. This is most starkly obvious for pharmaceutical research because drug companies try to reproduce and replicate the research as a first step in creating new drugs. Drug companies point out that as much as 90% of published research findings are wrong and in many cases, the original authors can’t even reproduce their own experiments.
John Ioannidis points out that there is evidence that most research findings in all scientific fields is wrong. In face of the above damning evidence, what makes you think climate scientists are worth our respect and trust. I can tell you that Dr. Michael Mann has earned my distrust and disrespect. As Ioannidis says: Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In climate science, that sums it up in spades. Given the circumstances, I prefer to think for myself.
Tony mcleod November 27, 2017 at 6:02 pm Do I trust her expertise? You trust her if she’s performing a well-defined task that frequently occurs.
Otherwise, anyone who has survived into adulthood can probably cite a story or two about when doctors got it wrong. Medicine is a very messy example of expertise. Do I trust an engineer to design a building? Engineer-designed buildings almost never collapse. Engineers have a legal and moral duty to practice only within their areas of expertise. If you ask a mechanical engineer to design an electronic circuit, she should send you to another appropriately qualified engineer.
I can’t think of a lot of examples where that didn’t happen. Engineers are very clear about the limits of their expertise. The trouble is that we also define people to be experts on the basis of their education, not just on the basis of their demonstrated performance. Such people are remarkably unreliable when they speculate. They are also remarkably unaware of the limits of their expertise. When their predictions go awry, they have an armoury of of excuses to avoid being held accountable. I used the word ‘worship’ advisedly.
We – the consumers of expert pronouncements – are in thrall to experts for the same reasons that our ancestors submitted to shamans and oracles: our uncontrollable need to believe in a controllable world and our flawed understanding of the laws of chance. Some climate scientists, who can’t accurately predict the weather next month, pretend that they can accurately predict global warming a hundred years from now. We trust such experts at our peril.
Tony mcleod November 27, 2017 at 11:47 pm Come of it, engineers are just as fallible as doctors. Engineering is much less messy than medicine. There’s evidence that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. While practising their professions, the evidence is that engineers make far fewer errors than medical doctors. When one group of scientists are villified for idealogical reasons itis a slippery slope to dismissing all expert scientific authority.
There’s nothing ideological about it. Experts of all sorts make claims that they can’t back up. It’s no wonder that the public doesn’t particularly trust experts.
No, I’m sorry Tony, but you are a troll. You specialise in cryptic one-liners that demonstrate your contempt for other’s views but do little to enlighten. For example, I recently posted an essay that included a brief commentary on the Dunning-Kruger effect, to which you responded: “That’s just golden John.
Did you mean to demonstrate the effect?” I waited in vain for you to elucidate so I would have a basis for responding, but all you did was post further incomprehensible one-liners. So when you say ‘whether my opinions are correct or not is debatable”, I have to say that is precisely what I didn’t find. The problem with you Tony is that you are not even wrong.
I’m sorry John I saw what I thought was ironic and pointed it out. Perhaps I could have been a little more generous of spirit and complemented you on what was otherwise a pretty interesting post. Thing is that DK effect is a hot button issue for me because I see it at the heart of so much misapprehension, particlarly here. My moderation in this thread was unfortunately justified.
But whether you disagree with my opinion or not, or whether you find my sense of humour funny or not, in the vast majority of cases I feel my comments are fair and reasonable. [DK effect = Dunning-Kruegar effect?.mod]. Thanks Tony, I appreciate your response. Obviously, you would not expect me to agree that there was any irony in my account. Nevertheless, the fact that you thought there was, suggested to me that I had failed to make myself clear. Frustratingly, however, your comments did not allow me to determine exactly what I needed to clarify.
For the record, the view I was trying to express is as follows: In the Dunning/Kruger experiments individuals were asked to rank themselves regarding the extent to which they were above or below average in holding particular skills. The unskilled tended to overate themselves whilst the skilled underrated themselves. D/K concluded that the misconceptions of the unskilled were due to a lack of metacognition (since the skills concerned included cognitive skills, emotional intelligence and the ability to think logically, the very skills required for self-awareness). D/K also concluded that the skilled underrated themselves because they lack empathy with the unskilled (they assumed the tasks were easier than they were and presumed others would find them equally so). My point is this: Sometimes it is not a question of whether or not one is as skilled as one thinks one is, or how one’s skills compare to the average.
The real question is whether or not you are as skilled as you need to be. This question is as relevant to experts as it is to anyone, and the reason it is a difficult question to answer is because of the concept of ontological uncertainty (i.e. The unknown unknown). Unfortunately, no amount of metacognition can help one deal with such uncertainty. The only antidote is humility in the face of nature. So I would argue that my scepticism is not fuelled by my personal ignorance, but my presumption of a shared ignorance.
If I’m guessing correctly, you would not accept this argument. John Ridgway “My point is this: Sometimes it is not a question of whether or not one is as skilled as one thinks one is, or how one’s skills compare to the average. The real question is whether or not you are as skilled as you need to be.
This question is as relevant to experts as it is to anyone, and the reason it is a difficult question to answer is because of the concept of ontological uncertainty (i.e. The unknown unknown). Unfortunately, no amount of metacognition can help one deal with such uncertainty. The only antidote is humility in the face of nature.” No problem with any of that.
“my presumption of a shared ignorance” Ok I can see the distinction. CO2, the most valid argument against CAGW alarmism is that it has corrupted science by attempting to turn it into a religion. The corruption process is dependent on naivete of those who follow it blindly, who never question it, and who have zero tolerance for opposition. This should never happen, but it has happened before. Read up on Galileo Galilei, who ignored the Pope and published his own opinions, and who was tried twice by the Inquisition for heresy, even though the Jesuits were working on the same principles that Galileo published. Religion and science have to stay separate.
Last 40 million years temperature and CO2 graph. Global Temperatures (processed the right way, 11,000 data-points) and CO2 (processed at 3.0C per doubling, so 280 ppm = 0.0C and 560 ppm = 3.0C and 1,120 ppm = 6.0C – 3,200 data-points). I’m scoring this as ZERO correlation. A climate scientist will try to use this same data by cherry-picking 10 CO2 data-points.
But there are thousands of them that follow a certain pattern which seems to hold together over time while it seems crazy to just throw out 3,290 of them and keep 10. And a climate scientist will not use the temperature estimates correctly as has been shown in a recent WUWT article. ZERO correlation. I think the dates are really between 32 to 24 million years ago which is also what the fossil evidence shows.
The initial evolution of C4 grasses started at 32 million years ago when CO2 was still in the 1,000 ppm range. By 24 million years ago, the C4 grasses now covered what was previously bare ground or desert in ALL the epochs previously in the history of Earth, where rainfall was slightly lower than other places. Now the Carbon reservoir held in plants had increased to modern-type levels and the Carbon reservoir in the atmosphere was drawn down and fell to current levels. In essence, 250 ppm to 280 ppm.
The evolution of C4 grasses which is estimated to have occurred between 32 to 24 million years ago draws down CO2 in the atmosphere so that it reaches the lowest level in history up to that point, 280 ppm, the very first time. But what is also so weird at this point, is that the planet starts warming up as this transition to lower CO2 levels happens. CO2 down, temperatures up. The other evidence shows that the glacial level on Antarctica fell by 50% over this period. Complete glaciation at 27 million years ago, only half left by 25 million years ago just as CO2 levels were crashing.
The next interesting thing happens between 14 to 5 million years ago as Antarctica starts cooling off again and regains it glaciers. Planet is cooling off but there is NO change in CO2. Then the next big thing happens is that the planet starts drying out at 8 million years ago. The C4 grasses expand exponentially according to fossil pollen. The first open savanna appears. Nothing happens.
The very first grass herbivores evolve. There simply was NONE before this time. An Ape moves down from the trees right at this time as the first savannas appear and the rest is history. By 1750, the descendants of that Ape are now burning fossil fuels. No attribution is needed. Anyone can use my charts any time they want without attribution but you can say I made it if you want.
The Temperature estimates are from Zachos 2001 dO18 isotopes which have been detrended in the manner outlined in Royer, Berner 2004 and this recent study, Bernard et al 2017. The CO2 numbers are the mean estimates in these studies. Berner GeoCarb III, Pagani 2005, Antarctic Ice Core Composite, Pagani 1999, Royer 2006 Composites, Pearson 2000, IPCC AR4 2007 – Royer 2008 Composites, Pearson 2009, Tripati 2009, Bao 2008, Hoenisch 2009, Pagani 2010, Beerling Royer 2011, Bartoli 2011, Seki 2010, Mcanena 2013. I (and certainly many others) have solid reason to think the paleo-climate records are important for understanding the background on climate change — that is, that the Earth’s climate system is ever-evolving, ever-changing even in the last 6,000 years.
And that there is nothing unprecedented about the temperature rise of the late 20th century to today. There is nothing unprecedented about today’s global temperatures or glacial extent, or seasonal sea ice numbers. But paleo temperature proxy records are not what is at the core of the alarmist argument: Fact: CO2 in the paleo record has not been this high or where it is going (near 600 ppm) by 2100. Conjecture: the climateers base their argument for alarmist rhetoric solely on what the models project to 2100. Hence it is necessary to demonstrate how the climate models are nothing but junk science, tuned confirmation bias outputs. The climateers go from fact ot conjecture using the models.
Demonstrate how much the GCM’s are simply junk science, and the alarmist arguments melt away too. I hope this book does a good job of exposing the junk science that is the climate model ensemble of the IPCC. No, with NO greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would reach an equilibrium temperature. See I remember years ago reading a speculation that earth’s atmosphere was much denser during the Jurassic Perioid, leading to a greater greenhouse effect. I immediately thought of the PV=nRT equation, and realize that it told me nothing.
What fraction of a 20% increase in atmospheric pressure lead to a higher Temperature, and what fraction would go into increasing V, the average volume of the atmosphere? There’s no way of telling from that formula. Right now, space is assumed to start around 100 miles up. What keeps the atmosphere from petering out at 50 kilometers, with double the current atmospheric density of gases below that 50 miles? You cannot get that information from the the PV = nRT formula.
No, in your scenario, as a faster than average molecule moves upward, replacing kinetic energy with potential energy, the average temperature of those lower molecules will go down, since they have less kinetic energy. When a slower molecule in the upper atmosphere falls to a lower level, the relative temperature of the remaining molecules in the upper level will increase. Sooner or later, you’re going to get a temperature equilibrium, with constant temperature all the way up with no greenhouse gases. November 2017 M T W T F S S Archives Archives Categories Categories Recent Comments Mike on John F.
Hultquist on Alan Watt, Climate D on MarkG on Enginer on Enginer on on benben on on markl on Humor/Satire • • Lukewarmers • • • • • • • • • • Political Climate • • • • • • • • • • Pro AGW Views • • • • • • Skeptical Views • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Tools • • • • • • Transcendent Rant and way out there theory • • Unreliable* •.
The Comanche (: Nʉmʉnʉʉ) are a from the whose historic territory, known as, consisted of present-day eastern, southeastern, southwestern, western, and most of northwest and northern. The Comanche people are as the Comanche Nation, headquartered in. Post-contact, the Comanches were with a. There may have been as many as 45,000 Comanches in the late 18th century. They were the dominant tribe on the and often took captives from weaker tribes during warfare, selling them as to the Spanish and later Mexican settlers.
They also took thousands of captives from the Spanish, Mexican, and American settlers. Today, the Comanche Nation has 15,191 members, approximately 7,763 of whom reside in tribal jurisdictional area around the Lawton,, and surrounding areas of southwest Oklahoma. The Comanche Homecoming Annual Dance is held annually in in mid-July. The is a language of the family, sometimes classified as a dialect.
Only about 1% of Comanches speak their language today. The name 'Comanche' is from the name for them, kɨmantsi (enemy). Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Government [ ] The Comanche Nation is headquartered in.
Their is located in,,,,,,, and. Membership of the tribe requires a 1/8 (equivalent to one great-grandparent). Economic development [ ] The tribe operates its own housing authority and issues. They have their own Department of Higher Education, primarily awarding scholarships and financial aid for members' college educations. Additionally, they operate the Comanche Nation College in.
They own ten tribal smoke shops and four casinos. The casinos are in Lawton; in;, in; and in. Cultural institutions [ ] In 2002, the tribe founded the, a two-year in Lawton. Each July Comanches from across the United States gather to celebrate their heritage and culture in at the annual Comanche Homecoming. The Comanche Nation Fair is held every September. The Comanche Little Ponies host two annual dances—one over New Year's and one in May.
Prominent chief of the Comanche Indians with a feather fan The Comanche maintained an ambiguous relationship with Europeans and later settlers attempting to colonize their territory. The Comanche were valued as trading partners since 1786 via the out of New Mexico, but were feared for their raids against settlers in Texas. Similarly, they were, at one time or another, at war with virtually every other Native American group living on the South Plains leaving opportunities for political maneuvering by European colonial powers and the United States. At one point,, president of the newly created, almost succeeded in reaching a with the Comanche in the 1844.
His efforts were thwarted in 1845 when the refused to create an official boundary between Texas and the. While the Comanche managed to maintain their independence and increase their territory, by the mid-19th century they faced annihilation because of a wave of epidemics due to diseases to which they had no immunity, such as smallpox and.
Outbreaks of (1817, 1848) and (1849) took a major toll on the Comanche, whose population dropped from an estimated 20,000 in mid-century to just a few thousand by the 1870s. The US began efforts in the late 1860s to move the Comanche into reservations, with the (1867), which offered churches, schools, and annuities in return for a vast tract of land totaling over 60,000 square miles (160,000 km 2). The government promised to stop the hunters, who were decimating the great herds of the Plains, provided that the Comanche, along with the,,, and, move to a reservation totaling less than 5,000 square miles (13,000 km 2) of land.
However, the government did not prevent the slaughtering of the herds. The Comanche under (Coyote's Vagina) retaliated by attacking a group of hunters in the Texas Panhandle in the (1874). The attack was a disaster for the Comanche, and the US army was called in during the to drive the remaining Comanche in the area into the reservation, culminating in the. Within just ten years, the buffalo were on the verge of extinction, effectively ending the Comanche way of life as hunters. In 1875, the last free band of Comanches, led by the Quahada warrior, surrendered and moved to the reservation in Oklahoma.
The last independent Kiowa and Kiowa Apache had also surrendered. Unhappy with life on the reservation, 170 warriors and their families, led by, left the reservation in late 1876 for the.
Attacks on buffalo hunters' camps led to the of 1877. Some of the and bands with some Comanche in their company held out in northern Mexico until the early 1880s, when Mexican and U.S. Army forces drove them onto reservations or into extinction. The 1890 Census showed 1,598 Comanche at the Fort Sill reservation, which they shared with 1,140 Kiowa and 326 Kiowa Apache. Cherokee Commission [ ] The signed with the October 6–21, 1892, further reduced their reservation to 480,000 acres (1,900 km 2) at a cost of $1.25 per acre ($308.88/km 2), with an allotment of 160 acres (0.65 km 2) per person per tribe to be held in trust.
New allotments were made in 1906 to all children born after the agreement, and the remaining land was opened to white settlement. With this new arrangement, the era of the Comanche reservation came to an abrupt end. Meusebach–Comanche treaty [ ] The Peneteka band agreed to a peace treaty with the German Immigration Company under. This treaty was not affiliated with any level of government.
Meusebach brokered the treaty in order to settle the lands on the Fisher-Miller Land Grant, from which were formed the ten counties of,,,,,,,, and. For more details on this topic, see.
In contrast to many treaties of its day, this treaty was very brief and simple, with all parties agreeing to a mutual cooperation and a sharing of the land. The treaty was agreed to at a meeting in, and signed by all parties on May 9, 1847 in. The treaty was very specifically between the Peneteka band and the German Immigration Company. No other band or tribe was involved. The German Immigration Company was dissolved by Meusebach himself shortly after it had served its purpose. By 1875, the Comanches had been relocated to reservations. For more details on this topic, see.
Five years later, artist and his family moved to the settlement of, near Fredericksburg. Petri's sketches and watercolors gave witness to the friendly relationships between the Germans and various local tribes. Fort Martin Scott treaty [ ] In 1850, another treaty was signed in San Saba, between the United States government and a number of local tribes, among which were the Comanches. This treaty was named for the nearest military fort, which was. The treaty was never officially ratified by any level of government and was binding only on the part of the Native Americans. For more details on this topic, see.
Captive Herman Lehmann [ ] One of the most famous captives in Texas was a German boy named. He had been kidnapped by the, only to escape and be rescued by the Comanches. Lehmann became the adoptive son of.
On August 26, 1901, Quanah Parker provided a legal verifying Lehman's life as his adopted son 1877–1878. On May 29, 1908, the authorized the to allot Lehmann, as an adopted member of the Comanche nation, 160 acres of Oklahoma land, near. Recent history [ ].
Mac Silverhorn (Comanche), grandson of, drumming with friend at Redstone Baptist Church Entering the Western economy was a challenge for the Comanche in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many tribal members were defrauded of whatever remained of their land and possessions. Appointed paramount chief by the United States government, Chief campaigned vigorously for better deals for his people, meeting with Washington politicians frequently; and helped manage land for the tribe. Parker became wealthy as a cattleman. Parker also campaigned for the Comanches' permission to practice the religious rites, such as the usage of, which was condemned by European Americans.
Before the first Oklahoma legislature, Quanah testified: 'I do not think this legislature should interfere with a man's religion, also these people should be allowed to retain this health restorer. These healthy gentleman before you use peyote and those that do not use it are not so healthy.' During, many Comanche left the traditional tribal lands in Oklahoma to seek jobs and more opportunities in the cities of California and the. About half of the Comanche population still lives in Oklahoma, centered around the town of Lawton. Recently, an 80-minute 1920 silent film was 'rediscovered', titled. It features a cast of more than 300 Comanche and Kiowa. Culture [ ] Social order [ ].
Uwat (Comanche), photograph by, 1930 Comanche groups did not have a single acknowledged leader. [ ] Instead, a small number of generally recognized leaders acted as counsel and advisors to the group as a whole. These included the 'peace chief', the members of the council, and the 'war chief'. The peace chief was usually an older individual, who could bring his experience to the task of advising. There was no formal inauguration or election to the position, it was one of general consensus. The council made decisions about where the band should hunt, whether they should war against their enemies, and whether to ally themselves with other bands. Any member could speak at council meetings, but the older men usually did most of the talking.
In times of war, the band selected a war chief. To be chosen for this position, a man had to prove he was a brave fighter. He also had to have the respect of all the other warriors in the band. While the band was at war, the war chief was in charge, and all the warriors had to obey him. After the conflict was over, however, the war chief's authority ended.
The Comanche men did most of the hunting and all of the fighting in the wars. They learned how to ride horses when they were young and were eager to prove themselves in battle. On the plains, Comanche women carried out the demanding tasks of cooking, skinning animals, setting up camp, rearing children, and transporting household goods. Childbirth [ ]. Comanche held at the If a woman while the band was on the move, she simply paused along the trail and gave birth to her child. After a few hours of rest, she would take the baby and catch up with the group.
If a woman went into labor while the band was in camp, she was moved to a, or a brush lodge if it was summer. One or more of the older women assisted as. Men were not allowed inside the tipi during or immediately after the delivery. First, the midwives softened the of the tipi and dug two holes. One of the holes was for heating water and the other for the.
One or two stakes were driven into the ground near the expectant mother's bedding for her to grip during the pain of labor. After the birth, the midwives hung the on a tree. The people believed that if the umbilical cord was not disturbed before it rotted, the baby would live a long and prosperous life. The newborn was and remained with its mother in the tipi for a few days. The baby was placed in a, and the mother went back to work. She could easily carry the cradleboard on her back, or prop it against a tree where the baby could watch her while she collected seeds or roots. Cradleboards consisted of a flat board to which a basket was attached.
The latter was made from rawhide straps, or a leather sheath that laced up the front. With soft, dry moss as a diaper, the young one was safely tucked into the leather pocket. During cold weather, the baby was wrapped in blankets, and then placed in the cradleboard. The baby remained in the cradleboard for about ten months; then it was allowed to crawl around. Both girls and boys were welcomed into the band, but boys were favored.
If the baby was a boy, one of the midwives informed the father or grandfather, 'It's your close friend'. Families might paint a flap on the tipi to tell the rest of the tribe that they had been strengthened with another warrior. Sometimes a man named his child, but mostly the father asked a (or another man of distinction) to do so. He did this in the hope of his child living a long and productive life. During the public naming ceremony, the medicine man lit his pipe and offered smoke to the heavens, earth, and each of the four directions. He prayed that the child would remain happy and healthy. He then lifted the child to symbolize its growing up and announced the child's name four times.
He held the child a little higher each time he said the name. It was believed that the child's name foretold its future; even a weak or sick child could grow up to be a great warrior, hunter, and raider if given a name suggesting courage and strength.
Boys were often named after their grandfather, uncle, or other relative. Girls were usually named after one of their father's relatives, but the name was selected by the mother. As children grew up they also acquired nicknames at different points in their lives, to express some aspect of their lives. Children [ ] The Comanche looked on their children as their most precious gift. Children were rarely punished.
Sometimes, though, an older sister or other relative was called upon to discipline a child, or the parents arranged for a to scare the child. Occasionally, old people donned sheets and frightened disobedient boys and girls. Children were also told about Big Cannibal Owl ( Pia Mupitsi), who lived in a cave on the south side of the and ate bad children at night. Children learned from example, by observing and listening to their parents and others in the band. As soon as she was old enough to walk, a girl followed her mother about the camp and played at the daily tasks of cooking and making clothing. She was also very close to her mother's sisters, who were called not aunt but pia, meaning mother. She was given a little deerskin doll, which she took with her everywhere.
She learned to make all the clothing for the doll. A boy identified not only with his father but with his father's family, as well as with the bravest warriors in the band. He learned to ride a horse before he could walk. By the time he was four or five, he was expected to be able to skillfully handle a horse.
When he was five or six, he was given a small and. Often, a boy was taught to ride and shoot by his grandfather, since his father and other warriors were on raids and hunts. His grandfather also taught him about his own boyhood and the history and legends of the Comanche. Comanches of West in war regalia, c. Boys were highly respected because they would become warriors and might die young in battle.
As he approached manhood, a boy went on his first buffalo hunt. If he made a kill, his father honored him with a feast. Only after he had proven himself on a buffalo hunt was a young man allowed to go to war.
When he was ready to become a warrior, at about age fifteen or sixteen, a young man first 'made his medicine' by going on a (a ). Following this quest, his father gave the young man a good horse to ride into battle and another mount for the trail. If he had proved himself as a warrior, a Give Away Dance might be held in his honor. As drummers faced east, the honored boy and other young men danced. His parents, along with his other relatives and the people in the band, threw presents at his feet – especially blankets and horses symbolized by sticks. Anyone might snatch one of the gifts for themselves, although those with many possessions refrained; they did not want to appear greedy. People often gave away all their belongings during these dances, providing for others in the band, but leaving themselves with nothing.
Girls learned to gather healthy berries, nuts, and roots. They carried water and collected wood, and when about twelve years old learned to cook meals, make tipis, sew clothing, prepare hides, and perform other tasks essential to becoming a wife and mother. They were then considered ready to be married. Death [ ] During the 19th century, the traditional Comanche burial custom was to wrap the deceased's body in a blanket and place it on a horse, behind a rider, who would then ride in search of an appropriate burial place, such as a secure cave.
After entombment, the rider covered the body with stones and returned to camp, where the mourners burned all the deceased's possessions. The primary mourner slashed his arms to express his grief. The Quahada band followed this custom longer than other bands and buried their relatives in the. Christian missionaries convinced Comanche people to bury their dead in coffins in graveyards, which is the practice today. Transportation and habitation [ ]. Three mounted Comanche warriors, 1892.
When they lived with the Shoshone, the Comanche mainly used dog-drawn for transportation. Later, they acquired horses from other tribes, such as the Pueblo, and from the Spaniards. Since horses are faster, easier to control and able to carry more, this helped with their hunting and warfare and made moving camp easier. Larger dwellings were made due to the ability to pull and carry more belongings. Being herbivores, horses were also easier to feed than dogs, since meat was a valuable resource. The horse was of the utmost value to the Comanche. A Comanche man's wealth was measured by the size of his horse herd.
Horses were prime targets to steal during raids; often raids were conducted specifically to capture horses. Often horse herds numbering in the hundreds were stolen by Comanche during raids against other Indian nations, Spanish, Mexicans, and later from the ranches of Texans. Horses were used for warfare with the Comanche being considered to be among the finest light cavalry and mounted warriors in history. Comanche Feats of Horsemenship, 1834.
Much of the area inhabited by the Comanches was flat and dry, with the exception of major rivers like the, the, the, and the Red River. The water of these rivers was often too dirty to drink, so the Comanches usually lived along the smaller, clear streams that flowed into them.
These streams supported trees that the Comanche used to build shelters. The Comanche sheathed their tipis with a covering made of buffalo hides sewn together.
To prepare the buffalo hides, women first spread them on the ground, then scraped away the fat and flesh with blades made from bones or antlers, and left them in the sun. When the hides were dry, they scraped off the thick hair, and then soaked them in water. After several days, they vigorously rubbed the hides in a mixture of animal fat, brains, and liver to soften the hides. The hides were made even more supple by further rinsing and working back and forth over a rawhide thong. Finally, they were smoked over a fire, which gave the hides a light tan color. To finish the tipi covering, women laid the tanned hides side by side and stitched them together. As many as 22 hides could be used, but 14 was the average.
When finished, the hide covering was tied to a pole and raised, wrapped around the cone-shaped frame, and pinned together with pencil-sized wooden skewers. Two wing-shaped flaps at the top of the tipi were turned back to make an opening, which could be adjusted to keep out the moisture and held pockets of insulating air. With a fire pit in the center of the earthen floor, the tipis stayed warm in the winter.
In the summer, the bottom edges of the tipis could be rolled up to let cool breezes in. Cooking was done outside during the hot weather. Tipis were very practical homes for itinerant people. Working together, women could quickly set them up or take them down. An entire Comanche band could be packed and chasing a buffalo herd within about 20 minutes.
The Comanche women were the ones who did the most work with food processing and preparation. Comanches chasing bison, painted. The bison were the primary food source for the Comanche. The Comanche were initially. When they lived in the, during their migration to the Great Plains, both men and women shared the responsibility of gathering and providing food. When the Comanche reached the plains, hunting came to predominate. Hunting was considered a male activity and was a principal source of prestige.
For meat, the Comanche hunted, elk, black bear, pronghorn, and deer. When game was scarce, the men hunted wild mustangs, sometimes eating their own ponies. In later years the Comanche raided Texas ranches and stole longhorn cattle. They did not eat fish or fowl, unless starving, when they would eat virtually any creature they could catch, including armadillos, skunks, rats, lizards, frogs, and grasshoppers.
Buffalo meat and other game was prepared and cooked by the women. The women also gathered wild fruits, seeds, nuts, berries, roots, and tubers — including plums, grapes, juniper berries, persimmons, mulberries, acorns, pecans, wild onions, radishes, and the fruit of the prickly pear cactus. The Comanche also acquired, dried pumpkin, and tobacco through trade and raids. Most meats were roasted over a fire or boiled. To boil fresh or dried meat and vegetables, women dug a pit in the ground, which they lined with animal skins or buffalo stomach and filled with water to make a kind of cooking pot. They placed heated stones in the water until it boiled and had cooked their stew.
After they came into contact with the Spanish, the Comanche traded for copper pots and iron kettles, which made cooking easier. Women used berries and nuts, as well as honey and, to flavor buffalo meat. They stored the tallow in intestine casings or rawhide pouches called.
They especially liked to make a sweet mush of buffalo marrow mixed with crushed mesquite beans. The Comanches sometimes ate raw meat, especially raw liver flavored with. They also drank the milk from the slashed udders of buffalo, deer, and elk. Among their delicacies was the curdled milk from the stomachs of suckling buffalo calves. They also enjoyed buffalo tripe, or stomachs. Comanche people generally had a light meal in the morning and a large evening meal.
During the day they ate whenever they were hungry or when it was convenient. Like other, the Comanche were very hospitable people. They prepared meals whenever a visitor arrived in camp, which led to outsiders' belief that the Comanches ate at all hours of the day or night. Before calling a public event, the chief took a morsel of food, held it to the sky, and then buried it as a peace offering to the Great Spirit. Many families offered thanks as they sat down to eat their meals in their tipis. Comanche children ate, but this was primarily a tasty, high-energy food reserved for war parties. Carried in a parfleche pouch, pemmican was eaten only when the men did not have time to hunt.
Similarly, in camp, people ate pemmican only when other food was scarce. Traders ate pemmican sliced and dipped in honey, which they called Indian bread. Clothing [ ]. Chosequah, a Comanche warrior wearing full traditional regalia. Painted by, 1897.
Comanche clothing was simple and easy to wear. Men wore a leather belt with a breechcloth — a long piece of buckskin that was brought up between the legs and looped over and under the belt at the front and back, and loose-fitting deerskin leggings. Had soles made from thick, tough buffalo hide with soft deerskin uppers. The Comanche men wore nothing on the upper body except in the winter, when they wore warm, heavy robes made from buffalo hides (or occasionally,,, or skins) with knee-length buffalo-hide boots. Young boys usually went without clothes except in cold weather.
When they reached the age of eight or nine, they began to wear the clothing of a Comanche adult. In the 19th century, men used woven cloth to replace the buckskin breechcloths, and the men began wearing loose-fitting buckskin shirts. The women decorated their shirts, leggings and moccasins with fringes made of deer-skin, animal fur, and human hair.
They also decorated their shirts and leggings with patterns and shapes formed with beads and scraps of material. Comanche women wore long deerskin dresses. The dresses had a flared skirt and wide, long sleeves, and were trimmed with buckskin fringes along the sleeves and hem. Beads and pieces of metal were attached in geometric patterns. Comanche women wore buckskin moccasins with buffalo soles. In the winter they, too, wore warm buffalo robes and tall, fur-lined buffalo-hide boots. Unlike the boys, young girls did not go without clothes.
As soon as they were able to walk, they were dressed in breechcloths. By the age of twelve or thirteen, they adopted the clothes of Comanche women. Hair and headgear [ ] Comanche people took pride in their hair, which was worn long and rarely cut. They arranged their hair with quill brushes, greased it and parted it in the center from the forehead to the back of the neck. They painted the scalp along the parting with yellow, red, or white clay (or other colors).
They wore their hair in two long braids tied with leather thongs or colored cloth, and sometimes wrapped with fur. They also braided a strand of hair from the top of their head. This slender braid, called a scalp lock, was decorated with colored scraps of cloth and beads, and a single feather. Comanche men rarely wore anything on their heads.
Only after they moved onto a reservation late in the 19th century did Comanche men begin to wear the typical Plains. If the winter was severely cold, they might wear a brimless, woolly buffalo hide hat. When they went to war, some warriors wore a headdress made from a buffalo's scalp.
Warriors cut away most of the hide and flesh from a buffalo head, leaving only a portion of the woolly hair and the horns. This type of woolly, horned buffalo hat was worn only by the Comanche. Comanche women did not let their hair grow as long as the men did. Young women might wear their hair long and braided, but women parted their hair in the middle and kept it short. Like the men, they painted their scalp along the parting with bright paint. Body decoration [ ] Comanche men usually had with hanging earrings made from pieces of shell or loops of brass or silver wire.
A female relative would pierce the outer edge of the ear with six or eight holes. The men also their face, arms, and chest with geometric designs, and painted their face and body. Traditionally they used paints made from berry juice and the colored clays of the Comancheria. Later, traders supplied them with vermilion (red pigment) and bright grease paints. Comanche men also wore bands of leather and strips of metal on their arms. Except for black, which was the color for war, there was no standard color or pattern for face and body painting: it was a matter of individual preference. For example, one Comanche might paint one side of his face white and the other side red; another might paint one side of his body green and the other side with green and black stripes.
One Comanche might always paint himself in a particular way, while another might change the colors and designs when so inclined. Some designs had special meaning to the individual, and special colors and designs might have been revealed in a dream. Comanche women might also tattoo their face or arms. They were fond of painting their bodies and were free to paint themselves however they pleased.
A popular pattern among the women was to paint the insides of their ears a bright red and paint great orange and red circles on their cheeks. They usually painted red and yellow around their lips. Comanche beaded ration bag, c. 1880, collection of the Arts and crafts [ ] Because of their frequent traveling, Comanche Indians had to make sure that their household goods and other possessions were unbreakable. They did not use pottery that could easily be broken on long journeys. Basketry, weaving, wood carving, and metal working were also unknown among the Comanches. Instead, they depended upon the buffalo for most of their tools, household goods, and weapons.
They made nearly 200 different articles from the horns, hide, and bones of the buffalo. Removing the lining of the inner stomach, women made the paunch into a water bag. The lining was stretched over four sticks and then filled with water to make a pot for cooking soups and stews. With wood scarce on the plains, women relied on buffalo chips (dried dung) to fuel the fires that cooked meals and warmed the people through long winters. Stiff rawhide was fashioned into saddles, stirrups and cinches, knife cases, buckets, and moccasin soles. Rawhide was also made into rattles and drums.
Strips of rawhide were twisted into sturdy ropes. Scraped to resemble white parchment, rawhide skins were folded to make parfleches in which food, clothing, and other personal belongings were kept. Women also to make soft and supple buckskin, which was used for tipi covers, warm robes, blankets, cloths, and moccasins. They also relied upon buckskin for bedding, cradles, dolls, bags, pouches, quivers, and gun cases.
Was used for bowstrings and sewing thread. Hooves were turned into glue and rattles. The horns were shaped into cups, spoons, and ladles, while the tail made a good whip, a fly-swatter, or a decoration for the tipi. Men made tools, scrapers, and needles from the bones, as well as a kind of pipe, and fashioned toys for their children. As warriors, however, men concentrated on making bows and arrows, lances, and shields.
The thick neck skin of an old bull was ideal for war shields that deflected arrows as well as bullets. Since they spent most of each day on horseback, they also fashioned leather into saddles, stirrups, and other equipment for their mounts. Buffalo hair was used to fill saddle pads and was also used in rope and halters.
Language [ ]. Comanche in The language spoken by the, ( N um u tekwap u), is a of the.
It is closely related to the, from which the Comanche diverged around 1700. The two languages remain closely related, but a few low-level sound changes inhibit mutual intelligibility. The earliest records of Comanche from 1786 clearly show a dialect of Shoshone, but by the beginning of the 20th century, these sound changes had modified the way Comanche sounded in subtle, but profound, ways. Although efforts are now being made to ensure survival of the language, most of its speakers are elderly, and less than one percent of the Comanches can speak it.
In the late 19th century, many Comanche children were placed in boarding schools with children from different tribes. The children were taught English and discouraged from speaking their native language. Anecdotally, enforcement of speaking English was severe.
Quanah Parker learned and spoke English and was adamant that his own children do the same. The second generation then grew up speaking English, because it was believed [ ] that it was better for them not to know Comanche. During, a group of 17 young men, referred to as 'The Comanche ', were trained and used by the to send messages conveying sensitive information that could not be deciphered by the Germans. Notable Comanches [ ] • () (c.
1780-1840), Penateka chief and medicine man • () (late 1780s–1849), Penateka chief • (Pahayoko) (late 1780s–c. 1860), Penateka chief • (Pawʉʉrasʉmʉnunʉ) (c. 1790–1872), chief of the Ketahto and later of the Yamparika band • (c. 1849), war chief of the Penateka Band • (Potsʉnakwahipʉ) (c. 1865/1870), war chief and later head chief of the Penateka Band • (Puhihwikwasu'u) (c.
1790-1858), war chief and later head chief of the Quahadi band; father of Peta Nocona • (Tʉhʉyakwahipʉ) (c. 1888), chief of the Nokoni band • (White Knife) (c. 1878/1880), chief of the Penateka band • (Lone Wanderer) (c.
1864), chief of the Quahadi band in Texas; father of Quanah Parker • (Big Red Meat) (c. 1820/1825-1875), Nokoni chief • (Shaking Hand, Breaking-in-the-middle) (c. 1825-1886), Kotsoteka chief • (1832–1860s), son to Penateka chief Santa Anna, Quahadi (?) chief • (c. 1890), warrior and medicine man of the Quahadi band, who brought the Sun Dance to the Comanche • (c. 1845–1911), Quahadi chief, a founder of, and successful rancher. Mo'o-wai ('Pushing aside' or 'Pushing-in-the-middle'), aka 'Shaking Hand', chief of the Kotsoteka • (1887–1956), son of Quanah Parker and Methodist missionary • (born 1953), actor, • (1921–1980), Kiowa-Comanche sculptor and painter • (1921–2005), World War II Comanche code talker • (1920-2005), founder of the and foster care reform advocate. • (born 1931), political activist and founder of Americans for Indian Opportunity • (born 1931), librarian, educator, and founder of the American Indian Library Association •, Kiowa-Comanche musician •, -player • (1895–1984), medicine woman •, author, curator • (born 1978), professional boxer and NABC super middleweight champion • (born 1982), actor, starred in Apocalypto, not enrolled in the tribe • (1944-1988), guitarist and recording artist See also [ ].