BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 06:30 PM

I have flung all my windows open! On Kissmeaas Eve! I just did four laps on my dead end street in a light hoody before my back said, "STOP NOW!" It's positively balmy! Thank goodness winter is over as I have learned (accepted?) to hate snow and cold. The older I get, the colder I get.

I make no point. Second "green Kissmeass" in a row. No point. Just feeling smug. Smug as a bug in a rug.

Good night and joy be with you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 05:05 PM

Touché, Donuel!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:54 PM

If you ever visit the Flat earth Headquarters do not make my mistake of calling it the Global headquarters.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 03:56 PM

All I see here is a High school mentality food fight.

Please act like adults and debate instead of bickering.

"You can talk, you can talk, you can bicker
You can talk. You can bicker, bicker, bicker, you can talk
You can talk. You can talk, talk, talk, bicker, bicker, bicker.
You can talk all you wanna, but it's no different than it was."

MM

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 03:48 PM

Ya' know Greggie, if you have an exception to make, about something I've(or anyone else) posts, then point it out and comment on it. Saying, "Good night" over and over and over and over, gives the impression that you are as much of a drowsy 'know-nothing', as if you had actually said something...removing ALL doubt!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 02:48 PM

Say good night, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 02:41 PM

....and the Antarctic is gaining in size...must be warm ice, huh??
...or as per aforementioned, a lot of flatulent rhetoric.
The earth does it in cycles....while flatulent rhetoric has you going in circles!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 02:31 PM

Oops I meant to say "the number of cooling degree days is decreasing at a faster rate than the number of heating degree days are increasing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM

Above the receptionist counter of the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY headquarters in Washington DC
are seven wooden flat Earth clocks all showing different times labeled respectively: Greenwich, New York, San Francisco, Guam, Beijing, Mumbai, Moscow.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 01:09 PM

More likely YOUR flatulence, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 12:43 PM

Do you think that 'global warming' is the result of global corporate influence on politician's flatulence??...or the other way around???...maybe the combination of ingredients...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM

I had an interesting train of thought.
When fuel oil/LP gas companies calculate how much energy was consumed on a particular day in order to calculate when customers will need a refill, they use degree days. The temperatures for each day are averaged hourly or more often rather than going by peaks and lows that might last for a short period. This gives a more accurate measurement than peak highs and lows.

If the climate is warming there should be a decline of daily heating degree averages days and an increase of cooling degree days averages.

After finding this EPA chart, I see that is the case but the number of cooling degree days is decreasing at a faster rate than cooling degree days are increasing.

What does this mean? Using my own crude method of averaging and projecting. the two averages will cross in the year 2170 at 2000 degree days which is less than the current averages of approx 2800.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 08:48 AM

75 this xmas eve in DC fits perfectly in our weather that reports a record high for nearly half of every day as a record high over these last 5 years.

Due to feedback loops and unknown relationships that speed global warming, the rate of temperature rise will possibly be ten times faster than the prudent and intentionally conservative scientific predictions that are presented today.

Organic ocean systems are at the limits of rebounding with more CO2 eating organisms.

The sun will continue to cycle up to its maximum.

The tundra will exponentially ferment.

The storage of underground methane will grow in its leaking into the atmosphere.
Sustainable energy is on a path to lag behind fossil fuel at disastrous levels.

We are in the midst of the minor die off of up to 90% of food species in the ocean.The extinction event now is significant due to mankind. Those who disregard the canary in this mine may not live long enough to see first hand the major die off of life on his planet

Life has no guarantee as we see elsewhere.

THOSE who lust for simple answers to complex questions will never understand the danger confronting every symbiotic life system in the near future.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 07:52 AM

According to the Weather Channel we are in for "Blow Torch Weather"

Seriously? Do we need flame proof suits?

Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a Liberal Hoax

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 01:34 PM

"But if there's -- if we can get some great things, in terms of renewable energy resources: a renewable electricity standard, wind, solar, biofuels and the rest in that context, because if you make a decision only to go with the offshore drilling, you are increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and you will never free yourself of that addiction unless you invest in the renewable energy resources that are good for the environment, cheaper for the consumer and will reverse global warming."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:10 PM

"Global temperature reaches record high in June following record warmth in May
Date: July 22, 2014
Source: NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
Summary: According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest for June since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 38th consecutive June and 352nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for June was in 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140722095652.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

click

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:02 AM

Fracking = cheap natural gas pulse= unpredicted change in energy sector= challenge to green energy costs and initiatives (wind , solar)= less reliance on oil and coal +cheaper and cleaner electrical generation = reduced carbon emissions

Environmental costs/benefits (fracking and reduced carbon emissions) = unknown
long term outlook for other green initiatives = unknown
long term price/supplies of cheaper natural gas = unknown
future role of coal and oil+ future role (USA) of foreign oil = unknown

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:36 PM

"Green Energy will reverse global warming. "

That is the first time I have ever seen or heard that sentence.

President Obama usually puts it in terms of investment in a growing industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:24 PM

Green Energy will reverse global warming. Right?

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration's Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

    Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
    SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
    Solyndra ($535 million)*
    Beacon Power ($43 million)*
    Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
    SunPower ($1.2 billion)
    First Solar ($1.46 billion)
    Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
    EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
    Amonix ($5.9 million)
    Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
    Abound Solar ($400 million)*
    A123 Systems ($279 million)*
    Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
    Johnson Controls ($299 million)
    Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
    ECOtality ($126.2 million)
    Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
    Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
    Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
    Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
    Range Fuels ($80 million)*
    Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
    Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
    Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
    GreenVolts ($500,000)
    Vestas ($50 million)
    LG Chem's subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
    Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
    Navistar ($39 million)
    Satcon ($3 million)*
    Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
    Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 06:01 AM

If in the unlikely scenario that number is accurate, and directly related in the manner suggested, (versus being a non scientific and mis-understood projection) yes, it would be factured into climate models, with other related data.
However, the global scientific community does not use sketchy internet sources for their data on global climate processes. If they did, they would be corrected and shamed by their many critical scientific peers and the global scientific community.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:41 PM

Wow. Is the "several million" of degrees factored in?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 07:13 PM

Indeed , climate has cycles and scientists build known historic changes in climate into global climate models.There are a varity of scientific routes to get information on these cycles. Background sources of heat are also factored into the models.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM

"The interior of the earth is extremely hot – several million degrees." Not 11,000 degrees?

"As many know, the Chinese expression for "crisis" consists of two characters side by side. The first is the symbol for "danger," the second the $ymbol for "opportunity." Hummmmmmmmmm.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it" Now that sounds logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Charles Onians Monday 20 March 2000
                
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 01:12 PM

It make a lot more sense to prepare for it than to just try to stop it.

Any reason we can't do both?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:59 AM

Actually, Canute knew the lesson.


But many here would far rather blame others than do something to actually help people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:56 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce - PM
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM

Ans Al Gore is telling us that if we don't kick and get overheated everything will be ok.

I do not have a problem with reducing pollution- but I do object to doing NOTHING to deal with the *** effects *** of climate change ( which IMO will happen regardless). By working so hard to reduce emmissions, we are taking effort away from moving those populations tha will have to be moved regardless. The implied point of Gore et al is that we will stop the warming, and there will be no need to make any changes in where we live, or the crops we grow, etc.

Has no-one here ever read about the Viking Greenland colony? Up until the mid 1100s, , it was a viable farming and grazing community, settled from Iceland. Guess what happened? There was a little ice age, ( from 1100 to now) and the colony basically died out. So now the climate has returned to what it was before 1000- and King Al is berating the tide for coming in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:34 AM

Yes. There is significant evidence that climate change ( which has occurred in the past) is going to happen no matter what we do.

It make a lot more sense to prepare for it than to just try to stop it.

Canute learned this lesson- too bad so many here have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:14 PM

WILL happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

No, GregF.

I have been looking at facts, and IMO global climate change WILL happen, and the effort to STOP it has prevented a far more worthwhile effort to save those populations that will be affected by it. You may be in favor of mass exterminations of populations, but I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:39 PM

Ya mean, throw in the towel, move off the floodplains, & tough shit everyone, Beardie?

Now THAT'S the spirit that made Amerika great. You been talking to Little Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM

A pity so few will read what he says.

I have been stating that the efforts TO STOP GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE are not worthwhile- we should be making changes to LIVE with it.




What he say:

" Buried down a winding track through wild woodland, in an office full of books and papers and contraptions involving dials and wires, the 88-year-old presents his thoughts with a quiet, unshakable conviction that can be unnerving. More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."

He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. "Carbon offsetting? I wouldn't dream of it. It's just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you're offsetting the carbon? You're probably making matters worse. You're far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests."

Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? "No we don't. Because we can't." And recycling, he adds, is "almost certainly a waste of time and energy", while having a "green lifestyle" amounts to little more than "ostentatious grand gestures". He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. "Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam ... or if it wasn't one in the beginning, it becomes one."

Somewhat unexpectedly, Lovelock concedes that the Mail's plastic bag campaign seems, "on the face of it, a good thing". But it transpires that this is largely a tactical response; he regards it as merely more rearrangement of Titanic deckchairs, "but I've learnt there's no point in causing a quarrel over everything". He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all - renewable energy.

"You're never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours," he says. "Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time."

This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. "I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they're doing. They want business as usual. They say, 'Oh yes, there's going to be a problem up ahead,' but they don't want to change anything."

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. "But this is the real thing."

Faced with two versions of the future - Kyoto's preventative action and Lovelock's apocalypse - who are we to believe? Some critics have suggested Lovelock's readiness to concede the fight against climate change owes more to old age than science: "People who say that about me haven't reached my age," he says laughing."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:10 PM

According to James Lovelock it is too late to turn the tide.

20 years if we are lucky, before the shit hits the fan.

Ask me the shit's been plastering us for several years now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM

Bingo, Greg. Nice sharp analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:12 AM

But my account CAN'T be overdrawn- I still have checks in my checkbook .....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 08:45 AM

Well Well Well. I had to happen.

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) – A total of 1.1 inches fell Saturday night into Sunday breaking the record for the snowiest winter in history.

24-Hour News 8 Meteorologist Ken Brewer says as of Sunday, Indianapolis has seen 51.6 inches of snow, which is .6 of an inch higher than what was the snowiest winter in 1981-82. The winter of 1977-78 is the third snowiest winter with 49.7 inches of snowfall.

Another storm system will move into the area on Monday and could bring some light wintry mix of snow, freezing rain, rain and sleet. There may be a batch of a wintry mix for the morning commute, but the bulk looks to arrive in the afternoon and evening hours, affecting the afternoon bus stop and evening commute. Some areas north of Indianapolis could see 1 to 3 inches of snow. The Indianapolis area will most likely see some light snow mixed with freezing rain. Areas south of Indianapolis will see freezing rain, mixing with rain.

Because of the various types of winter weather in narrow bands of locations, this forecast will be tougher than the Friday forecast.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:48 PM

Global warming causes extremes in temperature, the jet stream disrupted, the weather patterns shifting. Droughts and freezes are on the menu.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:21 PM

hot Brazil 

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:20 PM

If they predicted Global Cooling, you'd just show a chart about how hot it was in Phoenix.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:11 PM

About -40C with wind chill here lately. Just spread a third blanket on the bed. I have the furnance cranked up a few dergrees higher than ever before. Got me woolies and jeans on, tee and hoody. And I am still cold! I think it's local aging in my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 04:57 PM

"Antarctica is losing land ice at an ever-increasing rate"

Well stop farting!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 04:47 PM

Posting a graph does not mean you understand it.

"Apes don't read Philosophy!"
"Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it!"

Antarctica is losing land ice at an ever-increasing rate. One consequence is that the water around Antarctica freshens, making it easier to freeze into sea ice. This is understood by people who actually know something (and who know the difference between continental or land ice and sea ice).

Keep reading the Philosophy Jackhole.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 02:27 PM

I noticed that but hesitated to humiliate him further. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:48 PM

And he's an ignorant idiot gobshite into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:15 PM

Gracious- you ARE late to the wedding, aren't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:10 AM

Well well well. It's summertime in the southern hemisphere.

Two icebreakers are stuck in the dwindling antarctic sea ice and a third one can't make it to rescue the others.

I wonder what it will like be in the winter?

nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Jun 12 - 10:32 AM

Can't help adding some of these humorous takes on serious topics...


Colbert: Water is Not Rising Too Fast


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Jan 12 - 12:03 PM

"Forget global warming and think climate change."

Forget climate change (more Frank Luntz bullshit) and think global warming, agreed upon by a majority of reputable scientists throughout the world.

Global warming is a global warning. The signs are there for those who are not in denial.

Global warming doesn't mean that hot weather prevails at the same time over the globe.
Violent snowstorms, weather extremes, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes are a by-product of the heating up of the planet caused by COs emissions coming from coal plants and aerosols.

The message is clear and those who ignore it do it at all of our peril.

Also, don't underestimate the effect of nuclear energy on the planet causing sickness and dead zones in waters around nuclear plants. Fukushima is the tip of the iceberg.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jan 12 - 07:44 AM

Newly discovered molecules in atmosphere may offset global warming

A newly discovered form of chemical intermediary in the atmosphere has the ability to remove pollutants in a way that leads to cloud-formation and could potentially help offset global warming.

The existence of these so-called Criegee biradicals, which are formed when ozone reacts with a certain class of organic compounds, was theorized over fifty years ago, but they have now been created and studied in the laboratory for the first time.

According to Science Daily, the discovery was made possible through the use of a third-generation synchrotron at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory which produces an intense, tunable light that enables scientists to differentiate between molecules which contain the same atoms but arranged in different combinations.

The Criegee biradicals — named after Rudolph Criegee, who postulated their existence in the 1950′s — turn out to react with pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, much more rapidly than expected to form sulphates and nitrates. "These compounds," Science Daily explains, "will lead to aerosol formation and ultimately to cloud formation with the potential to cool the planet."

One of the authors of the paper describing the discovery, Dr. Carl Percival of the University of Manchester, believes that the results "have a significant impact on our understanding of the oxidising capacity of the atmosphere and have wide ranging implications for pollution and climate change." He notes that since the compounds which form these molecules are organic in origin, it may mean that "the ecosystem is negating climate change more efficiently than we thought it was."

The scientists emphasize, however, that they're a long way off from being able to control the formation of Criegee biradicals themselves, which means that the best thing we can do is preserve the environment so that it can do its job.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Brian May
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:32 PM

Any chance of having a bit of GW here in Donny, it's bloody freezing?

We don't mind having the GW everyone else doesn't want, just send it over to the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire, we won't complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:17 PM

" Global warming, of which there has been none for the last decade and a half, is only a normal correction after the 'little ice age' "

To show that this is based on science and not just a political talking point, can you provide a citation please?

Peer-reviewed literature preferred of course.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 10:30 AM

"Current pledges for curbing carbon emissions will doom the world to global warming of 3.5 C, massively overshooting the UN target of 2 C, researchers reported at the climate talks here on Tuesday."

Well, they would report that, wouldn't thay? If they said, "Global warming, of which there has been none for the last decade and a half, is only a normal correction after the 'little ice age'," they'd be out of a job, wouldn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 08:09 AM

World 'heading for 3.5 C warming': study

Current pledges for curbing carbon emissions will doom the world to global warming of 3.5 C, massively overshooting the UN target of 2 C, researchers reported at the climate talks here on Tuesday.

Output of heat-trapping carbon gases is rising so fast that governments have only four years left to avert a massive extra bill for meeting the two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) target, they said.

"The current pledges are heading towards a global emissionspathway that will take warming to 3.5 C goal (6.3 F)," according to an estimate issued by a consortium of German researchers.

The world is on a "high-warming, high-cost, high-risk pathway," they said.

The report, compiled by Climate Analytics and Ecofys, which are German firms that specialise in carbon data, was issued on the sidelines of the 194-nation UN talks in Durban. The 12-day conference runs until Friday.

The 2 C (3.6 F) goal, initiated at the stormy Copenhagen Summit of 2009, was enshrined at last year's conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) along with a less feasible target of 1.5 C (2.7 F).

Accompanying these objectives is a roster of pledges by nation-states about what they intend to do to rein in their emissions.

The promises mark the first time that all countries have been coaxed into declaring specific carbon-curbing actions.

But the measures are not subject to any international compliance regime and do not incur any penalties if they are not met.

The report said current pledges would lead to global emissions in 2020 of 55 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent in 2020. This is 11 billion tonnes above the 44 billion tonnes consistent with meeting the 2 C (3.6 F) objective smoothly.

As a result, costs in energy efficiency and switching to cleaner power will rise very sharply after 2020 in order to recover lost headway. Global emissions would have to fall by 3.8 percent annually from 2020 to 2050, using 2000 as the benchmark year per year.

But this effort would be roughly halved, to two percent, if action to brake emissions growth is initiated within the next three years to bring the tally back on line to 44 billion tonnes by 2020.

The figures carried in the report concur with similar estimates, published last month by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Scientists caution that 2 C (3.6 F) is no guarantee of a safe haven against climate change and consider 3.5 C (6.3 F) to be an extremely dangerous scenario.

It would badly worsen droughts, flood and storms and affect sea levels, spelling famine and homelessness for tens of millions.

Already, 0.8 C (1.44 F) of the 2 C (3.6 F) has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution, when coal — followed by oil and gas — powered the rise to prosperity.

Agence France-Presse

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 03:41 PM

i,m sure freeda made an honest mistake paul!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rumncoke
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 12:36 PM

The Autumn has been so warm we are facing Winter water shortages here in the UK - I supose we did have Summer droughts in the 70's, so it is a change.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 02:03 AM

That's SOOOO stupid Freda, thinking the world is only 4000 years old, when the Bible clearly says it's 6000 years old!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:33 PM

well pete, strangely there are some who are too savvy to be flat earthers or creationists but strangely have declared themselves climate change cynics.. it's hard to fathom, but conspiracy theories are appealing, and the anti-climate change companies have presented climate change info as being another attempt by left whingers to subvert the dominant paradigm.

when politics overrides science, and when dogmatists masquerade as scientists, things get messy. but the truth is out there :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 04:18 PM

hey freda-do you know anyone that is a flat earther;cant be many.and do you know anyone who believes the world is only 4000 years old?
that would be about half way through the OT!.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT i know-but since you mention it...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 01:50 PM

The recent loss of sea ice in the Arctic is greater than any natural variation in the past 1½ millennia, a Canadian study shows.

"The recent sea ice decline … appears to be unprecedented," said Christian Zdanowicz, a glaciologist at Natural Resources Canada, who co-led the study and is a co-author of the paper published Wednesday online in Nature.

"We kind of have to conclude that there's a strong chance that there's a human influence embedded in that signal."

Arctic sea ice loss unprecedented in 1,450 years

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:43 AM

I should have thought of that, Paul, I suppose.

Hope they can adapt to breathing underwater.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM

We already know their fourth line of defence Greg. Animals and plants will adapt to the new conditions. This is particularly rich given the links between science- deniers and young- earth creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:32 AM

The earth is flat, the world was created 4000 years ago, and global warming is happening or is not man made..

then again..

Globally, observed CO2 emissions, temperature and sea levels are rising faster than expected. The warming has been fastest over land, and greatest in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Global ocean temperature rose by 0.10 ºC between 1961 and 2003, to a depth of 700 metres.

In Australia, there has been a 0.9 ºC warming since 1950. We have already observed changes to our climate that are more rapid than anything the earth has experienced for at least 1800 years. "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science."
Donald Kennedy, former Editor-In-Chief, Science.

Results of this climate change include:

retreat of glaciers and sea-ice
a decline of 10-15 per cent of the Arctic sea ice extent and a 40 per cent decrease in its average thickness
snow depth at the start of October has declined 40 per cent in the last 40 years in the Australian Alps
an average sea level rise of 20 mm per decade over the last 50 years
changes in mating and migration times of birds
pole-ward and altitudinal shifts of plants and animals (especially in the Alpine zone)
an increase in coral bleaching due to increased water temperature.

Source? Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:35 AM

Global warming is coming to your home town. Watch for weather shifts, tornadoes,
flooding, rising of sea levels, harsh cold periods as well as droughts, stultifying pollution, all brought to you courtesy of irresponsible energy corporations, and global warming deniers.

Keystone XL Pipeline goes through=game over.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 06:48 PM

Makes ya wonder what absurdity the fourth line of defense is gonna be, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 10:07 AM

LH
Make a serious study of the geologic record and you will see some significant and scarey differences between past non-anthropogenic climate change, and this one.
Think about climate change rate.
Then think about the rate at which evolution happens.
For such a free thinker, you are really sipping the koolaid on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 10:09 PM

Of course this won't put an end to the debate.

Their first line of defense was "Global warming isn't happening."

Their second line of defense is "Global warming is happening, but it isn't man-made."

Their third line of defense will be "Global warming is happening, and it's man-made, but it's good for you."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:29 PM

Most scientists and govenments around the world agree that the average ambient air temperatue (a few feet above land) has risen an average of 1 degree F since the mid 1800s. That is only 0.74 degrees C.

That is perfectly normal for such a period of time.

Yes, we have Global Normalcy. How boring. Sacrifice a goat?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:19 PM

Climate change? Of course. Climate on this planet is always changing, and I suspect it will continue doing so. There are warming and cooling cycles, and there always have been. The past geological record confirms that.

No one is questioning climate change. People are questioning the recent popular theory of human-created carbon-emission-based global warming as being the primary factor IN CAUSING present day climate change....as opposed to other natural factors that have nothing to do with human-based carbon emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:23 PM

The Skeptical BEST project (endorsed by Anthony Watts and the Koch brothers) has actually concluded that climate change is real.

BEST project

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html



This should put an end to the phoney "debate", but it won't.

Just watch below...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:04 AM

Study links extreme weather to climate change

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:40 AM

A little while ago there was a constant banging on about the Polar Ice Cap how it was melting, the Polar Bear was at risk as a species because of our irresponsibility on waste and omissions. I am not disputing the findings however looking at a recent article in a newspaper it tells me that there has been some improvement to the number of bears (good) so why would this be all of a sudden? Perhaps it was down to me and others refusing the plastic bags supplied in Marks & Sparks and the glass jars that we religiously separated that made all the difference (I don't think so somehow)! Or is it that nature finds a way eventually as long as we keep a responsible eye on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:38 AM

If you read the article, the clever new approach is that 'if they gonna make money out of it, then they is for it' approach .. which cuts the rug out from under Abbot the 'Big Dissenter' here ... his rich corporate mates who provide the political funding will tell him to shut up so they can make money :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:56 PM

Hate to break it to ya', f-troupe, but this all comes down to $$$$$... 99 scientists can get up and say that man is creating global warming and 1 can get up and say "hogwash" and guess what... The so-called liberal media will give the loonie equal time??? As if it were 50/50...

Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:42 PM

Adjusting the pitch on climate change

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM

Steve do you remember that SF story called "March of the Morons"? The idea was that the uneducated ignorant were outnumbering the learned....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:33 AM

I meant to add that you should click on the "intermediate" tab in that link, which deals precisely with your data. Scientifically this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:30 AM

Lies, damned lies and statistics, Ringer. You've been had. Maybe you wanted to be.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 09:01 PM

"This country will pay a huge price for this ignorance."

And not only the USA, but also the rest of us poor mugs world wide...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:30 PM

What is not understood about global warming is that it affects "climate change" which means that because of the rise of the earth's temperature, extremes in weather conditions can be expected from very cold to very hot while storms and floods take place such as in
Queensland, Australia, or Pakistan and elsewhere in the world.

Be on the lookout for a big storm in California due soon with massive flooding.

The hydrologic cycle will be affected and an overabundance of wet will be pulled up into the sky from the rising tides of the sea, hence more flooding.

The global warming deniers, those who also deny the effects of nuclear waste, gas fracturing, carbon emissions, genetically modified crops, desertification and deforestation all display the ignorance of science in the educational system in the U.S. This country will pay a huge price for this ignorance.

Welcome to a massive Gulf Coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:19 PM

Now look at that figure with the Jason and Topex data.
Cover it all with your hand (don't smudge the screen) except the last 21 little green dots. Make a conclusion about the Earth's long-term climate trend based on just those 21.
Now, remove your hand and look at the 20 previous years.
Do you see a long-term trend? (yes)
Do you see any other sets of 21 points that if looked at all by themselves indicate falling sea level? (yes)
What happens *after* those 21 you just picked? (rises again)

Which tells us more about Earth's climate; any set of 21 consecutive points you might carefully select, or the entire 20 year time series? (I'll let you answer that one)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:13 PM

Ringer,
Kehr is citing Goddard's data, and my statements hold true.
It is the sleaziest bit of cherry picking imaginable. Ignore a 20-year trend defined by thousands of data points, and focus on the last 21 points only because they suit your politics.
And you fell for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:42 AM

Last year tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record

The Earth in 2010 experienced temperatures higher than the 20th century average for the 34th year in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. Last year was the wettest on record, NOAA said citing Global Historical Climatology Network which made the calculation based on global average precipitation, even though regional patterns varied widely.

The analysis also tracked weather changes that contributed to massive floods in Pakistan and a heat wave in Russia, saying an "unusually strong jet stream" from June to August was to blame.

A separate report by Canada's Environment Ministry said that last year was the warmest in Canada since it began keeping meteorological records 63 years ago.

NASA analysts said the shrinking sea ice in the Arctic may have made winters in Europe and Canada warmer than usual. "Arctic sea ice acts like a blanket, insulating the atmosphere from the ocean's heat. Take away that blanket, and the heat can escape into the atmosphere, increasing local surface temperatures. Regions in northeast Canada were more than 18 degrees (F) warmer than normal in December.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 07:58 AM

Brisbane floods: before and after
Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:00am AEDT

High-resolution aerial photos taken over Brisbane last week have revealed the scale of devastation across dozens of suburbs and tens of thousands of homes and businesses.

The aerial photos of the Brisbane floods were taken in flyovers on January 13 and January 14.

Hover over each photo to view the devastation caused by flooding.

This is part one of an ABC News special presentation showing before and after photos of the floods

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 07:31 AM

Did you actually read the title of the piece, TIA? Kehr's article (who's Goddard?) refers to 2010, that's why he concentrates on the data from 2010. It's not rocket-science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:50 AM

Aussie Weather!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 11:44 AM

Ringer,
If you read carefully, you will see that Goddard's argument is based on taking a time series of data going back to 1992 (about 450 to 500 Jason and Topex measurements), and throwing out all but the last 21.
Now *that* is science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 11:36 AM

O Come on. Follow the clicky and look at the first graph. Do you really not understand the difference between short-term variability and long-term trend? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:40 AM

Well, the sea level may be dropping and all that, but in Brisbane, we are now having reflooding of areas that were recently flooded, due to the King Tides backing up the drains. This tidal street flooding does not happen every year.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 05:09 AM

"Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections."

Not just the smallest rise, you'll note, but the biggest drop!

Click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:22 PM

ÒWhen I found the pilot, he was still strapped into his seat, crunched over like he was sleeping, some black hair falling from his skull,Ó said Eulalio Gonz‡lez, 49, the climber who carried Mr. Pab—nÕs mummified body down the mountain. ÒThere are more ice mummies in the peaks above us,Ó he said. ÒMelting glaciers will bring them to us.Ó

The discovery of Mr. Pab—nÕs partially preserved remains was one of a growing number of finds pulled from the worldÕs glaciers and snow fields in recent years as warmer temperatures cause the ice and snow to melt, exposing their long-held secrets. The bodies that have emerged were mummified naturally, with extreme cold and dry air performing the work that resins and oils did for ancient Egyptians and other cultures.

Up and down the spine of the Andes, long plagued by airplane crashes and climbing mishaps, the discoveries are helping to solve decades-old mysteries.

In one such find, in the late Õ90s, climbers on Mount Tupungato in Argentina discovered parts the wreckage of the Star Dust, a fabled British aircraft rumored to have disappeared in 1947 with a cargo of gold.

The climbers found no treasure at the crash site of the Avro Lancastrian plane flown by British South American Airways. But they did discover a preserved torso and a hand with pointed, manicured fingernails, an eerie fashion relic of 1940s London that served as testament to the fate of the planeÕs passengers and crew.

Scientists say the retreat of the ice is an unexpected boon for those yearning to peer back in time.

ÒIt looks like the warming trend seen in many regions is continuing,Ó said Gerald Holdsworth, a glaciologist at the Arctic Institute of North America in Calgary, Alberta. ÒThere are still some large snowbanks left in promising places, and many glaciers of all different shapes, orientations and sizes, so the finds could go on for a long time yet.Ó

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:24 PM

"...Everyone seems to understand that the climate problem cannot be wished away. Negotiations on how to fight climate change continue. After the latest round of talks in China, the U.N. process will resume in Cancún, Mexico, in a few weeks. Participants, however, seem more anxious about "lowering expectations" than about achieving the first tangible results. Diplomats and experts are stuck on technical issues, and voices are already being heard in favor of settling for the lowest common denominator or even reformatting the process, with the hope that the business community might come up with purely technocratic solutions to climate change.

This is not the way to go forward. Although business — with its ability to adapt new technologies and make a profit by doing so — could of course play a major role in the transition to a low carbon economy, it would be naïve to expect it to be the primary driver of this process.

The business community will always look out for its own interests and short-term profits. As for the theory that "the free market" will solve every problem, few find that idea convincing after its proponents brought the world economy to the brink of disaster.

Equally unacceptable are suggestions that the fight against climate chaos should be left largely to the most "advanced" nations. This would not only infringe on the role of the U.N., but it risks widening the gap between developed and developing countries.

Clearly, as countries like China increase their economic power they must assume greater responsibility for the environment. We need to persuade them that it is in their own best interests to do so. Furthermore, we need a strong and meaningful effort to create incentives for them to adopt energy-efficient and alternative fuel technologies, as well as to stimulate those who are ready to transfer such technologies to emerging countries. Agreements on all these issues can only be hammered out within the framework of a multilateral process under U.N. auspices. Cancún offers another chance to re-energize the process.

So, despite the fact that 2010 has been a mostly disappointing year for those who advocate urgent action to save our planet, we cannot afford presumptions of failure or pessimism. There are enough people in civil society who have not succumbed to defeatism and are ready to act to make governments listen. The global self-preservation instinct must finally force world leaders to resume serious negotiations with ambitious goals. "

Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991, is a founder and board member of Green Cross International. (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM

GOP to investigate 'scientific fraud' of global warming: report

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010 -- 12:39 pm

Fresh off a dramatic victory in which it retook the House leadership, the Republican Party intends to hold major hearings probing the supposed "scientific fraud" behind global climate change.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder related the news in a little-noticed article Wednesday morning.

The effort is a likely attempt to out-step the White House on energy policy moving forward. Legislation on energy and climate change reform, one of President Barack Obama campaign promises, has yet to materialize, though Obama's EPA recently classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Holding hearings would please the Republicans' conservative base, which increasingly doubts the scientific basis for global warming -- especially human-induced global warming -- and provide a reflection of the new GOP's tenor.

Ron Brownstein of the National Journal reported last week that in Tuesday's midterm election, "virtually all of the serious 2010 GOP challengers" have denied that there is scientific evidence that global warming is even happening.

"The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones," Brownstein wrote.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists -- and just about every accredited international scientific institution in the world -- unequivocally agree that global warming occurring and is fueled by human activity.

Scientists say inaction will lead to an unmitigated spiral of polarized -- and over time rising -- temperatures, melting ice caps, rising sea levels and droughts, among other consequences.

The Republican belief to the contrary incubates the party's fervent opposition not only to cap and trade but to any measures reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama administration has long anticipated efforts from the GOP to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, and plan to strongly enforce environmental regulations.

The deeply differing views of the White House and likely energy chairman, Texas Republican Joe Barton, suggests that conflicts over the issue are inevitable in the new divided government.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

Nigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he wrote a script to do it for him.

The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn't happening or humans aren't responsible for it.

It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched to the argument in question -- tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.

The database began as a simple collection of responses written by Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn't at liberty to divulge.
...

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

When was the last time the Northwest and Northeast Passages melted free 3 consecutive years?

The first recorded attempt to find and sail the Northwest Passage occurred in 1497, and ended in failure. The thick ice choking the waterways thwarted all attempts at passage for the next four centuries. While we cannot say for certain the Northwest Passage did not open between 1497 and 1900, it is highly unlikely that a string of three consecutive summers where both the Northwest and Northeast Passage opened would have escaped the notice of early mariners and whalers, who were very active in northern waters. We can be sure the Northern Passages were never open between 1900 - 2005, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). A very cold period dominated northern latitudes during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, known as "The Little Ice Age", further arguing against an opening of the Northern Passages during those centuries. The Northern Passages may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 900 and 1300 AD. Temperatures in Europe were similar, though probably a little cooler, than present-day temperatures. However, the Medieval Warm Period warmth was not global, and it is questionable whether or not sections of the Northern Passages along the Alaskan, Canadian, and Russian shores shared in the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period. So, a better candidate for the last previous multi-year opening of the Northern Passages was the period 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast that suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years during that period. Prior to that, the next likely time the Northern Passages were open was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3 degrees Centigrade higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher. It is possible we'll know better soon. A new technique that examines organic compounds left behind in Arctic sediments by diatoms that live in sea ice give hope that a detailed record of sea ice extent extending back to the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago may be possible (Belt et al., 2007). The researchers are studying sediments along the Northwest Passage in hopes of being able to determine when the Passage was last open.

But Antarctic sea ice is at a record high!

Climate change contrarians like to diminish the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by pointing out that in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent has hit several record highs, including in July of 2010. They fail to mention, though, the fact that ocean temperatures in the Antarctic sea ice region have warmed significantly in recent decades--and faster than the global average temperature rise! So how can sea ice increase when ocean temperatures are warming so dramatically? This topic is discussed in detail by one of my favorite bloggers, physicist John Cook over at skepticalscience.com. In his words:

"There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). "

This counter-intuitive result shows how complicated our climate system is. Climate change contrarians are masters at obscuring the truth by taking counter-intuitive climate events like this out of context, and twisting them into a warped but believable non-scientific narrative. Lawmakers tend to hear a lot of these narratives, since the lobbying wings of the oil and gas industry spent $175 million last year to help convince Congress not to regulate their industry. This number does not include the tens of millions more spent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, coal industry, and other business interests intent upon stymying legislation that might cut into profits of the oil, coal, and gas industry. For comparison, the lobbying money spent by environmental groups in 2009 was approximately $22.5 million. Spending for PR efforts aimed at influencing opinion on climate change issues probably has a similar disparity. This is a major reason why you may have heard, "Hey, Antarctic sea ice is increasing, so why worry about Arctic sea ice loss?"

Commentary

Diminishing the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by calling attention to Antarctic sea ice gain is like telling someone to ignore the fire smoldering in their attic, and instead go appreciate the coolness of the basement, because there is no fire there. Planet Earth's attic is on fire. This fire is almost certain to grow much worse. When the summertime Arctic sea ice starts melting completely a few years or decades hence, the Arctic will warm rapidly, potentially leading to large releases of methane gas stored in permafrost and in undersea "methane ice" deposits. Methane is 20 - 25 times more potent than CO2 at warming the climate, meaning that the fire in Earth's attic will inexorably spread to the rest of the globe. To deny that the fire exists, or that the fire is natural, or that the fire is too expensive to fight are all falsehoods. This fire requires our immediate and urgent attention. Volunteer efforts to fight the fire by burning less coal, oil, and gas are laudable, but insufficient. It's like trying to fight a 3-alarm blaze with a garden hose. Every time you reduce your use of oil, gas, or coal, you make the price of those fuels cheaper, encouraging someone else to burn them. Global warming will not slow down until Big Government puts a price on oil, coal and gas--a price that starts out low but increases every year. This can be done via emissions trading, a "fee and dividend" approach, or other means. People are rightfully mistrustful of the ability of Big Government to solve problems, but we don't have a choice. The alternative is to geoengineer our climate--an extremely risky solution. It is time to pay the big bucks and send out the fire engines, before the conflagration gets totally out of control. Consider the Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 and the Pakistani floods of 2010 a warning. These sorts of extreme events will grow far more common in the decades to come, because of human-caused climate change.

References
Belt, S.T., G. Masse, S.J. Rowland, M. Poulin, C. Michel, and B. LeBlanc, "A novel chemical fossil of palaeo sea ice: IP25", Organic Geochemistry, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 16-27.


From http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1589

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM

a list of quotes from Art Robinson

I doubt he will win, but it is scary finding that Republicans are putting candidates like this into the spotlight.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

Here's an example of what we are up against....one of the worst examples, I admit, but if this guy should be elected, he would have a platform to spread his crap under the banner of Congressman.

Art Robinson on TV a few days ago.

Read LOTS more about him in these Google hits, but watch the video first to see what his attituded is.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism

A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action.

Article from DER SPIEGEL

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM

Sorry it's so long, but it has beautiful metaphors describing the nonsensical nature of the denialist arguments...

"Suppose a bloke drifts up to you and says, "Apples don't exist"... While your eyebrows are still rising, he adds, "but they grow naturally on trees!"

What?

"Apples don't exist but they grow naturally on trees?" Surely you wouldn't trust that bloke with the lives of your children if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now suppose you walk down the street and some other bloke sidles up and says, "The price of sheep is unknown, but I'd buy some now because they are cheap."

'Scuse me?

The price of sheep is unknown but they are cheap? No point trusting that bloke with your kids' lives either, if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now here's a surprising fact: Your kids' future, and the future of their kids, very much depends on logical coherence—very much hinges on protecting them and their future from the incoherent claims of so-called climate "skeptics."

One of the reliable insights of philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge is virtually never incoherent. In science, a hallmark criterion of whether you can possibly be right is whether or not you are coherent. If you are coherent, you might be right. If you are incoherent or contradict yourself, then you are most likely wrong.

The beauty of this is that you don't even need data or peer-reviewed science to be sure: If an argument is incoherent or mutually contradictory, then you can be fairly confident that it is wrong or stated for entertainment purposes only.

What does this have to do with so-called climate "skeptics?"

Everything.

Because the sum total of so-called "skeptic" arguments is an incoherent muddle of contradictions.

On a Monday morning your resident "skeptic" might tell you that global warming does not exist. On the Monday afternoon, she may tell you that the warming is all natural, just the same way that non-existent apples grow on trees.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

And on Tuesday, a so-called "skeptic" may drift into town and make claims about the temperature record not being accurate. He might also assure you that there is nothing to worry about because it hasn't been warming in the last 23 days anyhow. So the sheep are cheap but no one knows their price.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

By Wednesday morning, your excited "skeptic" may have invented the possibility that the sun is causing global warming, and by afternoon tea time it might be cosmic rays, or El Niño, or Inspector Clouseau or whatever.

Now, you may find it hard to believe that anyone could be so muddled, but in fact, it takes little effort to go to a "skeptic" website and dig out dozens if not hundreds such contradictions. Hundreds of instances in which apples were said not to exist but then happily grow on trees. Hundreds of clear indications that this so-called "skepticism" amounts to little more than muddled mutterings.

There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth's climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world."


source text and podcast

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

The Sun's activity has recently affected the Earth's atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways, according to a new study published today in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun's activity does not always mean that the Earth becomes cooler.

It is well established that the Sun's activity waxes and wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching the Earth decreases. Today's study looked at the Sun's activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a declining part of its 11-year activity cycle.

Although the Sun's activity declined over this period, the new research shows that it may have actually caused the Earth to become warmer. Contrary to expectations, the amount of energy reaching the Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than decreased as the Sun's activity declined, causing this warming effect.

Following this surprising finding, the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true and that in periods when the Sun's activity increases, it tends to cool, rather than warm, the Earth. This is based on what is already known about the relationship between the Sun's activity and its total energy output.

Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is possible that during this period, the Sun has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather than a small warming effect as had previously been thought.

Professor Joanna Haigh, the lead author of the study who is Head of the Department of Physics and member of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said: "These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun's effect on our climate. However, they only show us a snapshot of the Sun's activity and its behaviour over the three years of our study could be an anomaly.

"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it."
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, added: "We know that the Earth's climate is affected both by human activity and by natural forces and today's study improves our understanding of how the Sun influences our climate. Studies like this are vital for helping us to create a clear picture of how our climate is changing and through this, to work out how we can best protect our planet."

(PhysOrg)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:37 AM

Here is an update to the summer ice depletion in Alaska (More at the Link):


"The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado said sea ice coverage on Friday was recorded at a summer low of 1.84 million square miles. The ice cover appeared to have reached its minimum extent for the year that day.

"The average September sea ice extent from 1979 to 2000 was 2.7 million square miles. This year's coverage was 753,000 square miles fewer than that number."

Unidriectional Ice



http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091610/sta_708449141.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 04:23 PM

Melting sea ice forces walruses ashore in Alaska

By The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010 -- 7:19 am

Tens of thousands of walruses camp out on Alaska shore because sea ice melting profusely.

Tens of thousands of walruses have come ashore in northwest Alaska because the sea ice they normally rest on has melted.

Federal scientists say this massive move to shore by walruses is unusual in the United States. But it has happened at least twice before, in 2007 and 2009. In those years Arctic sea ice also was at or near record low levels.

The population of walruses stretches "for one mile or more. This is just packed shoulder-to-shoulder," U.S. Geological Survey biologist Anthony Fischbach said in a telephone interview from Alaska. He estimated their number at tens of thousands.

Scientists with two federal agencies are most concerned about the one-ton female walruses stampeding and crushing each other and their smaller calves near Point Lay, Alaska, on the Chukchi Sea. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to change airplane flight patterns to avoid spooking the animals. Officials have also asked locals to be judicious about hunting, said agency spokesman Bruce Woods.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:24 AM

Well one warm balmy evening in November sat outside a folkie pub in Bristol UK having a cold beer everyone was remarking on the it some with alarm. For selfish reasons it wasn't an unpleasant experience but it had been noted that the seasons have definitely shifted around bringing with it more incidents of extreme weather patterns and disasters grouped together very closely. Not to mention many countries experiencing uncharacteristic weather for the region for the time of year, the loss of habitat and decline in numbers of some species of animals and not just through poaching. At least people are more environmentally aware than they used to be, even from nursery school age which can only be good after all they will be the parents of the future. If you don't maintain a building it falls down isn't it better to keep it in good running order to prevent that happening? The recent Iclandic volcano ground flights to a halt in the UK leaving people trying to get home from their holiday break or business trips. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, some complained it was an over-reaction by the Health and Safety lot. I live right near the Aeroplane Industry along a flight path, the air quality had changed dramatically and it was noticeable not only for the vapour free skies but noise free too. The volcano situation was only over a relatively short period of time but the difference was so apparent. All those years of emmissions from aircraft traffic in our skies must have had some impact on the atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:44 AM

Isosstatic rebound in Greenland is complicated because there are two phenomena superimposed. the response of Earth's crust/mantle to loading or unloading is viscoelastic, that is, there is an initial, relatively fast elastic response, and then a long, slow and gradually diminishing viscous response. Greenland is responding to two unloading events - the first is the loss of the great ice caps that occurred about 17000 years ago. The rebound from this is in the viscous stage, and should be slowing. BUT, terrestrial GPS, and satellite gravity and altimetry data all indicate that rebound in Greenland has been accelerating since about 1990. This cannot be related to ice loss in the last glacial maximum. What it is entirely consistent with (and remember there are at least three separate lines of evidence) is the instantaneous (geologically speaking) elastic response to recent dramatic ice loss on Greenland. But it is not just Greenland. Isostatic uplift is accelerating on Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. the conclusion is inescapable for anyone who truly understands (or cares to understand) the science. The entire North Atlantic region is losing continental ice at an accelerating pace.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM

Amos!

QUOTE
Greenland is losing ice mass at an increasing rate, dumping more icebergs into the ocean because of warming temperatures
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

"In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually."

"With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes"


This is a change reducing the estimated melting- somewhat significant ( 104 vs 230, and 64 vs 132) Well over 50% reduction of melting.


Seems like a significant amount to me....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM

Drift... whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:48 PM

"These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America" quoted by bb

That effect, surely, is a temporary one? Or perhaps permanent, in the sense that land in Greenland will stay submerged as land farther west in the north remains higher?

What argument are you making? Do you believe that it shows there is no rapid warming occurring?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM

"These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America.

With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:11 PM

The earth in Alaska- especially in southeast Alaska - is also rebounding. As glaciers melt and their weight is removed, land rises. There are various areas of Juneau where landowners have recently acquired more land and a number of claims have arisen as to who actually does own the new land.

I fail to see, however, that this in any way negates rising temperatures. Rather, it illustrates it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss
AFP - Wednesday, September 8

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.

In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.

Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.

But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.

This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.

Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.

When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.

This movement, though, is not just a single vertical motion, lead researcher Bert Vermeersen of Delft Technical University, in the Netherlands, said in phone interview with AFP.

"A good analogy is that it's like a mattress after someone has been sleeping on it all night," he said.

The weight of the sleeper creates a hollow as the material compress downwards and outwards. When the person gets up, the mattress starts to recover. This movement, seen in close-up, is both upwards and downwards and also sideways, too, as the decompressed material expands outwards and pulls on adjacent stuffing.

Often ignored or considered a minor factor in previous research, post-glacial rebound turns out to be important, says the paper.

It looks at tiny changes in Earth's gravitational field provided by two satellites since 2002, from GPS measurements on land, and from figures for sea floor pressure.

These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America.

With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes.

These variations show a large degree of uncertainty, but Vermeersen believes that even so a clearer picture is emerging on icesheet loss.

"The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year," said Vermeersen, whose team worked with NASA's Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.

"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."

If the figures for overall sea level rise are accurate, icesheet loss would be contribute about 30 percent, rather than roughly half, to the total, said Vermeersen. The rest would come mainly from thermal expansion, meaning that as the sea warms it rises.

The debate is important because of fears that Earth's biggest reservoirs of ice, capable of driving up ocean levels by many metres (feet) if lost, are melting much faster than global-warming scenarios had predicted.

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted oceans would rise by 18-59 centimeters (7.2 and 23.6 inches) by 2100, a figure that at its upper range means vulnerable coastal cities would become swamped within a few generations.

The increase would depend on warming estimated at between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (1.98-11.52 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, the IPCC said. It stressed, though, the uncertainties about icesheet loss.


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:21 AM

"A University of Delaware researcher reports that an "ice island" four times the size of Manhattan has calved from Greenland's Petermann Glacier. The last time the Arctic lost such a large chunk of ice was in 1962.

"In the early morning hours of August 5, 2010, an ice island four times the size of Manhattan was born in northern Greenland," said Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. Muenchow's research in Nares Strait, between Greenland and Canada, is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Satellite imagery of this remote area at 81 degrees N latitude and 61 degrees W longitude, about 620 miles [1,000 km] south of the North Pole, reveals that Petermann Glacier lost about one-quarter of its 43-mile long [70 km] floating ice-shelf.

Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service discovered the ice island within hours after NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite took the data on Aug. 5, at 8:40 UTC (4:40 EDT), Muenchow said. These raw data were downloaded, processed, and analyzed at the University of Delaware in near real-time as part of Muenchow's NSF research.

Petermann Glacier, the parent of the new ice island, is one of the two largest remaining glaciers in Greenland that terminate in floating shelves. The glacier connects the great Greenland ice sheet directly with the ocean.
The new ice island has an area of at least 100 square miles and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building."
(Phys Org)

---

Good thing the planet isn't warming, huh??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

Warmest decade on record: new climate report

Warmest decade on record: new climate report
By Bob Beale
July 29, 2010

A major international climate study has confirmed that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today by the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) drew on data from many measurable climate indicators that all pointed to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable.

Dr Lisa Alexander, a senior lecturer in the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, was one of the lead authors of the study, as editor and author of Chapter 2 - Global Climate.

"This is NOAA's most comprehensive statement of the global climate to date," says Dr Alexander. "It brought together over 300 authors from 48 countries. In the chapter on global climate in which I was involved there were 61 authors, so it was a difficult task to organise the summary and ensure that everything was done comprehensively and consistently.

"The main take home message from the report is that average surface temperature estimates for the globe in 2009 marked the end of the warmest decade in the instrumental record - that is, since about 1870.

"Each of the last three decades has been progressively warmer than all earlier decades. This is irrespective of which of the multiple independent data sources that are used to calculate global surface temperature.

"In total, 37 climate indicators were analysed in the report. They included, for example, surface temperature over the land and oceans, temperatures and humidity in the atmosphere and the size and extent of glaciers. They all point to a climate that is responding to a warming world and the effects of increases in global concentrations of greenhouse gases.

"Last year was one of the top 10 warmest years globally and 2009 also ended Australia's warmest decade since records began in 1910 - 0.48 deg C above the 1961-1990 average.

"Preliminary data indicate a high probability as well that 2009 will be the 19th consecutive year that glaciers have lost mass. Greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise in 2009, with CO2 increasing at a rate above the 1978 to 2008 average.

"Some new satellite technologies for deriving weather and climate parameters have been introduced into the report for the first time, providing the exciting potential for further independent estimates of global surface temperature for example."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:06 PM

"incorrectly associated synchrony being misinterpreted as causality"

The post hoc ergo propter hoc - (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

Sadly many do not understand this. Even 'Science' in the past has fallen into this trap.

Take stomach ulcers - now it has been documented that a previously unknown genus of bacteria able to live in high levels of acid are 'responsible' - my grandfather died of stomach cancer after years of ulcer hassles and 'now proved crank treatments'.

Even 'philostogen' before it was shown that oxygen was the cause of certain effect in burning.

Many pseudo science thrive on this however - MPB is this applies to things like astrology, numerology, and many other systems of belief ascribed to 'faith'.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:05 PM

Yup. But the biggest problem with that argument is that the Sun is *cooling*!!!!!! (Notice, I said the Sun itself,and not the amount of sunlight reaching Earth - this depends hugely on cloudcover and aerosols). For the past 35 years, the Sun itself has been cooling, while the Earth has been warming.

So the argument is not just a red herring, but a false red herring.
Just as the Earth has Milankovitch cycles, all other bodies in the solar system have eccentric and wobbly orbits. Citing several of these (amongst the hundreds of known planets and moons in the solar system) does not prove "solar system warming" by any stretch of the imagination. We would need data from *a lot* more bodies to prove "solar system warming" as opposed to cherry-picked synchrony (love that word).

But it makes a clever, easy to repeat, argument that intimidates people who are intentionally made to feel less smart thant the clever denialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:09 PM

Bruce's argument is that it isn't man on earth induced planetary warming--it's solar system warming.

My sense is, based on the data I've seen so far, that this is a red herring of incorrectly associated synchrony being misinterpreted as causality.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 12:42 PM

International sources have documented that the last six months are the warmest *ever* on record.

But I suspect that the denialists already have a canned response (probably involving a global conspiracy).

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:17 AM

Australian sources have just released documentation that Australia has just had the warmest decade.... oh JUSTFUCKINGGOOGLEIT.com

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:21 AM

"So the melting of the Martian ice cap, and change to the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of observations, are due to the last 35 years of human pollution???


Just wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying."

Typical smarmy A-hole Bruce.

Go re-read *all* of my posts and see if I said that okay?

And please get back to me with the citation okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:50 AM

Links here to scientific papers on the Martian Ice Caps
Global Warming on Mars, Ice Caps Melting

Here is an article about the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. It seems to be losing heat energy to the rest of the atmosphere:

Is Jupiter's Red Spot on its way out?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 08:30 PM

So the melting of the Martian ice cap, and change to the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of observations, are due to the last 35 years of human pollution???


Just wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:36 PM

The sun is the source of virtually all energy on Earth. Thus climate has always strongly tracked solar activity. Numerous studies of many different types of data, covering many thousands to millions of years of Earth history bear this out.

In the last 35 years, the sun has shown a very slight cooling trend, while the Earth has warmed.

It ain't the sun, no matter what variable you choose to characterize "The Sun". The sun and Earth are going in different directions temperature-wise, but only over the last 35 years. In those same 35 years, human population approximately doubled. Correlation does not prove causation, but surely, even to the politically-motivated, that must suggest the possibility of a human influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:44 PM

"The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.[50] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report states that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases.[51]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays [1].

In 2002, Lean et al.[52] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][53] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[54]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt [55] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[56] who claim that solar variability is a major if not dominant climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[57] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.)[58]. Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[59]"

References footnoted in the WIkipedia article on Solar Variation::

1. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance

10. 10.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J. (2006). "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record". Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: L17718. doi:10.1029/2006GL027142. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0617/2006GL027142/.

50.^ Joanna Haigh

51.^ Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J. et al., eds (2001). "6.11 Total Solar Irradiance—Figure 6.6: Global, annual mean radiative forcings (1750 to present)". Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm. Retrieved 15 April 2007.

52.^ Lean, J.L.; Wang, Y.-M; Sheeley Jr., N.R (2002). ""The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate"". Geophysical Research Letters 29 (24): 77–1~77–4. doi:10.1029/2002GL015880. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002.../2002GL015880.shtml.

53.^ Foukal, P.; Fröhlich, C.; Spruit, H.; Wigley, T. M. L. (2006). "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate" (PDF). Nature 443 (7108): 161. doi:10.1038/nature05072. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf.

54.^ Lockwood, Mike; Claus Fröhlich (2007). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 463: 2447. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.".

55.^ Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. doi:10.1029/2008JD011639. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_Schmidt.pdf. "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.".

56.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J. (2007). "Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere, surface temperature records since 1600". J. Geophys. Res. 112: D24S03. doi:10.1029/2007JD008437. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008437.shtml. as PDF

57.^ Moberg, A; Sonechkin, DM; Holmgren, K; Datsenko, NM; Karlén, W; Lauritzen, SE (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 433 (7026): 613–7. doi:10.1038/nature03265. PMID 15703742. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html.

58.^ Wang, Y.‐M.; Lean, J. L.; Sheeley, Jr., N. R. (May 2005). "Modeling the Sun's Magnetic Field and Irradiance since 1713". The Astrophysical Journal 625: 522–38. doi:10.1086/429689. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/429689. )

59.^ a b Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of ClimateDecember 16: 4079–4093. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf. Retrieved 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:38 PM

I think a thirty year slice is an index of climate, yes, indeed. From your cosmic ivory tower, you may prefer a much broader time slice. But you are being terribly sarcastic about these news reports, as if you think I concocted them. Andlinking this to Obama? Sheeshe!!

And just to correct your woeful irritation, I have indeed addressed your remarks about the solar flux, and overall solar output . You prefer to think otherwise, to feed your own blind spot, but that don't make it so. It is obvious in theory that if the graph of solar output (maybe even with some lag in it) matches the ramp up of global temperatures, that it could be blamed for them. The ramp of human emissions does match. Whatcha got?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:15 PM

Amos,

" the lowest ice coverage recorded for that month in the satellite data record, which began in 1979"

Still talking weather, not climate.


EVEN is the climate is getting warmer, that does not prove man-made causes. You keep ignoring the solar flux, and overall solar output ( different things, I hope you realize).



It's like claiming "Since the sun rose, Obama must be right."

You keep proving that the sun rose again.

The sun can rise EVEN when Obama is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:06 AM

"Sea ice in the Arctic is again in rapid retreat this summer, putting the region on pace to match the record lows seen in 2007, the head of Russia's environmental agency said Tuesday, according to a Bloomberg News report.

The sea ice figures cited by Aleksandr Frolov, chief of Russia's federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service, dovetail with data released this month by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Both Russian and United States data show Arctic sea ice extending to about 4.2 million square miles in June, the lowest ice coverage recorded for that month in the satellite data record, which began in 1979. If the melting trend continues, sea ice levels could fall by September to less than 1.6 million square miles, the low recorded in 2007.

Mr. Frolov told Bloomberg that the fast pace of the melt could mean that the North Pole could be ice-free during the summer within just few a decades, far sooner than previously estimated. Arctic waterways typically choked with ice are now opening up, he said.

But there are some indications that this summer may not be one for the record books. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, ice loss has already slowed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas as a result of "tongues" of thicker, older ice in the region. Nonetheless, continued rapid ice loss in July would set the stage for a new low."
(Green Blog in NYT)

---

Please note that the previous decade has been the warmest decade in recorded history. See this report for hard data.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:07 AM

Can we fix climate with geoengineering?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:28 PM

Not just the warmest June... the warmest SIX MONTHS in recorded history. Clearly thermometers all over the world are in on the conspiracy.

ASSHOLES!

Yes, you. You know who I am talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:24 PM

Well, hope y'all enjoyed the warmest June in recorded history.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:22 PM

It's innovative for big corporations to promote conspiracy theories, and unfortunately for the planet, it worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:18 AM

"...First of all, we didn't fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don't believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.

Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy's growth rate.

So it wasn't the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?

The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn't be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.

By itself, however, greed wouldn't have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:27 AM

Amos you're right. Climategate happened three weeks before the Copenhagen summit, and the media hysteria basically sabotaged the summit. as you pointed out, the scientists have since been found to be right. see report from Michael Moore's site

Strangely the global media which sprayed outrage at the seeming implications of leaked emails has been remarkably backwards in coming forwards about the British House of Commons select committee, that reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact.

Those leaked emails effectively turned public opinion backwards, and meanwhile governments are not acting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM

Yes. Migratory birds are such damn liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Big Phil
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 04:21 AM

Where's the Global Warming - No such thing.

Lies, dammned lies and statistics.

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jul 10 - 12:03 PM

Arctic sea ice melting faster than ever
Retreat forecast for 2010. On pace to shrink more than in 2007 when scientists raised climate alarm


http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Arctic+melting+faster+than+ever/3269912/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE
There is no "scientific orthodoxy". That is just the point of science. Everything is open to question and attack. Theories are born ridiculed, some gain wide acceptance, and often die ridiculed. There is no cosmic answer key. It is only the wide acceptance (by knowledgeable people by the way) that determines "truth" in any age.
UNQUOTE

Which is why the loudest deniers usually have the flavour of (uneducated) religious fanatics. "Faith" only goes so far in Science - even the Aussies who got the Nobel Prize for their ground breaking work on stomach ulcers who had faith in their concept got nowhere (even being ridiculed) till their work was easily repeated by others _ I have just found a doctor who accepted this treatment and my desire to undergo it and my 30 year old ulcers have been relieved.

QUOTE
The opposition is almost exclusively non-knowledgeable; not necessarily stupid or evil, but certainly outside of their field of training and experience, or holding a very large political or financial stake in the outcome of the debate.
UNQUOTE

As in the twin Towers (and countless other) conspiracies... sigh ...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 12:51 PM

Stunning ignorance of science is on display by some here.
There is no "scientific orthodoxy". That is just the point of science. Everything is open to question and attack. Theories are born ridiculed, some gain wide acceptance, and often die ridiculed. There is no cosmic answer key. It is only the wide acceptance (by knowledgable people by the way) that determines "truth" in any age. The genius of the climate change deniers is that they have created an illusion that there is not widespread acceptance by knowledgable people. In fact, there *is*. The opposition is almost exclusively non-knowledgable; not necessarily stupid or evil, but certainly outside of their field of training and experience, or holding a very large political or financial stake in the outcome of the debate. Those with true knowledge of the subject and no financial interest are all on one side.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM

"The sun's constant interaction with Earth makes it important for solar physicists to keep track of solar activity. Stormy periods can force special safety precautions by satellite operators and power grid managers, and astronauts can be put at risk from bursts of radiation spat out by solar storm. Scientists need to more reliably predict what's in store."

Sigh - normal humanity has enormous difficulty coping with what mathematicians call genuinely 'random' events. Hence gambling, etc....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 10:10 AM

From the NEw York Times today:

"Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.

It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the worldÕs most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming.

The panel found no such conspiracy. It complained mildly about one poorly explained temperature chart discussed in the e-mail, but otherwise found no reason to dispute the scientistsÕ Òrigor and honesty.Ó Two earlier panels convened by BritainÕs Royal Society and the House of Commons reached essentially the same verdict. And this month, a second panel at Penn State University exonerated Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist and faculty member, of scientific wrongdoing.

Dr. Mann, who was part of the e-mail exchange, had been accused of misusing data to prove that the rise in temperatures over the last century was directly linked to steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide. His findings, confirmed many times by others, are central to the argument that fossil fuels must be taxed or regulated.

Another (no less overblown) climate change controversy may also be receding from view. This one involves an incorrect assertion in the United NationsÕ 3,000-page report on climate change in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The U.N. acknowledged the error and promised to tighten its review procedures. Even so, this and one or two other trivial mistakes were presented by some as further proof that scientists cannot be trusted and that warming is a hoax.

There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.Õs basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks Ñ sea level rise, drought, disease Ñ that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academyÕs report, and WednesdayÕs debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:09 PM

he sun's temper ebbs and flows on what scientists had thought was a pretty predictable cycle, but lately our closest star has been acting up.

Typically, a few stormy years would knock out a satellite or two and maybe trip a power grid on Earth. Then a few years of quiet, and then back to the bad behavior. But an extremely long stretch of low activity in recent years has scientists baffled and scrambling for better forecasting models.

An expected minimum of solar activity, between 2008 and 2009, was unusually deep. And while the sun would normally ramp up activity by now, heading into its next cycle, the sun may be on the verge of a weak solar cycle instead, astronomers said at the 216th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Miami last month.

Ads by Google San Diego's Top Solar Co.Hundreds of Satisified Clients Thousands of panels installed www.SullivanSolarPower.com Summer Solar PowerInstall a Solar System for $0 Down. Act Now, Before the Summer Heat! www.SolarCity.com/GetMoreSolarInfo
"We're witnessing something unlike anything we've seen in 100 years," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

The sun's constant interaction with Earth makes it important for solar physicists to keep track of solar activity. Stormy periods can force special safety precautions by satellite operators and power grid managers, and astronauts can be put at risk from bursts of radiation spat out by solar storm. Scientists need to more reliably predict what's in store.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM

Senator Lindsey Graham, by no flight of the imagination, could not be called the much-maligned Liberal. But Time Magazine has an interesting article:

"Surprisingly, perhaps, it is Graham who has been most forceful in making the case for effective steps to counter climate change. "I have been to enough college campuses to know â€" if you are 30 or younger, this climate issue is not a debate," he told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in February. "It's a value ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them."


**********************************
Beyond the political stakes, there are existential ones. Today's citizens and leaders are not only the first generation to realize that we are living in the era of global warming. We could also be the last that has a chance of slowing and eventually reversing the process.

***********************************

If we do not get the process of mitigating climate change started right now, our descendants, however skilled, will not be able to cope with the consequences. If we do nothing, we will likely bequeath to them a less habitable â€" perhaps even uninhabitable â€" planet, the most negative legacy imaginable."

Ethical Case Combatting GW Should Appeal to Conservatives

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM

1400 - and still depressed by the way it is just talked about , but SO little actually done

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:50 AM

freda underhill

The implications of global warming are so challenging, it's is understandable that people may not want to believe it's true.

I think you have hit the point. I would count myself amongst those who would desperately like to find that it wasn't true because the consequences are so appalling but I have to listen to all the arguments for and against.

Paradoxically, what most convinces me that it must be true is the weakness of the arguments of the sceptics.

There seems to have been a recent shift, at least on this thread, to a point of view that it is happening but we should take no notice of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 05:31 PM

And I agree totally with you on that point = and with Sawzaw. Thing is, down the road he will have a different take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM

ok, so how does hat negate

"We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution."

Whether is is related to Global warming or not, it is a good idea.

If I did not think that man-made sources were the major cause of GW ( as I tend to think based on the evidence) I would still agree with the first statement- IT HAS LITTLE to do with GW causes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM

Keep in mind, Bruce, that Sawz is on record as not believing in global warming at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM

Frankly, Bruce, I would prefer that Sawzaw come back and tell us what he meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM

Ebbie:

How about
"We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution."

Wether is is related to Global warming or not, it is a good idea.


THAT seem to be the intent- are you saying you disagree??????

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM

The implications of global warming are so challenging, it's is understandable that people may not want to believe it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 11:45 PM

I was wondering about that myself, Snail. Let's see: "We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming." Could one change the wording somewhat and still have the same message?

"Aside from the issue of global warming..."
"Notwithstanding the issue of global warming..."
"Regardless of the issue of global warming..."

"Regardless of global warming..." Nope. Didn't say that.

Like you said, I think he is saying "Never mind the issue of global warming..."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 08:57 PM

Not regarding something is not the same as disregarding something. Well! You learn something new every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 03:36 PM

Snail, reread what you quoted:


"We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming."



The fact that we should "do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution," is NOT dependent on Global warning- it is a GOOD thing to do "regardless of the issue of global warming"




NOT "that global warming can be disregarded. "

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 02:54 PM

Sawzaw - PM
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:45 PM

We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM

"Snail:"Please supply data and reasoned arguments to support your contention that global warming can be disregarded. ""

Please supply data and reasoned arguments proving where I said such a thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:33 PM

"the contention is that MAN-MADE sources of GW are less significant than natural ones, as far as can be seen, and the man-made sources can be ignored as being in the noise."

What this line ignores is that the man-made effects are increasing - obvious, because the number of people is increasing, irrespective of whether the output per individual is or not (and it is).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:37 PM

"Intelligent readers can work it out for themselves." ~ LaGastropod

Yep, I think we need a box of Bugetta.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:04 PM

I started working on a reasoned response to BB but, all things considered, I can't be bothered. Intelligent readers can work it out for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 11:50 AM

Snail,

Saws:"said there is some global warming that MAY have been caused by man."

Snail:"Curious then, that you keep producing odd, isolated little charts that appear to try and prove otherwise."


The present faith that all significant GW is caused by man-made soudes is what is in question: Since that is what is being presented by Goreistas et Al.




Saws:"I regard global warming and pollution and energy conservation as different issues."

Snail:"I would have thought they were intimately linked."


Many issues are related. Your thoughts are your own concern: YOU may have chosen to ignore all GW that is NOT caused by man, but that does not make it disappear.





Snail:"Please supply data and reasoned arguments to support your contention that global warming can be disregarded. "

Straw man arguement: the contention is that MAN-MADE sources of GW are less significant than natural ones, as far as can be seen, and the man-made sources can be ignored as being in the noise. Care to show me ANY Goreista efforts to ADAPT to, or accomadate, GW? ALL that has been presented is a promise to stop it if we just act the way he wants- giving him power and control, as well as money.

If we adjust to GW, we are safer regardless of the causes.

If we do not adjust, we are certainly worse off if the causes are NOT man-made, and probably worse off if we give that control and power to Goreistas in an effort to stop what seems to be a natural shift in climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:28 AM

Sawzaw

I said there is some global warming that may have been caused by man.

Curious then, that you keep producing odd, isolated little charts that appear to try and prove otherwise.

I regard global warming and pollution and energy conservation as different issues.

I would have thought they were intimately linked.

I'll try again -

Please supply data and reasoned arguments to support your contention that global warming can be disregarded.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:21 PM

I said there is some global warming that may have been caused by man.

I regard global warming and pollution and energy conservation as different issues.

Now you want to argue about what we agree on.

The way civilization works is when people find common ground. The way it does not work is when people find differences to fight over.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 04:53 AM

So, Sawzaw, you agree that global warming is happening but think that we should disregard it?

What are the reasons and supporting evidence for your 100% aggreement with -

"At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons."

I particularly like -

"Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments."

I mean, the deniers would never do anything like that would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:45 PM

"None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons."

I agree 100%

What I disagree with is that the methods promoted by Gore, Pachauri and company, the global warming fat cats will be effective in making any significant difference.

We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM

Whoever believes Greenpeace claims on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:44 AM

Newsweek: Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public's trust.

Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world's leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll.

The shift has left many once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used-car salesmen of the science world. In Britain, one leading scientist told an interviewer he is taking anti-anxiety pills and considered suicide following the leak of thousands of IPCC-related e-mails and documents suggesting that researchers cherry-picked data and suppressed rival studies to play up global warming. In the U.S., another researcher is under investigation for allegedly using exaggerated climate data to obtain public funds. In an open letter published in the May issue of Science magazine, 255 American climate researchers decry "political assaults" on their work by "deniers" and followers of "dogma" and "special interests."

This is no dispute between objective scientists and crazed flat-earthers. The lines cut through the profession itself. Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate "sensitivity", the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.

The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports, including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.

Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts."

None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:56 PM

Uncertain Science

Newsweek: Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public's trust.

Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world's leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll.

The shift has left many once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used-car salesmen of the science world. In Britain, one leading scientist told an interviewer he is taking anti-anxiety pills and considered suicide following the leak of thousands of IPCC-related e-mails and documents suggesting that researchers cherry-picked data and suppressed rival studies to play up global warming. In the U.S., another researcher is under investigation for allegedly using exaggerated climate data to obtain public funds. In an open letter published in the May issue of Science magazine, 255 American climate researchers decry "political assaults" on their work by "deniers" and followers of "dogma" and "special interests."

This is no dispute between objective scientists and crazed flat-earthers. The lines cut through the profession itself. Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate "sensitivity", the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.

The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports, including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.

Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts."

None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:49 PM

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake." Greenpeace said in a July 15 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program pressed Leipold until he admitted the claim was wrong.

"We, as a pressure group, have to emotionalize issues, and we are not ashamed of emotionalizing issues."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:24 PM

Where's the Global Warming??

Only in our hearts.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:21 PM

The World Health Organization (WHO) Tuesday admitted that the swine flu scare was exaggerated as alleged by several countries, including India.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:47 PM

From: Amos - PM
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM

Those histrionic misguided exagerrations wer enot promulgated by scientists.

Conflicts of Interest - WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies"

Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as "conspiracy theories."

The British Medical Journal:

Next week marks the first anniversary of the official declaration of the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. On 11 June 2009 Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, announced to the world's media: "I have conferred with leading influenza experts, virologists, and public health officials. In line with procedures set out in the International Health Regulations, I have sought guidance and advice from an Emergency Committee established for this purpose. On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met...The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic."

It was the culmination of 10 years of pandemic preparedness planning for WHO—years of committee meetings with experts flown in from around the world and reams of draft documents offering guidance to governments. But one year on, governments that took advice from WHO are unwinding their vaccine contracts, and billions of dollars' worth of stockpiled oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza),bought from health budgets already under tight constraints, lie unused in warehouses around the world.

A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments. Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines? Why was key WHO guidance authored by an influenza expert who had received payment for other work from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir, and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir? And why does the composition of the emergency committee from which Chan sought guidance remain a secret known only to those within WHO? We are left wondering whether major public health organisations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science.

Already WHO's handling of the pandemic has led to an unprecedented number of reviews and inquiries by organisations including the Council of Europe, European Parliament, and WHO itself, following allegations of industry influence. Dr Chan has dismissed these as "conspiracies," and earlier this year, during a speech at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, she said: "WHO anticipated close scrutiny of its decisions, but we did not anticipate that we would be accused, by some European politicians, of having declared a fake pandemic on the advice of experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry and something personal to gain from increased industry profits."

The inquiry by British MP Paul Flynn for the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, due to be published today, will be critical. It will say that decision making around the A/H1N1 crisis has been lacking in transparency. "Some of the outcomes of the pandemic, as illustrated in this report, have been dramatic: distortion of priorities of public health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear amongst Europeans, creation of health risks through vaccines and medications which might not have been sufficiently tested before being authorised in fast-track procedures, are all examples of these outcomes. These results need to be critically examined by public health authorities at all levels with a view to rebuilding public confidence in their decisions."

The investigation by the BMJ/The Bureau reveals a system struggling to manage the inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO, and the global public health system, which all draw on the same pool of scientific experts. Our investigation has identified key scientists involved in WHO pandemic planning who had declarable interests, some of whom are or have been funded by pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were drafting. Yet these interests have never been publicly disclosed by WHO and, despite repeated requests from the BMJ/The Bureau, WHO has failed to provide any details about whether such conflicts were declared by the relevant experts and what, if anything, was done about them...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM

"...data from two Canadian co-authors who interpret historic levels of ice cover from ancient whalebones found in the polar region."

Wow, that sure sounds difinitive.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM

PUBLICATION: The Province
June 4



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arctic-ice loss fastest in thousands of years

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An international study of Arctic sea ice has concluded that the recent, record-setting retreat is the worst in thousands of years -- a conclusion that challenges skeptics' claims that the meltdown being witnessed in Canada's North is probably just the latest low ebb in a historical cycle of ice loss and regeneration.

The new study, involving 18 scientists from five countries and to be published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, includes data from two Canadian co-authors who interpret historic levels of ice cover from ancient whalebones found in the polar region.

Other evidence marshalled in the bid to reconstruct ancient Arctic climate conditions include patterns of driftwood deposit and chemical signatures in seabed sediments and ice cores.

"The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades," the study states.

"This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and [is] unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."

The study's lead author, Ohio State University polar researcher Leonid Polyak, said Thursday that predictable, long-term ice-cover changes linked to fluctuations in the Earth's orbit mean "we should expect more rather than less sea ice" at this time in history.

"The evidence that we have based on the existing data suggests that the current Arctic warming is probably the strongest since at least the middle Holocene -- that is approximately 5,000 years," Polyak said.

The two Canadian scientists involved in the study -- Geological Survey of Canada researcher Arthur Dyke and McGill University archeologist James Savelle -- provided data about the distribution of whalebone deposits to help map the extent of Arctic ice cover over the past 10,000 years.

In 2007, the Arctic Ocean ice cover declined from a winter maximum of 14 million square kilometres to an end-of-summer minimum of about four million sq. km-- the biggest retreat of polar sea ice since satellite measurements began about 35 years ago.

Despite strong ice regeneration this past winter, experts say the thickness and volume of Arctic ice has continued to decline over the past decade, pointing the way to ice-free summers in a matter of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:46 AM

Climate change making Everest more dangerous: Sherpa SOPHIA TAMOT
May 26, 2010 Sydney Morning Herald

Climate change is making Mount Everest more dangerous to climb, a Nepalese Sherpa said in Kathmandu Tuesday after breaking his own record by making a 20th ascent of the world's highest peak. Apa Sherpa, who dedicated his latest climb to the impact of global warming on the Himalayas, said he was disturbed by the visible changes on the mountain caused by rising temperatures.

"The snow along the slopes had melted, exposing the bare rocks underneath, which made it very difficult for us to walk up the slope as there was no snow to dig our crampons into," he told AFP on Tuesday. "This has made the trail very dangerous for all climbers."

Apa, 50, has been nicknamed the "super Sherpa" for the apparent ease with which he climbs Everest, but he was visibly exhausted as he spoke to journalists in the Nepalese capital three days after reaching the summit. He led an expedition aimed at raising awareness of the impact of climate change in the Himalayas and clearing up the tonnes of rubbish left on the mountain by previous expeditions.

.....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 10 - 08:44 PM

Exactly Amos - man supposes, nature disposes...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 10 - 07:37 PM

""Most of us know about the sun's eleven-year activity cycle. However, relatively few other than scientists (and amateur radio operators) are aware that the current solar minimum has lasted much longer than expected. The last solar cycle, Cycle 24, bottomed out in 2008, and Cycle 25 should be well on its way towards maximum by now, but the sun has remained unusually quiescent with very few sunspots. While solar physicists agree that this is odd, the explanation remains elusive."" (Slashdot)

Original story here:

"MIAMIÑIn very rough terms, the sun's activity ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle, with flares, coronal mass ejections and other energetic phenomena peaking at what is called solar maximum and bottoming out at solar minimum. Sunspots, markers of magnetic activity on the sun's surface, provide a visual proxy to mark the cycle's evolution, appearing in droves at maximum and all but disappearing at minimum. But the behavior of our host star is not as predictable as all thatÑthe most recent solar minimum was surprisingly deep and long, finally bottoming out around late 2008 or so.

Solar physicists here at the semiannual meeting of the American Astronomical Society this week offered a number of mechanisms to shed light on what has been happening on the sun of late, but conceded that the final answerÑor more likely answersÑremains opaque. Beyond scientific understanding, motivations for better solar weather forecasts include hopes to use them to safeguard against electrical grid disruptions, damage to Earth-orbiting satellites and threats to the health of space travelers posed by solar radiation flare-ups."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 10 - 07:00 PM

For those who don't live in Australia, they don't care about the Reef.

"Australia's Great Barrier Reef is just fine. It does have some dead spots, mostly caused by old age."

A remark typical of the "Conservativly Ignorant" - and the concept 'old age' just does not really apply to a 'Gaia-like' structure like the GBR, whose existence is indefinite, till the environment in which it thrives, changes.

Many of these alleged disasters were suggested projections based on incomplete data - this has already been discussed in this thread WHY this happens and only those with an agenda to deny problems at any cost cause they are lazy or in the pay of someone else with an agenda to push and stick their heads up their arse keep bringing up this line.

As for the increased acidity situation, only the foolishly ignorant and lazy claim that there CAN be no problem. It IS of concern - true it may not happen, just like there may not be a drunken lunatic speeding thru every red light at every intersection that you drive thru, but only the fool would not watch out to see if there is, and be prepared to take avoiding action. We call this in Australia "Defensive Driving".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 May 10 - 03:01 PM

From: Amos - PM
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM

Those histrionic misguided exagerrations wer enot promulgated by scientists.

Carl Sagan discussed his involvement in the political nuclear winter debates and his erroneous global cooling prediction for the Gulf War fires in his book.

---

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

---

If the bees do not recover, or their numbers don't grow and they are in a weakened state, we could see a worst-case scenario," Jeff Pettis, the top bee scientist at the USDA, said."

---

On June 11th 2009 the World Health Organization declared the H1NI flu a pandemic.

---

15 March 2003
World Health Organization issues emergency travel advisory

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Spreads Worldwide

15 March 2003 | GENEVA -- During the past week, WHO has received reports of more than 150 new suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), an atypical pneumonia for which cause has not yet been determined. Reports to date have been received from Canada, China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Early today, an ill passenger and companions who travelled from New York, United States, and who landed in Frankfurt, Germany were removed from their flight and taken to hospital isolation.
Due to the spread of SARS to several countries in a short period of time, the World Health Organization today has issued emergency guidance for travellers and airlines. This syndrome, SARS, is now a worldwide health threat, said Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 29 May 10 - 12:31 PM

In 1964, "experts" were saying that the Great Barrier Reef was dying. Cause: DDT and other pesticides.

Later on, "experts" said the Reef was dying because of air polution and Acid Rain.

In the late 1970s, it was Global Cooling (aka coming of a new Ice Age) that would kill the Great Reef.

Now the "scientists" predict its demise from Global Warming.

Actually, Austrailia's Great Barrier Reef is just fine. It does have some dead spots, mostly caused by old age. Overall, it is in just about the same shape as it was before Europeans arrived. Go swimming and enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 May 10 - 10:55 AM

thanks Ft :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 10 - 08:17 AM

Thanks for posting that Freda - saw it the other night, but the PC is a bit flaky atm....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 May 10 - 01:32 AM

ON AN idyllic coral atoll just a two-hour boat ride from Queensland's Gladstone Harbour, out past the endless line of tankers queued to load coal for export, a half-dozen scientists work frantically against the tide. Their objective? To explore the Impact of climate change on reefs, including the consequences of rising atmospheric carbon - on the delicate chemistry of the reef and the creatures living there.

The project team, led by the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute, is completing tests on a new underwater laboratory that will expose living corals on the Great Barrier Reef to the more acidic conditions forecast for oceans by the end of the century. A Queensland University researcher tests the Barrier Reef laboratory that will expose corals to the more acidic conditions forcase for oceans by the end of the century.

Fathoming the effects of ocean acidification - the ''other'' carbon problem, one that emerged in scientific literature only a decade ago - has become one of the most urgent issues on the science agenda. The potentially diabolical consequences were highlighted in major briefing papers presented last week by the United States National Research Council to the US Congress and by the European Science Foundation to national leaders. The papers appealed to governments to give the issue priority for investigation and action.

The Heron Island experiment assumes a future with seawater twice as acidic as today, a more conservative take than published business-as-usual scenarios, which put the increase at 150 per cent by 2100. The question scientists are racing to answer is what a more acidic environment will mean for the tiny shelled zooplankton on which the marine food chain depends, and for the skeletons corals build into reefs.

The fear is that the change hits these creatures on two fronts - creating a more corrosive environment, and depleting stocks of building materials. ''If these organisms can't compensate for that … reef growth will slow until the reef superstructure begins to crumble.''

Meanwhile, he says, reefs are struggling with the effects of rising temperatures, which can trigger bleaching - when the stressed coral hosts expel the microscopic algae on which they rely for survival.
''Something as complex and broad a feature as coral reefs is now sickening and dying … This is really giving us a warning sign that maybe the whole basis of our dependence on this planet, the biological and ecological services, will change.''

seaweed for thought..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 May 10 - 07:59 AM

Thank you Ebbie, much appreciated.

and in the meantime, those pop psychofabulators applying complex pre-emptive psychology to analyse the motives of someone making an argument can in itself be a form of projection.

But what the hell.

Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear, but there is still substantial year to year variability of about plus/minus 0.5 °C.
Some areas have experienced a warming of 1.5 to 2 ºC over the last 50 years. Warming has occurred in all seasons, however the strongest warming has occurred in spring (about 0.9 °C) and the weakest in
summer (about 0.4 °C).

• The number of days with record hot temperatures has increased each decade over the past 50 years
• There have been fewer record cold days each decade
• 2000 to 2009 was Australia's warmest decade on record

- source: The Australian Bureau of Meteorology which has been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years, and the CSIRO which has been conducting atmospheric and marine research for over 60 years.


all the best,

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 May 10 - 06:49 AM

pdq

you seem to have conveniently closed mind.

Oh dear. Just when we were getting on so well.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 25 May 10 - 09:54 PM

Russia has been operating on the assumption that oil is abiotic (aka abiogenic) since WWII.

They are the second largest producers of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia.

For somebody who says: "While it's true that at least 99% of Extraordinary Claims are just as crazy as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without any investigation", you seem to have conveniently closed mind.

At least you read something I posted. The rest is out of my control.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 10 - 08:46 PM

pdq

Since LaGastropod does not appear capable of finding the article I suggested reading, here is a link:

My apologies, pdq. I am so used to people on this thread making broad assertions without any backup that I wrongly accused you of doing the same.

A fascinating article which I recommend that everybody reads. As an aside, it is said that if you follow the links of "I know somebody who knows somebody..." it only takes six steps to meet everyone in the world. It is delightful to discover that I am only two steps from Thomas Gold.

From the article we learn that a total of 80 barrels of (allegedly but disputedly) abiotic oil has been found in Sweden.

I'm rather losing track of why you raised the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 10 - 12:28 PM

LH, have you actually read any of the links that Martin or I provided?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 25 May 10 - 12:10 PM

Since LaGastropod does not appear capable of finding the article I suggested reading, here is a link:

                                                             Thomas Gold biography in Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 12:00 PM

Your fuzzy impression of mass memes is not the issue, though, LH. There is hard data, not marketing, behind most of the scietific assertions on this issue.

The only disagreement is on the evaluation of that hard data. Some facts are more important than others, and some factors are weightier than others in assessing a complex syndrome like climate change.

Sure, there is some smoke and mirrors being thrown into the mix by corporate mouthpieces, just as there was for example during the huge transition from popular smoking everywhere to no smoking inmost places.

But what do you think these scientists have to gain from asserting man-made global warming if the data did not actually support that interpretation? Cui bono?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 10 - 11:46 AM

One more thing...before someone jumps on it. I'm NOT saying that a vast number of people in government and media are in on some "conspiracy". It doesn't work that way in a power system that's set up like a pyramid....meaning that there are just a very few people at the very apex of the power pyramid, right at the top, who start the ball rolling on any false story. They know the real story. The rest of the people below them don't. The story could be the phony story about Saddam's Iraqi soldiers pulling babies in Kuwait out of incubators, for example. Somebody in the USA government, probably someone in the CIA, cooked up that story. They got the daughter of a high Kuwaiti official to bear false witness to it. From that point on the story was disseminated down through all levels of the world media and it was believed by hundreds of millions of people AND by Amnesty International (who later admitted to having been fooled), but the media people themselves were all fooled by the story, so they were NOT co-conspirators. The vast majority of people in a pyramidal power system simply pass a story or an order on down the chain of command without questioning it, and they do so in all innocence. Almost none of them realize if it's a false story or a wrongful command.

And that is how it's done...by usually just a handful of well-placed people who start the ball rolling. If the propaganda is efficiently dispensed, then virtually everyone will believe it, and they will NOT consciously be members of a conspiracy at all...but they will unwittingly make that conspiracy go forward anyway. That is how you succeed with propaganda. You only have to fool most of the people most of the time...and it works like a charm.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 10 - 11:43 AM

Neatly illustrating my point, pdq didn't provide any argument or evidence about abiotic oil. Read and inwardly learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 10 - 11:33 AM

Sorry, I should have addressed TheSnail in that last post...not Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 10 - 11:31 AM

Yes, in 1918 they did, Martin. However, we have been subjected to repeated media scares for decades now about the latest flu, SARS, and various other ailments, and the scare always sells a vast amount of vaccine and other costly medications, but it never lives up to its advertising. I can't help but suspect that the major impetus behind it all is the fervent desire of the big pharmaceutical companies to sell product.

I don't know for sure about the manmade global warming theory. I have no way of knowing for sure. So I am not absolutely sure about anything when it comes to that.

But....I am very skeptical about virtually any major media campaign that we have shoved down our throats these days...whether it be alleged WMDs in Iraq, alleged nuclear weapons programs in Iran, the phony "Tonkin Gulf incident" (which didn't happen), the Iraqi soldiers killing babies by removing them from incubators (which didn't happen), H1N1 flu, manmade global warming and whatever the heck else they are trying to convince us of at any given time.

Why am I skeptical? Because we've been misled and lied to so many times already. Because we live in a society which is a vast marketing scheme, and we are deluged daily in disinformation of all kinds, mostly meant to manipulate us either into buying something...or supporting some political iniative...or voting for someone...or supporting a foreign war. We are told so many lies that it's simply incredible.

What I have witnessed since I was a boy has been the gradual transformation of my society into something resembling George Orwell's "1984" or Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"...only not in the guise of dour Stalin-like socialism....but in the guise of conspicuous consumption driven by capitalist corporate marketing.

I don't trust the mainstream sources of information in this society any longer. I barely trust them at all. I think they are usually pursuing some hidden agenda that's been passed down from above (sometimes it's not very well hidden), and they are achieving mass conformity and manufacturing "consensus" through controlling the flow of information via the news media (the main media outlets are now owned by a very few major business entities, and that allows centralized control as to what you hear about and how it is "massaged" before you hear it...as well as what you don't hear about).

The very fact that they've pushed this manmade global warming thing as hard as they have in the past decade is what makes me so suspicious about it.

But like I said, I have no way of being sure about it one way or another. I'm just quite suspicious of it, and that is all. I do think we are experiencing global warming, yes...but I think we're probably being misled as to just how and why it is occuring when it comes to our part in the picture. I might be right. I might be wrong. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 10 - 10:51 AM

You seem very sure that you are right about this, Little Hawk.

By the way, in 1918 20 million people died af a variant of the H1N1 flu virus.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 25 May 10 - 10:47 AM

The abiotic oil theory of crude oil generation is universally poopoo'd by science, business and political groups. All we need is for religious groups to attack it as "un-Godly".

Political groups see abiotic oil as undermining their Environmentalist stance, and oil producers want everyone to keep thinking that crude oil is in short supply, so they can works less and make more money by huges price increases. All trained geologists were taught that crude oil is a "fossil fuel" and most of them ain't going to budge from their schooling.

Go to the biography of the late Thomas Gold in Wikipedia. He was enigmatic, free-thinking and brilliant. The Wiki article also has a picture the life around an oceanic thermal plume.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 10 - 10:22 AM

It goes around and comes around, Martin. Sometimes the scientific establishment is right about something. Sometimes they are wrong about something. It is quite possible for a majority of scientists to back an invalid viewpoint which is later discredited, and it has happened numerous times. I think that is mainly because of human nature. One finds the same sort of stubbornness in any gathering of human beings, regardless of what are their qualifications. Once they've made their mind up about something, you challenge them at your peril. They may laugh at you. They may ostracize you. They may even threaten you. Or in extreme cases (seen in the fairly recent historical past) they may even torture you to force you to recant or they may kill you.

Why? Well, they're sure they're right! ;-) And when one is "right", then it's okay to find a means of silencing anyone who doesn't agree, right?

This is the essence of both peer pressure and conformity, and it occurs in every authoritative hierarchy that human beings have ever come up with, including the world of science.

Therefore I always keep in mind this possibility: a present scientific orthodoxy may be based on faulty premises.

Take, for example, the extraordinary media scare campaign we were all subject to regarding H1N1 flu last year. It turned out to be a tempest in a teapot...but it sure sold a lot of vaccine! Yessiree. Very profitable for certain people in the pharmaceutical community, wasn't it? I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" though...I'd call it a brilliantly orchestrated advertising program that made someone a huge amount of money, and that fooled and made use of the people in the professional medical community in the process. The vaccine probably made more people sick than the flu did, which is what usually happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Martin Harwood
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:59 AM

There was no global cooling "orthodoxy" in the 1970s

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 10 - 05:45 AM

Yes, LH, that's how science works. The link you give starts with "While it's true that at least 99% of Extraordinary Claims are just as crazy as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without any investigation."

Every new idea HAS to come under attack. It can only become part of the orthodoxy when it has proved itself sufficiently robust. Martin beat me too it on pointing out that Global warming has been through just such a process and, after over a hundred years, still is with ridicule and personal attacks being thrown at its supporters.

After new ideas become accepted, they tend not to be overthrown by direct attack but displaced by a new and better theory. For instance, newton's Theory of Gravity is, technically, wrong having been displaced by the Theory of Relativity but it's still good enough and rather easier to use in most circumstances.

beardedbruce's solar intensity might serve, but it has been considered for a couple of decades at least so don't expect anything dramatic soon. There might be something in pdq's undersea volcanoes as well but interestingly in doing a bit of Googling I came across this -

"A vast network of under-sea volcanoes pumping out nutrient-rich water in the Southern Ocean plays a key role in soaking up large amounts of carbon dioxide, acting as a brake on climate change, scientists say."

In both cases, it's not enough to say "It's obviously caused by Woozles. The whole scientific community have got it wrong." You need to present a reasoned case with some evidence to back it up.

It might be an idea if you spent more than 30 seconds on your own research. Following up some of the names on that list could be very instructive and you might find things are not as simple as suggested.

Fortuitously I stumbled on this Arrhenius Greenhouse_effect. This is covered by "In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea." in Martin's link. Perhaps they couldn't spell his name.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Martin Harwood
Date: 25 May 10 - 04:30 AM

LH you could of course add to that list the greenhouse effect and climate change. Lone voices were talking about it in the late 19th early 20th century and ignored or ridiculed by the wider scientific community who eventually accepted it as orthodox science.
this history of climate change science

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 11:34 PM

And by the way, here is a page specifically devoted to listing a whole series of valid scientific discoveries that were initially ridiculed by the general science community. It wasn't hard to find...took me all of 30 seconds on Google. It illustrates my point perfectly.

Read and enjoy:


Historic science discoveries that were met with ridicule....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 11:12 PM

"The orthodoxy of the 1970's was overthrown by further research."

Correct. Every invalid scientific orthodoxy is eventually overthrown. Some last far longer than others, though. The present one about manmade global warming may be invalid too. If it is, it will eventually be overthrown.

Simply study science history in the western world. Look up the story of a number of new and revolutionary scientific notions that were advanced by some lone scientist. Observe how often the general scientific community pooh-poohed, rejected, ridiculed, and ostracized those who came forward with a radical new theory that challenged an old orthodoxy. It's a story that has been repeated many times in all human authority structures, not just in the science community. The truth, however, prevails in the end, because it finally becomes undeniable. I trust it will prevail in this case too, but I don't have a crystal ball with which to predict how it will go with absolute certainty. If I did, I'd be infallible. ;-) And I don't think any of us are.

Agreed?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 08:04 PM

""There are some theories, though, that seem to become sacrosanct in the science community during certain historical periods."

Give us examples. "


ANSWER:

Global Cooling in the 1970's.


Global warming in the early 2000's.


Global Climate change now.




8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 May 10 - 07:11 PM

beardedbruce

Global Cooling in the 1970's.


Global warming in the early 2000's.

Just so. The orthodoxy of the 1970's was overthrown by further research. Precisely the opposite of what Little Hawk is saying.


Global warming in the early 2000's.

Global Climate change now.

What "sacrosanct" theory was "completely discredited" by this broadening of the terminology?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:36 PM

Global Cooling in the 1970's.


Global warming in the early 2000's.


Global Climate change now.




8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:34 PM

Little Hawk

You are making sweeping generalistions which show little respect for the intelligence or integrity of scientists without producing any evidence of what you mean.

There are some theories, though, that seem to become sacrosanct in the science community during certain historical periods....

Give us examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:18 PM

Yes, TheSnail, I realize that scientists are often quite competitive, and would enjoy disproving another scientist's theory. ;-) No doubt about that. There are some theories, though, that seem to become sacrosanct in the science community during certain historical periods....yet they become completely discredited later on. Interesting how that happens. I don't think there's just one simple explanation for why it does.


As you say, if a majority of them agree on something it may well be right. Indeed. And yet...sometimes it has proven not to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:12 PM

We're all deficient in something, Amos. ;-)

My point was, however, that it's not uncommon in the science community or the medical community or any other highly trained professional community that a majority of its members will enthusiastically back a current (scientific) orthodoxy, and will interpret evidence from that mental perspective and will stubbornly hold the line against an unorthodox viewpoint and even ridicule it. It has happened again and again in the past, and I'm sure it will happen in the future too.

Police investigators tend to do the same thing once they have decided they've "got their man"...and that's why a good number of innocent people have been imprisoned and even executed for crimes they did not commit.

It happens.

There are times when the vast majority of qualified practitioners in any professional field will determinedly back a viewpoint that later proves to be false. A majority can be wrong.

And that is what I was alluding to. It may prove to be the case in regards to the manmade global warming theory too.

I agree with you that scientists are better trained to avoid making that sort of error than the layman is...but that doesn't mean they are immune to it. They too are under peer pressure, and it operates at levels that are instinctive and hierarchical as well as emotional.

People can believe anything...if they want to. And if they believe it, well, then they will interpret the available evidence to support their belief. And they won't even realize how subjective they are being while they do it, because they are not usually conscious of their own subjectivity...only of that of people with whom they disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:10 PM

Thanks Ebbie. For a horrible moment I had thought you were taking me seriously.

Little Hawk fails to realise that scientists, on the whole, hate each other and are desperate to find ways of proving each other wrong. This is good. It's what makes science work.

The corollary is that if they agree on something in large numbers, it may well be right.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:00 PM

LH:

Your sweeping theory of human patterns is, I am sorry to say, deficient.

Scientists are not blindly emotive line-joiners, as a rule, and they tend to inspect data for flaws as their instinctive approach is to disprove things.

Mob think is a tendency because a lot of people don't have the discipline of thought or the education to avoid it. Scientists do it to some degree but are professionally far more proofed up against it than we humanists.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 10 - 05:56 PM

OK, The Snail.

Well done, Snail.

Well done, Bearded Bruce.
(Not very often does bb use humor, so I wanted to acknowledge it.)


:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 02:59 PM

Come to think of it, here's what I suggest to people who want to learn to debate other people in a sensible and rational manner.

Resist the temptation your ego throws up in front of your mind to begin the debate with the assumption that the other person is:

an idiot
a fanatic
a Nazi
a moron
a fascist
a fool
a communist
a racist
a hypocrite
a liar
a moron
a cheat
an evil person
a scumbag
someone who is always wrong
a loser

and most of all (drum roll....)

someone who believes something patently stupid that you would like him to believe so that you can be right and he can be wrong....

That last one is a very common strategem in use by most egos who argue. They assume that the other guy believes something idiotic that they just thought of. "He MUST believe something idiotic, after all, because he isn't agreeing with ME!"

Avoid all of the above negative assumptions, begin the debate with respect for the other person, and begin prepared to admit that the other person may also be a sentient being with some reasonable ideas, and might even be RIGHT about something....and THEN you might actually have a debate worth having.

Otherwise, you're just another yapping ego blowing off steam at somene else's expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 May 10 - 02:55 PM

Ebbie

(Well done, Snail and BeardedBruce.:)

I'm not sure that I want to be congratulated for anything in the same breath as BB.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 02:32 PM

"I know quite a few of these guys and the idea that they are part of some global conspiracy would be insulting if it wasn't so laughable."

Martin, I doubt that anyone is suggesting that the vast majority of scientists who support the theory of anthropmorphically caused global warming are part of a global conspiracy. I'm certainly not. When a popular idea is well-marketed by a few authoritative people in high places, and that idea becomes part of present orthodoxy...the vast majority of scientists and other people figure that it is right. They line up onside. They interpret existing information to support the idea, and they search diligently for any further evidence which appears to support the idea. They look skeptically on anything which doesn't appear to support the idea, and often simply dismiss it out of hand or re-interpret it to fit what they want to believe.

This is what people do. And that is why virtually all of Christendom once accused thousands of people of witchcraft and burned them at the stake. It was a part of their present orthodoxy. And that's why Galileo was forced to recant. He went against present orthodoxy. And that's why the world of science has often backed a completely erroneous theory for decades or even generations, and scoffed at anyone who challenged it. Because anyone who challenged it went against present orthodoxy, and that is not tolerated by most people, including in the world of science. There is much historical evidence to support what I say about that.

Now, there has been a very well organized media and science campaign for over a decade to promote the idea of human-caused global warming. That has its own weight of orthodoxy by now, and people tend to believe and support the orthodox, and so do scientists. In the case of the scientists, they go looking for evidence that further supports the theory...and they always find it. (even if the theory is wrong) Why? Because that's the evidence they're looking for! They don't tend to look for other evidence that doesn't support the theory, because they're not inclined to.

The Christian Church found all kinds of compelling "evidence" to prove their accusations of witchcraft...and virtually everyone believed it at the time (except for the accused and their close friends and relatives). The "evidence" was not real evidence at all, but it certainly appeared to be absolutely real evidence to those who wanted to believe it was.

You want to believe that the current theory of manmade global warming is correct. Fine. But it still may be a wrong theory anyway, and there's evidence that suggests that.

One thing that is very clear is that we ARE experiencing climate change, and we are experiencing global warming...but I doubt that man's activities are a major cause of it. I have reasons for doubting it, just like you have reasons for believing it. Either one of us may be right or may be wrong...but you are trailing around a red herring (or a straw man) in suggesting that critics of the present theory think that your 1700 scientists who signed that paper are all in some giant conspiracy. They don't have to be in a conspiracy to line up behind a popular idea, for heaven's sake.

I don't call it a conspiracy at all. I call it conventional thinking that is driving a presently popular theory...period. That presently popular theory may turn out to be a mistaken one in time.

Regardless of whether it does or not, we still must deal with the global warming that is happening ANYWAY....so what the heck is everybody trying to prove here, just prove that you are "right" in saying it's manmade and that anyone who doesn't say so is a heretic????? If so, why? Is it that important to be "right" and have someone else be wrong, just so you can feel superior or something?

If I can judge by most people's behaviour in these sort of debates...it is. ;-) I think it's a giant battle of egos that is going on here.

And the real truth is, not one of us here knows for certain whether the current theory of manmade global warming is correct or not. We may think we know...but we don't. We just have opinions about it, and that is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:47 AM

Question: Since the impacts of climate change are, and will continue to be, global, what about the rest of the world? I know that I have read discussions taking place in the UK but are others as concerned as we are?

(Well done, Snail and BeardedBruce.:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:40 AM

"The effort to combat global warming has flagged as other crises have commanded the attention of politicians and the public. New reports from the National Academy of Sciences offer persuasive evidence that it would be folly to put off dealing with the problem any longer.

Editorial Series
Climate Change
We hope the reports will jolt the United States Senate into moving forward on an energy and climate bill. They provide an authoritative rebuttal to skeptics in the Senate and industry who have pounced upon small errors in the 2007 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to suggest that the whole thing is a hoax.

The academy's conclusion is clear: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." The reports acknowledge that while the magnitude of these risks — sea level rise, drought, disease, the destruction of marine- and land-based ecosystems — are difficult to predict, society would be wise to move swiftly and aggressively to minimize them.

The academy says that between 2012 and 2050 the nation should produce no more than a total of 200 billion tons of greenhouse gases, ideally considerably less. (At the current rate of seven billion tons a year, the country would produce 266 billion tons.) The longer we wait to begin reducing emissions, the academy adds, the harder and more costly it will be to reach the target. It recommends putting a price on emissions as well as investments in energy efficiency, alternative fuels and developing cleaner technologies.

A bill that would give this country a decent shot at achieving these goals passed the House last year. A companion bill, recently introduced in the Senate, is going nowhere. Indeed, the Senate continues to flirt with a retrograde proposal introduced by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska that would undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

That authority will become even more important if Congress fails to act. That the Senate would even think of undercutting it is astonishing. "

Perhaps the New York Times, which published the above editorial, is too easily astonished at human perfidy and obtusity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:32 AM

Snailk,

No, the increase of political spendingg is causing more energy to be generated and used, which increases the hot air from Washington. This is the only and triue cause of solar warming, and any who disagree are idiots, naysayers, and just plain ignorant. I have a whole list of emminent ex-congresscritters who will testify at length ( for a large fee) that this is so.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 May 10 - 07:43 AM

Can I just get this clear?

Is the increase in solar activity causing the increase in undersea volcanic activity on Earth which is causing the changes on Jupiter and Mars or are the changes in the Red Spot causing the increase in undersea volcanic activity on Earth which is causing the melting of the Martian ice caps?

I think that when we've got that cleared up, we can start moving towards a solution. (Move to Mars?)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 10 - 12:34 PM

PDQ -- are you proposing that the increase in global temperatures is caused by itchy volcanic action?

If so are you asserting the increase in volcanic action is sufficient to account for it?

Actually, interestingly the second great blowout of Krakatoa, between Java and Sumatra in Indonesia, occurred around the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1883. e explosions were so violent that they were heard 3,500 km (2,200 mi) away in Perth, Western Australia and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, 4,800 km (3,000 mi) away.[5] The pressure wave from the final explosion was recorded on barographs around the world, which continued to register it up to 5 days after the explosion. The recordings show that the shockwave from the final explosion reverberated around the globe 7 times in total.[9] Ash was propelled to a height of 80 km (50 mi).

An earlier eruption of the same volcano, it is thought, in 535 was (coincidentally) the final death-knell of the Roman empire.   According to some reports the eruption was so loud it was recorded as having been heard in China.   

But the explosion of Krakatoa in the nineteenth century actually depressed worldwide temperature readings for two or so years.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 23 May 10 - 10:56 AM

Antarctica

"The Pacific Ring of Fire is completed in the south by the continent of Antarctica, which includes many large volcanoes. The makeup and structure of the volcanoes in Antarctica change largely from the other places around the ring. In contrast, the Antarctic Plate is almost completely surrounded by extensional zones, with several mid-ocean ridges which encircle it, and there is only a small subduction zone at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, reaching eastward to the remote South Sandwich Islands. The most well known volcano in Antarctica is Mount Erebus, which is also the world's southernmost active volcano. In many respects the geology of the Antarctic Peninsula is an extension of the Andes, hence the name sometimes used by geologists: "Antarctandes". At the opposite side of the continent, the volcanoes of Victoria Land may be seen as the 'other end' of the Antarctandes, thus completing the Pacific Ring of Fire and continuing up through the Balleny Islands to New Zealand.

The volcanoes of the Victoria Land area are the most well-known in Antarctica, most likely because they are the most accessible. Much of Victoria Land is mountainous, developing the eastern section of the Transantarctic Mountains, and there are several scattered volcanoes including Mount Overlord and Mount Melbourne in the northern part. Farther south are two more well-known volcanoes, Mount Discovery and Mount Morning, which are on the coast across from Mount Erebus and Mount Terror on Ross Island. The volcanism in this area is caused by rifting along a number of rift zones increasing mainly north-south similar to the coast.

Marie Byrd Land contains the largest volcanic region in Antarctica, covering a length of almost 600 miles (960 km) along the Pacific coast. The volcanism is the result of rifting along the vast West Antarctic Rift, which extends from the base of the Antarctic Peninsula to the surrounding area of Ross Island, and the volcanoes are found along the northern edge of the rift. Protruding up through the ice are a large number of major shield volcanoes, including Mount Sidley, which is the highest volcano in Antarctica. Although a number of the volcanoes are relatively young and are potentially active (Mount Berlin, Mount Takahe, Mount Waesche, and Mount Siple), others such as Mount Andrus and Mount Hampton are over 10 million years old, yet maintain uneroded constructional forms. The desert-like surroundings of the Antarctic interior, along with a very thick and stable ice sheet which encloses and protects the bases of the volcanoes, which decreases the speed of erosion by an issue of perhaps a thousand relative to volcanoes in moist temperate or tropical climates."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 May 10 - 10:06 AM

freda underhill, thanks for the decisive refutation of pdq's contention. Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 May 10 - 08:35 AM

Good one, Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Martin Harwood
Date: 23 May 10 - 08:18 AM

Not sure this has been flagged before. It's a letter signed by 1700 UK scientists . I know quite a few of these guys and the idea that they are part of some global conspiracy would be insulting if it wasn't so laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 May 10 - 07:49 AM

meanwhile, back at the ranch...

The impacts of warming temperatures in Antarctica are likely to occur first in the northern sections of the continent, where summer temperatures approach the melting point of water, 32�F (0�C). Some ice shelves in the northernmost part of Antarctica—the Antarctic Peninsula—have been collapsing in recent years, consistent with the rapid warming trend there since 1945. Scientists are also concerned about future changes in the large West Antarctic ice sheet on the main continent because its collapse could raise sea level by as much as 19 feet (5.8 meters).

Fingerprints
70. Antarctic Peninsula -- Warming 5 times global average. Since 1945, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of about 4.5�F (2.5�C). The annual melt season has increased by 2 to 3 weeks in just the past 20 years.

73. Antarctica -- Ice shelf disintegration. The 770 square mile (1,994 km2) Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated suddenly in January 1995.

74. Antarctica -- Ice shelf breakup. After 400 years of relative stability, nearly 1,150 square miles (2,978 km2) of the Larson B and Wilkins ice shelves collapsed between March 1998 and March 1999.

122. Southern Ocean - Strong warming trend. Measurements from data recorders in the Southern Ocean waters around Antarctica show a 0.3�F (0.17�C) rise in ocean temperatures between the 1950s and the 1980s.

140. Antarctica - Decreasing Ice-thickness. The permanent ice cover of nine lakes on Signey Island has decreased by about 45% since the 1950s. Average summer air temperature has warmed by 1.8�F (1�C).

141. Antarctic Peninsula - Collapsing ice-shelf, January-February 2002. The northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf, an area of 1,250 square miles (3,250 km2), disintegrated in a period of 35 days. This was the largest collapse event of the last 30 years, bringing the total loss of ice extent from seven ice shelves to 6,760 square miles (17,500 km2) since 1974. The ice retreat is attributed to the region�s strong warming trend - 4.5�F (2.5�C) in the last 50 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 May 10 - 06:52 AM

well, Mudcat is hospitable to all sorts of life, and let the debate rage on :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 10 - 03:39 PM

About 3/4 of all volcanic activity occurs under the ocean so that most people do not know it is happening.

The Pacific Ring of Fire has been unusually active in the last 20 years or so and it accounts for about 3/4 of all such activity world-wide.

The heat from submarine volcanic activities warms the ocean, and since the heat rises, it warms the surface area most.

This activity produces in increase in atmospheric water vapor, a "greenhouse gas".

It also softens the ice in Antarctica, at least the ice located over ocean water. The ice covering the Antarctic land mass has not changed in recent years.

Here is a statement about hydrothermal vents, a continuous release of heat underwater:

"A hydrothermal vent is a lot like an underwater geyser. Sea water seeps down into the cracks and fissures created by the spreading of the sea floor, sometimes as much as two or three miles into the earth's crust. As the water comes into contact with the veins and channels of superheated, molten magma, the sea water is superheated. Then the hotter sea water rises to the surface back through the fissures, carrying with it minerals leached from the crustal rock below. The superheated seawater then spews out of the holes in the crust, rising quickly above the colder, denser waters of the deep ocean. As the hot seawater and the cold seawater meet, the minerals suspended in the hot water precipitate out (clump together and drop out) right at the vent opening. This causes an accumulation, or build up, of the minerals deposited by the mineral rich water into some fantastic and geologically unique formations that have come to be called chimneys. One giant smoker discovered in 1991 reached 15 stories high!

Scientists have gone down to explore and study these deep ocean hydrothermal vents and were completely surprised to find the areas immediately around the vents teeming with abundant life. The temperature of the water coming out of the vents has been measured at the source and it varies from just 68 degrees to as much as 600 degrees Fahrenheit. At sea level, water reaches the boiling point at 225 degrees Fahrenheit, but down in the deep ocean around hydrothermal vents where the water can reach well over the boiling point, the water coming out of the vents doesn't boil! What prevents the scalding hot seawater from boiling (turning into vapor) is the extreme hydrostatic pressure of all the overlying water. What surprised scientists was that there was an entire ecosystem, a community of diverse life forms, absolutely thriving in conditions that were previously thought to be inhospitable to any kind of life."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 10 - 02:19 PM

ScienceDaily (May 21, 2010) Ñ The upper layer of the world's ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet.

"We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off," said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA's Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper ocean from 1993 to 2008.

The team combined the estimates to assess the size and certainty of growing heat storage in the ocean. Their findings are published in the May 20 edition of the journal Nature. The scientists are from NOAA, NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom, the University of Hamburg in Germany and the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan.
"The ocean is the biggest reservoir for heat in the climate system," said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the scientists who contributed to the study. "So as the planet warms, we're finding that 80 to 90 percent of the increased heat ends up in the ocean."

A warming ocean is a direct cause of global sea level rise, since seawater expands and takes up more space as it heats up. The scientists say that this expansion accounts for about one-third to one-half of global sea level rise.

Combining multiple estimates of heat in the upper ocean -- from the surface to about 2,000 feet down -- the team found a strong multi-year warming trend throughout the world's ocean. According to measurements by an array of autonomous free-floating ocean floats called Argo as well as by earlier devices called expendable bathythermographs or XBTs that were dropped from ships to obtain temperature data, ocean heat content has increased over the last 16 years.

The team notes that there are still some uncertainties and some biases.
"The XBT data give us vital information about past changes in the ocean, but they are not as accurate as the more recent Argo data," said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. "However, our analysis of these data gives us confidence that on average, the ocean has warmed over the past decade and a half, signaling a climate imbalance."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 10 - 02:07 PM

"Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas...it is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon."

For Christ's sake, folks, methane in only 1.7 parts per billion in the Earth's atmosphere.

It has no effect on global atmospheric temperature that we can measure.

It does not take a background in science, such as chemistry, to figure that out. It takes common sense.

Water vapor is a "greenhouse gas" that can approach concentrations of near 5% over the tropical oceans on a nice warm day. H₂O swamps all other "greenhouse gasses" and we (people) have little to do with its concentration.

The figure of 1^o F rise in temperature over the last 100 years is almost universally accepted by GW hawkers and skeptics alike. It is part of the normal cycle of changes and is so small as to be harmless.

The average temps have actually dropped steadily since 1998 and that 1^o F will, in a few decades, be reversed.

This whole GW scare is a crock.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 10 - 05:33 AM

beardedbruce

0.74 degrees over the last 100 years...

From the Stanford Solar Centre -

"The difference between global temperatures during an Ice Age and an ice-free period is only about 5ºC."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 May 10 - 12:22 AM

Mighty day..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 06:45 PM

Methane and water vapor are far more effective greenhouse gasses than C02- but the Goreists can't make as much money, nor grab as much power going after them.

0.74 degrees over the last 100 years...


Lets destroy our civilization in order to stop this!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 May 10 - 06:41 PM

now that's not a global info campaign, it's a well funded attack.

I go with the views of Australia's government scientific agency, the CSIRO, which notes on its website:

•Global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74 ºC over the past century
•Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased since 1750, and now exceed pre-industrial levels
•There is greater than 90 per cent likelihood that most of the global warming seen since the mid 20th-century is due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
•Sea level is projected to rise further by the end of this century

It's tough not being a climate change denier, because there's no justifiable reason to avoid responsibility. But there are things that can be done.

Three universities in the UK have jointly published a study Methane and Climate change on methane which notes:

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and is estimated to be responsible for approximately one-fifth of man-made global warming. Per kilogram, it is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon.

Previous books on climate change have tended to neglect the topic, instead focusing on carbon dioxide. This book shows how numerous point sources of methane have the potential to be more easily addressed than sources of carbon dioxide and therefore contribute significantly to the climate change mitigation in the 21st century.

There is hope, thanks to the work of scientists who shine a light in the dark of political ignorance. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 21 May 10 - 01:21 PM

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ

Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. (Click here for the just-released Senate Environment and Public Works report behind Inhofe's announcement.)

February 23, 2010
- by Charlie Martin

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

"In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted," Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today's hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency's Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway "purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state attorneys general (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration's attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report "strengthens the case" for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general.

Senator Inhofe's announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:
        1         The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
        2         They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
        3         They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the "consensus."
        4         They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:
        1         It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
        2         It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
        3         The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be "let go" from their posts "for the good of the institutions involved."

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration's stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 21 May 10 - 12:41 PM

...more about the 255 NAS politically-motivated scientists:


by WALTER E. WILLIAMS
Syndicated columnist

Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article "Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics," [March 5] tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics. "Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of 'being treated like political pawns' and need to fight back ..." Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Erlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times said, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules."

Professor Thomas Sowell's most recent book, "Intellectuals and Society," has a quote from Eric Hoffer, "One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation." Environmentalist Professor Paul Erlich, who's giving advice to the warmers, is an excellent example of Hoffer's observation. Ehrlich in his widely read 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," predicted, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." Erlich also predicted the earth's then-5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025. In 1969, Dr. Erlich warned Britain's Institute of Biology, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Despite these asinine predictions, Erlich has won no less than 16 awards, including the 1980 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' highest award.

Stanford University professor and environmentalist activist Stephen H. Schneider is another scientist involved in the warmer retaliation. In a 1989 Discover Magazine interview, Professor Schneider said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, now president of the United Nations Foundation, in 1990 said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In National Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, "... the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

George Woodwell's, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, comments suggest that the warmers are gearing up for a big propaganda push. In one of his e-mails, Woodwell said that researchers have been ceding too much ground. He criticized Pennsylvania State University for their academic investigation of Professor Michael Mann, who wrote many of the e-mails leaked from the Britain's now disgraced Climate Research Unit. Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article reports, "In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking 'an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach' but said scientists have had their 'classical reasonableness' turned against them," adding, "'We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths.'"

Fortunately, for the American people, Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants have falsified data. He has identified 17 taxpayer-supported scientists who have been major players in the global warming conspiracy.

 

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 21 May 10 - 11:42 AM

Within the last two weeks, a group of 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences came out with an unusually nasty attack on people they called "global warming deniers".

If "the majority of scientists" support the "global warming alarmist" side, why did they get only 255 members to agree? The National Academy of Sciences has at least 2000 active members in the U.S. The ones mentioned represent only about 12% of total.

Just for fun, I checked the background of six of the 255 listed. They were called "some of the most esteemed climate scientists in the country", but the ones I checked were an entomologist, an anthropologist, a research biologist, a member of Dr. Leaky's archiology team, ect. No climate experts at all in my random sample.

What they represnt are Left-wing activists who see GW as reinforcing all their political beliefs about business, Capitalism, and a host of other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 May 10 - 09:51 AM

OK you global warming deniers. You can go on ignoring the majority of scientists who know what they're talking about or you can go back to the Flat Earth Society. You can ignore
gravity and the Heliocentric view of the world, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 May 10 - 07:24 AM

Of course it's due to man made gases. And the ones responsible, the big polluters, have emitted a global info campaign to the contrary (easier than having to clean up their act).

and the world's flat..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 08:41 PM

beardedbruce

Yet you still claim it is all due to man-made greenhouse gasses.

Do I? Please show me where I have made any such claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:31 PM

Ebbie,

The temperature increase of the wildest claims is just a few degrees over the next hundred years- I think Midstate NY will be more than cool enough.

Flooding is more of a problem, so I am moving up a thousand feet or so ( MD coastal plain to Mohawk Vally ( Susquehanna headwaters) The largest rise in sea level ( if the ice melts EVERYWHERE) is under 8 ft.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:28 PM

Bruce, I have never heard anyone claim that it's "all due to manmade greenhouse gasses'. That has never been the contention, rather, we talk about the people-caused exacerbation of what may be a natural cycle. Conceivably the natural cycle was/is survivable, man's added effects may not be.

And I don't think that anywhere in New York state will be far enough north...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:19 PM

Snail,

Changes to the climates of Mars and Jupiter, as well as the Earth.

Martian icecaps are observed to be melting, for the first time in history ( several hundred years of observations)

The Red spot on Jupiter has recently been changing, for the first time in 3 to 4 hundred years. In addition, there has been a major change in that a whole band has disappeared.


Yet you still claim it is all due to man-made greenhouse gasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM

beardedbruce

Previously -

If the sun, which is a variable star, has changed t's output, as all evidence indicates, it is a waste of effort, and futile, to expect any changes in MAN-MADE greenhouse gases to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE

Later -

Also, since we have accurate data on solar output only over the last 35 years or so, and several solar cycles are thought to be 100- 600 year cycles, the conclusion thst there is no correlation is a bit... premature?

Er, so what is the evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:46 PM

What was offensive, TIA? Did you think something was deleted? The only posts deleted from this thread were no-name Guest posts.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:29 PM

Wow. Somebody found that offensive?!? I was even logged in as me. Oh well, at least I don't SHOUT in every post.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:02 PM

1300.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:01 PM

"are you suggesting that everyone, residents and businesses, should be forced to leave coastal cities and move farther north, hopscotching over. into and among the people already there "


BTW, I've bought property in upstate NY ( 300+ miles north, and inland) to build into a home to retire to in 14 years. I don't believe in FORCING anyone else- but I will take steps for my own safety

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 05:32 PM

Ebbie,

And if it is going to happen in 50 years, wouldn't it be a good idea to look at it NOWE, and try to make it as easy as possible, instead of making falsde promises to prevent it, and cause a war in 30 years or so????


I DO NOT KNOW how to adapt- but at least I am willing to consider that we should be looking at the problem instead of ignoring it and hiding my head in the sand.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 10 - 05:21 PM

Bruce, by 'adapting', are you suggesting that everyone, residents and businesses, should be forced to leave coastal cities and move farther north, hopscotching over. into and among the people already there or just to install air conditioning or build subterranean cities or are you perhaps advocating installing domes over cities or all of the above?   Or do you think that buying more shorts and sandals would do it?

Some continents, of course, will have to be abandoned and the people of the north will have to move over to accommodate the influx of the millions coming in. Fortunately, that will mean lots of jobs.

It's going to be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 May 10 - 03:52 PM

No Bruce. You are wrong (not entirely, but you are conflating and obscuring very cleverly). But I am not going to correct you. Your use of capitals makes you too annoying to converse with. And, I don't need to prove my point to you. I get to prove it another batch of students during the summer term, and that will have a far larger effect on the futrue of Earth than wasting time responding to your shouting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:36 PM

Also, since we have accurate data on solar output only over the last 35 years or so, and several solar cycles are thought to be 100- 600 year cycles, the conclusion thst there is no correlation is a bit... premature?

WHen you show me solar output values from , say the last 1200 years, THEN you can try to claim the solar output is not significant.

Good Luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:31 PM

No, I have been working with satellite data since 1978, and have some idea of what it is saying.

The point is that IF GW was a problem, the PRIORITY should be to ADAPT to it. IF there is addition resources to waste, THEN we can work on possible means to reduce it- BUT UNTIL we have insured the saftey of PEOPLE we are wasting effort to try to prevent the tide from coming in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:26 PM

beardedbruce

"However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. "

Thirteen minutes to find one line that suited your position while totally ignoring everything else. Impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 01:50 PM

"However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. "


1975...



Gee, that is when we STARTED to get accurate SOLAR FLUX data from spacecraft.

HOW CAN YOU COMPARE it to earlier, Earth-based measurements? You have changes the instruments, and have to recalibrate to make any statements such as you are putting forward.


I have yet to see any serious look at why the DATA being used DOES NOT reflect the solar output, after 1150 years of doing so- The CO2 increase FOLLOWS the increase, and the increase itself is based on bogus values ( weather stations that 40 years ago were in an open field, and have been in a bank parking lot for the last 30 years or so, etc.)


IF THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING, why isn't ANYONE trying to ADAPT to it? ALL that the Politicions are doing is saying they can stop it IF we just do what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 01:37 PM

A bit more reading for you BB -

Google - solar variation global warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 12:17 PM

Snail,

"The UK's National Weather Service. A Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence, operating on a commercial basis under set targets."

No vested intersts there, I guess...



TIA,

CHeck those statements- they refer ( in the cases I looked at) to SOLAR SUNSPOTS, not to the LONG-TERM variability of the sun. If you think that is not significant, please refer to any period prior to the last 200,000 years, when the average temperatures were greater- and even YOU will have a problem blaming that on MAN-MADE greenhouse gasses.

So the explanation for the melting of the Martian ice cap, and the major changes ( after over 300 years of observed stability) of the atmosphere of Jupiter are ????

I think 300 years is greater than 120 years, but I presume you will correct me in order to prove your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 May 10 - 11:22 AM

The evidence in the scientific literature against Sol being a major contributor to recetn climate change can only be described as overwhelming. Here is a summary from SkepticalScience, which provides links to the papers themselves so you can read them rather than believing me or John Cook (even though he has a post-grad degree in Solar Physics)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


•Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
•Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
•Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
•Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
•Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
•Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
•Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
•Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
•Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
•Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
•Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
•Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
•Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
•Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
•Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
•Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 04:50 AM

According to Sawzaw here the US Department of Defense are issuing deliberately misleading evidence and according to beardedbruce above the UK Met Office, which is part of the Ministry of Defence, is a propaganda site. It would seem that the global military/industrial complex is part of the conspiracy. Of course we only have their word for it about the changes on Mars and Jupiter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 10 - 09:04 PM

"I did not see any explanation that includes the changes on Mars and Jupiter. Maybe this is just another propaganda site. "

When you act the fool in a serious discussion, don't complain when you are treated that way in all seriousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 May 10 - 08:23 PM

beardedbruce

I did not see any explanation that includes the changes on Mars and Jupiter. Maybe this is just another propaganda site.

Wow! You read the whole site in eleven mimutes? REEEESPECT!

Met Office: Who we are

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 10 - 07:55 PM

I did not see any explanation that includes the changes on Mars and Jupiter. Maybe this is just another propaganda site.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 May 10 - 07:44 PM

beardedbruce

The important thing about climate change caused by global warming is that nothing here has talked about the SOURCE OF THE WARMING.

Try this -
Met Office: Key climate change facts

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:13 PM

The important thing about climate change caused by global warming is that nothing here has talked about the SOURCE OF THE WARMING.

If the sun, which is a variable star, has changed t's output, as all evidence indicates, it is a waste of effort, and futile, to expect any changes in MAN-MADE greenhouse gases to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE- Yet that is what is being pushed.

The need is to ACCOMODATE climate change, by adjusting to it, not by denying that it is going to happen regardless of what mankind does.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:07 PM

Link to a report on what Amos said on Science Daily. The important thing about climate change caused by global warming is that the warming is global, not local, and that local effects might very well NOT be warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:45 AM

Two separate sources of temperature data – the National Climatic Data Center and NASA – report that, through April, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded.


The climate center (NCDC) reports that the Earth's combined land and ocean average surface temperature from January-April was 56 degrees, which is 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average.

El Nino -- a periodic natural warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- is partly to blame for the unusual warmth.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies also reports that 2010, so far, is the warmest out of 131 years. Both NCDC and NASA use data that goes back to 1880.

Last month, NASA issued a report that predicted 2010 would likely end up as the warmest year on record, due to the combintation of global warming and El Nino. The report states that "a new record global temperature, for the period with instrumental measurements, should be set within the next few months as the effects of the recent and current moderate El Nino continue."

In the USA, the weather so far this year has been very odd, with the three northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) having their warmest year on record, while Florida shivers through its coldest year ever.

April itself was also unusually warm, as the Earth had its warmest April on record.

The climate center says that warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe in April, with the most prominent warmth in Canada, Alaska, the eastern United States, Australia, South Asia, northern Africa and northern Russia. Cooler-than-normal places included Mongolia, Argentina, far eastern Russia, the western contiguous United States and most of China.

(USA Today Science)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 May 10 - 08:07 AM

"MUST be due to man-made CO2, right???"

When you act the fool in a serious discussion, don't complain when you are treated that way in all seriousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:59 AM

Re the sea ice - all science is based on 'best guesses', and then scrabbling around (while the know all ignorant fools laugh at them) trying to find out what they didn't know and what assumptions were wrong. It now appears that the gadgets used to make measurements of sea ice didn't exactly work the way they thought they did - this is scientific progress, and why it is best not to go rushing headlong down paths that may kill us long term, eg why some scientists were highly antagonistic re nuclear things that go bang, and things that just sizzled...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:56 PM

Holding my breath...
Can't...hold...much...longer....aaachhhh.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 May 10 - 10:23 PM

That is a nice cherry pick Dunning-Kroger. Now let's look at ice volume versus ice areal extent. I am sure you can find a plot of volume versus time, but I bet you will not be posting a link to that in this thread.

But, I will wait....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:59 PM

Sawzaw

For example, Al Gore and Pachauri.

ANd, presumably, according to your previous post, the Department of Defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:16 PM

"Yes, I am well aware that the oil companies will oppose anything they think threatens their financial interests, and will lie and cheat and spread false propaganda. And so will other people too"

For example, Al Gore and Pachauri.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:47 PM

"Human activities, however, ARE a major factor in causing massive environmental damage to topsoil, forests, waterways, oceans, the air we breathe, animal and plant species, and our own health!!!!

Well,have you not considered that all those human impacts you noted has an impact on climate? For exammple, the ocean, which pepresents the big part of the Earths surface, is a major player in climate...and even more so than terrestrial surfaces. Phytoplankton, produced at the ocean surface takes up atmospheric carbon,and the ocean stores it, in cases for thousands of years. The oceans have a tremendous capacity to absorb and store atmospheric heat. Global cceans circulation and currents transfer heat from one area of the Earth to others. Evaporating sea water is an important part of our hydrological cycle and weather generation (just look at El Nino). Human influences on the ocean can have a major impact on climate, and many of these aspects are inter-related and can (and, likely is) impacted by broad based human activities. Generally, we treat our waterways and seas as garbage dumps.

Not that long ago, fishermen and the public said we could never make a impact on global fish stocks....because they were so vast and had a limitless capacity to adjust to right our wrongs. Well, they were wrong and many major fish stoocks have either seriously declined, or are decimated. Just look at the ulf of Mexico today and say humans have no negative impact on important ecosystems that can have many far field effects.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:33 PM

"According to the data at JAXA, as of 4/23/10, there was 4.69% more Arctic sea ice (13649531 km2) than the 2003-2009 average (13038058 km2)"   Just how far down did these folks look in the Arctic ocean, hod did they measure the thickness and quality of the ice? ... What seems to occur on the Arctic sea surface (speculated in an office from satellite ovservation) is only a small part of the whole story of how much sea ice is in the arctic and what state it is actually in...as noted from scientific research I posted a day or so ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 May 10 - 02:22 PM

Interesting, Sawzaw. What do you conclude from this fascinating information?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:30 PM

More "random, cherry picked" data:

Will a tour of the North Pole by dog sledge be possible?
JAXA Aug 11, 2005:

...Last year, scientists of the Department of Defense issued a drastic prediction that the whole sea ice of the Arctic Ocean may melt away during the summer of the year 2010...

---

According to the data at JAXA, as of 4/23/10, there was 4.69% more Arctic sea ice (13649531 km2) than the 2003-2009 average (13038058 km2).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:48 PM

MUST be due to man-made CO2, right???

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:51 PM

Yeah, okay, TIA. I'm sure you have done your utmost to seek out reliable info. I have no problem with that. I'm not questioning your motives at all. I think you are absolutely sincere. And so am I.

I think all of us here are absolutely sincere in our statements about climate change.

Yes, I am well aware that the oil companies will oppose anything they think threatens their financial interests, and will lie and cheat and spread false propaganda. And so will other people too...I said before that I think there are people spreading disinformation on both sides of this particular issue, meaning people in high places.

I wasn't implying that those people were on Mudcat.

Sure...PM me your references. I'll take a look when I have time. Right now I really don't have a lot for the next few days, but I'll get to it presently.

Foolestroupe - I'm sure that human activities and cattle emissions have some effect on the climate. I never said they have no effect on it. I just don't think it's a major factor in causing climate change. Human activities, however, ARE a major factor in causing massive environmental damage to topsoil, forests, waterways, oceans, the air we breathe, animal and plant species, and our own health!!!! Those are matters that very much concern me.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:33 PM

LH-

This line struck me.

"We just make the best guesses or conclusions we can, based on a ton of stuff we've heard from the media and from various "authoritative sources""

I would never spout credentials because it only invites derision (and disbelief...we can all anoint ourselves as whatever the hell we want).

But, believe me, I do not get my "stuff" from the media, nor from authoritative sources. I get it from carefully placed and calibrated instruments, and from migration patterns, and the timing of reproductive cycles, and from isotopic ratios in the rock and ice record, and from quantitatively documented changes in the configuration of landforms.

All of this is not making me rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Sadly, as proud as you are of being non-conformist, and free-thinking, you have drunk the Kool-aid. You have joined the team of the true monied interests. I really don't know you except from your writings for the last ten years, but I am disheartened by your position on this issue. Perhaps you are disheartened by mine. Fair enough.

But then, I re-read this statement of yours, and I am restored:
"I laugh, because I know that NONE of us here know for 100 per cent certain"

Yup. Science is never 100% certain. 100% certainty in anything places it squarely outside the realm of science. Science is all about questioning authority. So, okay, now I am sad again, because you have bought the line paid for by EXXON, BP, Ashland Coal, etc. When I start making the profits they make, you can legitimately start to question my monetary motives. Deal?

BTW, the whole "it's the sun" thing has a mountain of evidence against it. If you are truly one to change their mind based on reading, I am happy to send the references (note, I did not say "post the links"; reading on the internet gaurantees bias).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:30 PM

"questioning how and why it is occuring, and suggesting that people are being misled on that basis by a huge media campaign that has focused primarily on human-created carbon emissions"

Questioning is how science works. I prefer a little basic logic - mankind - and his farming animals that produce various gases - have increased how many thousand times recently? To claim that could have zero effect just seems a little naive to me. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:17 PM

I understand that perfectly, Foolestroupe. I am NOT saying that global warming is not occuring. Neither are most of the other critics of the current most popular theory. I am questioning how and why it is occuring, and suggesting that people are being misled on that basis by a huge media campaign that has focused primarily on human-created carbon emissions...rather than solar effects upon Planet Earth.

We can't do anything about the Sun's behaviour. However, we can do something about helping present societies adapt to rapid climate change, and that is where our attention should be focused.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:05 PM

Australia is now in for a cold winter. The El Nino/El Nina cycle has now tipped again. The turbulence in the global system deceives those hear 'warm' in the term GW and do not under understand the science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:48 PM

Either one of us might be right or wrong about the primary or significant causes of global warming, TIA. ;-) I don't know for sure, because I'm not God. (I have not yet become infallible or ominiscient...)

My point was that most people never change their minds about anything at all....they just go on fanatically defending their original point of view forever and ever and despising and disparaging the opposing points of view forever and ever. Why? Well, because they've got sensitive little raging egos, that's why....and they couldn't possibly have ever been WRONG about something, could they????? Hell, no! They'd rather die than ever change their minds about anything, specially when it comes to political or social issues.

Accordingly, you will hear them beating the same old damned drums forever and ever. It's as predictable as the rain in Slough...    ;-D

I laugh, because I know that NONE of us here know for 100 per cent certain what we are talking about when it comes to global warming and what are its primary causes. We just make the best guesses or conclusions we can, based on a ton of stuff we've heard from the media and from various "authoritative sources" (who are working for we don't know whom...nor do we know what influence they are put under). We make the best guess or estimate we can...based on the partial (and often very biased) information we have been given.

Any one of us here may be right....or wrong...or partially right and partially wrong.

And I know it.

I also know that lying and propaganda are not limited to just one side of the common political divide (the Right and the Left). They happen all the time on BOTH sides of that political divide.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 May 10 - 09:28 PM

"The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers." Erich Fromm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 09:20 PM

"That is why the usual springtime tornado activity in the US this year is way below normal"

22 Today! 22 Today! 22 Today!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 May 10 - 07:43 PM

LH
Bully for you that you changed your mind. You may proudly wear that badge of honor.
Does that mean that you are in any fashion at all more likely to be correct?
Not bloody likely.
I am really happy you've done a lot of reading recently.
I have been doing Earth Science since the early 1980's and have zero, zip, nada monied interest in the outcome of the global warming debate.
But you have changed your mind, so I better think again.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 07:32 PM

"LH: I changed my mind based on a lot of reading I did"

That's cool, but when reactionary idiots set out to deliberately increase energy consumption by wastefully using more energy by running unneeded appliance, etc etc etc so as to deliberately counter efforts by those who are trying to reduce, it's just as puerile as the school yard bully... and gains little respect in the long run (typo alert: I had typed ruin)!!!.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 May 10 - 06:11 PM

(BTW, MY is multi year)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 May 10 - 02:37 PM

One can see (in a research summary below) how mistakes can and have been made in estimates of sea ice cover in the Arctic. People often quickly latch onto a first media report, (for example that Arctic sea ice is increasing) and make broad assumptions from that... then do not follow up on later research. In this case, further research shows that information from satellites were giving false readings. This often fuels comspiracy theories.

The perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009:
In situ observations from CCGS Amundsen indicate that the MY sea icescape in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as ubiquitous as it appeared in satellite remote sensing (Figure 1) in early September 2009. A large sector of what was remotely sensed to be MY sea ice at 7 to 9 tenths ice cover, consisting primarily of large to vast MY ice floes, was in fact a surface of heavily decayed ice composed of some small MY floes (1 tenth) interspersed in a cover dominated by heavily decayed FY floes (4 tenths) and overlain by new sea ice in areas of negative freeboard and in open water between floes. In some areas (e.g., stations L1 and MYI: Figure 1) the ocean surface was dominated in some areas by MY sea ice that was much thicker than the heavily decayed FY sea ice previously discussed. This case of mistaken identity is physically explained by the factors which contribute to the return to Radarsat-1 from the two surfaces; both ice regimes had similar temperature and salinity profiles in the near-surface volume, both ice types existed with a similar amount of open water between and within the floes, and finally both ice regimes were overlain by similar, recently formed new sea ice in areas of negative freeboard and in open water areas. The fact that these two very different ice regimes could not be differentiated using Radarsat-1 data or in situ C-band scatterometer or microwave radiometer measurements, has significant implications for climate studies

and for marine vessel navigation in the Canada Basin. The results also suggest that operational agencies (such as the CIS) should consider making ice decay a variable in their ice charts. The presence of this rotten ice regime in the centre and western limit of the Beaufort pack ice allows for wind generated swells to penetrate far into the last remaining MY ice along the Canadian Archipelago further weakening the continuity of the MY pack (Asplin et al. 2010). Our results are consistent with ice age estimates (Fowler and Maslanik, http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html) that show the amount of MY sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009 suggesting that MY sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even thought 2009 aerial extent increased over that of 2007 and 2008.

(David G. Barber1, Ryan Galley1, Matthew G. Asplin1, Roger De Abreu4, Kerri-Ann Warner1, Monika Puæko1,2, Mukesh Gupta1, Simon Prinsenberg3, Stéphane Julien, Centre for Earth Observation Science, Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:15 PM

LH,

"Those studies suggest that the primary cause of global warming phases...and global cooling phases....is the changing activity of the Sun.

And what would be surprising about that? Absolutely nothing. What could be more obvious than that changes in the Sun's output of energy cause changes in the climate of the Earth?"

All true.

I have been pointing out the climate changes in the rest of the solar system ( melting Martian polar ice caps, change ( after 400 years of observation) in the Great Red Spot ( a storm) on Jupiter), but have been infomed by those WHO KNOW ALL that it was just man-made CO2 that was causing everything, and that there was no need to consider anything other than the reduction of CO2- not moving populations, not adopting to new climates, not taking any steps to prepare for the climate change- Al Gore would stand on the shore and command the tide to stop.

But I admit I have know these facts for most of the duration of the debate- I have been working on several of the spacecraft that have been collecting the data being used by both sides of the arguement.

I give you full credit for being open-minded enough to look at the facts and reject the PC viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:02 PM

Yeah, sure global warming is happening lately. Fine. But what role does human-produced CO2 play? How big a role? And is naturally-produced CO2 a primary cause of global warming or is it an aftereffect of global warming?

There have been a number of scientific studies that indicate that human-produced CO2 is a negligible factor in causing present day global warming...and the naturally occuring CO2 levels are increased BY global warming...that is, they follow a warming phase by a few years, they do not cause it.

Those studies suggest that the primary cause of global warming phases...and global cooling phases....is the changing activity of the Sun.

And what would be surprising about that? Absolutely nothing. What could be more obvious than that changes in the Sun's output of energy cause changes in the climate of the Earth?

Now, remember this, folks: I am probably the one person here who has radically changed his original opinion about the theory of human-caused Global Warming, as propounded by Al Gore and numerous others. When I first saw the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", I was totally convinced by it. I supported the theory. And why wouldn't I? ;-) Politically speaking, I've always been on the Left on most issues, I instinctively support people like Al Gore or Michael Moore or anyone else in that general camp, I hate the neocons and the big industries they work for, I detest the Republican Party considerably more than I do the Democrats (although I detest them too...).

So it wasn't surprising that I believed Al Gore's theory and supported it...initially.

It took several years for me to change my mind. I changed my mind based on a lot of reading I did, and interviews I watched with various scientists who have challenged the prevailing theory that the mainstream media have been flogging about Global Warming for years now. I looked into some of the financial moves that are being made, such as levying carbon taxes, and at some of the efforts behind globalization that are going on.

I gradually came to the conclusion that we've been fed a line of tripe on behalf of various monied interests....and that many sincere and honest people have been misled by those interests.

There are other monied interests (in industry) who are opposing the theory too...and I know that...because their interests are being threatened in some way.

So I think there are dishonest and selfish people on both sides of the debate, both pushing the debate for their own gain.

But......I do not believe that human-produced CO2 is a primary or even a very significant cause of the present planetary warming phase. I think it's a cyclical natural event that is being driven by solar activity.

And I repeat: I am (apparently) the ONE person here on this forum who has changed his mind and altered his original position on this popular theory. How about that, eh? Is anyone else here capable of changing an old opinion, re-examining a set of treasured assumptions, and finding a new way of looking at something?

I'm still waiting.............. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 May 10 - 10:51 AM

Sawzaw

You are cherrypicking your data to prove what you want to prove.

Well, it may look like that, possibly because I'm posting isolated snippets of information in response to your isolated snippets of information. You have seleted a chart that you believe demonstrates something or other; I have selected another, frequently from the same source, that demonstrates the opposite. The point is that a more in depth analysis is needed. I'm not actually trying to prove anything. I'd just like a deeper understanding of this fascinating subject.



No problem at all. Actually, you posted a fact about the Antarctic sea ice but don't worry, it's a common mistake to make. In response, I posted a fact about the Arctic sea ice from the same source. Both of them showed significant climate change although that in the southern hemisphere was a little counter intuitive and deserved closer examination. Since I thought you were genuinely interested, I posted some useful links. Here are a couple more -

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You seem to read something in my posts that is not there and make up my reasons for them.

I certainly do not. I have merely enquired what your reasons were.

I don't believe I have to convince anybody of anything.

Just as well really but you seem to be putting an awful lot of effort into it.

The world does not have to follow what I believe.

I don't think it intends to.

So with the full expectation that you will make spurious claims about why I posted the following, find something that contradicts it and demand that I respond, I submit this for thought:

SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

Perhaps if you'd introduced that subject with something a little more informative than "This chart should unleash a flurry if hostile uncivil remarks from the Illuminati." it would have helped. I responded at the time with this reference - Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun which you ignored.

In your link, Joe Bastardi says "the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm". Read that carefully. The INCREASES were HIGHER with the implication that when the PDO went cold the increases were lower. Now look at Figure 3 in my reference which illustrates the point.

Of course El Nino and the PDO affect the climate within their oscillation period; about five years for El Nino and twenty to thirty years for the PDO but that is not the same as the long term trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 10:04 AM

"Meanwhile its freezing here in Scotland!"

And when the nice big ocean current (Gulf Stream) that brings all that warmth up that way shuts down (as it has before) due to Global Climate Change, then you will have something to complain about mate! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 11 May 10 - 08:04 AM

Hawk said
'scientifically collected data that indicates that periodic rises in natural CO2 levels are driven BY global warming'

which is what Sawzaw also pointed out with one of the graphs indicating that during the ice ages temperature changes happened before CO2 changes.

I think the key word is 'natural'. In the 'natural' environment there are various factors causing climate changes and CO2 changes may be a result of those changes. But we also know that that we are causing an 'unnatural' situation by changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a short time. Then the question is whether that unnatural increase in CO2 is likely to change the climate. We have known for about 100 years that
CO2 absorbs infra-red energy coming up from the earth and that it absorbs at a slightly different frequency to that of water.

We can now both calculate, and directly measure, the amount of radiation coming back down to earth that otherwise would have escaped into space. Its a significant number. How it translates to warming of the atmosphere is a complex matter but the essential physics is straightforward - if you put more CO2 into the atmosphere it will absorb more heat.
There is a good discussion here:
Physics Forums

If you want a paleoclimatic example of where greenhouse gases do seem to have caused massive global climate changes have a look at the references on this page
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

Meanwhile its freezing here in Scotland!
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:10 AM

The business-driven climate sceptics are to scientists as the Inquisition was to Galileo - just as confident, just as determined, and just as wrong in efforts to limit science as an influence on policy, instead of vested instersts.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:07 AM

New research by Australian scientists at the University of NSW has forecast the effect of climate change over the next three centuries, a longer time horizon than that considered in many similar studies.

It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind's activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent by 2300, and that half the planet could "simply become too hot" for human habitation in less than 300 years.

The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Tuesday.

"Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees celsius by 2100," said Professor Tony McMichael, from the Australian National University (ANU), in an accompanying paper also published in the PNAS.

"But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more."

Prof McMichael said if this were to happen, then current worries about sea level rises, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties would "pale into insignificance" compared to the global impacts.

Such a temperature rise would pose a "considerable threat to the survival of our species", he said, because "as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there".

Prof McMichael was joined by co-author Associate Professor Keith Dear, also from the ANU.

They describe the UNSW-Purdue study as "important and necessary" as, they said, there was a need to refocus government attention on the health impacts of global temperature rise.

There was also a real possibility, they said, that much of the existing climate modelling had underestimated the rate of global temperature rise.

Dr Dear said scientific authorities on the issue, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had struck a cautious tone in forecasting future temperature rise and its impact.

"In presenting its warnings about the future, the IPCC is very careful to be conservative, using mild language and low estimates of impacts," Dr Dear said.

"This is appropriate for a scientific body, but world governments - including our own - should be honest with us about the full range of potential dangers posed by uncontrolled emissions and the extremes of climate change that would inevitably result."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 04:45 AM

"the Illuminati"

ROFL ....

fnord fnord fnord


...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 04:40 AM

"Yesterday's high was 56°F "

So what? You have yourself claimed that the evidence from one tiny little place, one place in time, by itself proves nothing - you even said that in an attempt to 'disprove the theory' - now you use evidence from one tiny little place, one place in time, to support whatever it is that you now want.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:39 AM

ACTUAL LOCAL TEMPS MAY 10: 60°F........32°F
  Average...................72°F........47°F                  
  Record....................94°F 1063...28°F 1966

Yesterday's high was 56°F

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 10 May 10 - 04:36 PM

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but global warming is quite real here. We have Lilacs in bloom for the first time in history this early in May. We have Cardinals, Possums and Buzzards, all native to the south.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 10 - 11:34 AM

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, that depends on which specific chicken and which specific egg we are talking about, doesn't it? ;-) Every chicken has been preceded by an egg...but when was "the first chicken" there?

Eggs certainly preceded chickens by millions of years, given the fact that chickens are a much more recent development than the dinosaurs from which all modern birds presumably evolved.

But all that has absolutely no relevance to attacking scientifically collected data that indicates that periodic rises in natural CO2 levels are driven BY global warming and there IS data that indicates that. To categorically attack that data and deny what it indicates merely because you don't like it is to take a religious position on global warming, not a scientific one.

In other words, you have absolute faith that your present opinion must be right, and to hell with any scientific data that would threaten it in any way. That seems to be the standard reaction. "Interesting...", as Spock would say.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 10 - 11:22 AM

Another Face on it

"Researchers say that as Arctic sea ice recedes, the chance for human and polar-bear encounters is increasing along the North Slope. Now, following the 2008 listing of the bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a list of guidelines for warding the animals away from towns and villages.

**************
"Build "bear exclusion cages" with bars at least one inch thick around entryways - picture a shark cage on land - so people can step safely outside their homes and look around for lurking bears. Install gates and various barriers, such as chain link fencing around the bottom of buildings to discourage bears from sneaking underneath.

"You don't want bears walking across playgrounds," said Rosa Meehan, chief of the Marine Mammal Program for the Wildlife Service in Alaska."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 08 May 10 - 07:52 AM

Forget Africa, forget Antarctica, forget the HYmalayas, global warming is here in America! By 2035 Glacia National Park will need a new name because its main feature is melting away. One would have to be drunk, retarded, blind or have stock in fossil fuels to deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 10 - 10:23 PM

"I posted a fact about the Arctic sea ice"
Dear Mr. Dunning-Kroger; were you taliking about ice extent (2-D), or ice volume (3-D). BIG difference.

"co2 RESPONDS to warming"
Dear Mr. Dunning-Kriger; are chickens the result of eggs, or eggs the result of chickens? Seriously. If you cannot answer this, please do not pretend that this is a real argument.

"The most damming (sic.) of the evidence against co2 being the driver was the drop around 1992 with Pinitubo (sic.) cooling"
Dear Mr. Dunning-Kroger; Do you REALLY not understand the difference between atmospheric gasses and particulates? Oh dear.


Well. Never mind. My students just took their final exams, and did wonderfully. They have been "indoctrinated" to combat your utter nonsense. Sleep well!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 May 10 - 01:17 AM

Dear snail:

You are cherrypicking your data to prove what you want to prove.

My response about the thing you want me to respond to: I posted a fact about the Arctic sea ice. I am sorry if that is a problem for you. You seem to read something in my posts that is not there and make up my reasons for them. I don't believe I have to convince anybody of anything. The world does not have to follow what I believe.

So with the full expectation that you will make spurious claims about why I posted the following, find something that contradicts it and demand that I respond, I submit this for thought:

SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

The table below shows c02 increases on Mt Loa since 1959. One can notice the spiking of co2 when el ninos occur, and how the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm. This further supports my idea that we are going to get our answer as to what is causing the warming. Cycles of c02 and the evidence that the co2 RESPONDS to warming, not causes it, is pretty straightforward with co-ordinating the data. The real kick in the teeth of co2 being the driver is the big fall with the Pinitubo cooling!............
............It would appear the co2 spikes are occurring with warming that is caused by the natural drivers of the warm PDO and the el nino. The most damming of the evidence against co2 being the driver was the drop around 1992 with Pinitubo cooling. To the rationale, objective person, does this look like co2 with its erratic up and downs around the times of el ninos, is the driver, or the driven. The answer is obvious, it is responding to spikes that occur with warming episodes, the driven, not the driver. You can see the response in co2 with and after the nino....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 06 May 10 - 07:44 AM

Last year on 23 September I was woken up by a phone call at 6.00 am. A neighbour warned me to close the windows. i looked outside and saw a sight that looked post holocaust. The sky was thick with red gold light, and the air was hazy and everything a blur through the haze. A massive red dust storm had rolled in from the central desert, smothering my house, street and city with thick choking dust.

There was an article in the paper today, saying that due to the unseasonal heat and dryness, it may happen again.

I had thought it was a once in a lifetime event.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 May 10 - 04:50 AM

Sawzaw

Was this chart posted by you a random cherry picked chart?

No, it was a chart showing the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from exactly the same source as this chart which you had posted showing the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly. In the ensuing discussion I posted these links -
Antarctic ice sheet losing mass, says University of Colorado study
All About Sea Ice: Characteristics: Arctic vs. Antarctic
NASA - Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?
which you did not respond to.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, Sawzaw, but if you wish to convince others of their validity you need to back them up with some properly researched facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:30 AM

"You have put this forward as a policy that the world should follow"

I have stated my opinions. You are welcome to state yours.

You are welcome to post any chart you want and interpret any way you want.

Was this chart posted by you a random cherry picked chart?

When I stated my opinions on Geothermal energy I was not aware of anything Gore said about geothermal.

If Al Gore is in favor of Geothermal energy, I am with him on that.

If you believe using Geothermal energy will prevent global warming and help the environment I am with you on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:00 PM

Sawzaw

Do you still believe that thermal pollution (equivalent to about an hour's worth of solar input per year) is a significant factor in the climate? You are correct. I was wrong.

Oh Sawzaw! What are you going to do? That's been one of your main arguments for so long. More to the point, what does it say about your credibility? You have put this forward as a policy that the world should follow but it took me a few minutes to find thae facts to knock it down. Had you done ANY research or were you just taking the word of some skeptic website?

Why do you claim they are random cherry picked charts?

Well take this one for a start -
This chart should unleash a flurry if hostile uncivil remarks from the Illuminati.

Did you have the faintest idea what it meant? Did you know what PDO stood for? Did you make any effort to find out?

And what about this one.

It was one of a whole series of charts. You picked one that appeared to show no global warming; I found one that did. Neither of them prove anything without a proper interpretation.

And the there was this one.

You complained about GISS and NOAA restricting themselves to 1500 weather stations and you think the results from ONE prove something?

Why are you making excuses for Al Gore?

I'm not. The man may be a complete charlatan for all I know. I'm just using your logic.

In a television interview, Gore said "millions" when he should have said "thousands". He wasn't talking about global warming, he was talking about geothermal energy. Do you think he was trying to "big up" the potential? Do you think geothermal energy is a non-runner? Odd, you've supported it yourself on this very thread.

He got his facts wrong by several orders of magnitude. This led one skeptics' website to feel justified in saying "Al Gore is an idiot and a hypocrite.". You got your facts about thermal pollution from human energy generation wrong by several orders of magnitude...

That's not what I am saying, it's what YOU are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:09 AM

Do you still believe that thermal pollution (equivalent to about an hour's worth of solar input per year) is a significant factor in the climate? You are correct. I was wrong.

Why do you keep posting random, cherry picked charts that appear to show that there is no global warming? (Even though they often show no such thing. Why do you claim they are random cherry picked charts? Am I supposed to get them pre approved by you to make sure they meet your criteria?

...and I'll add a couple more -

What point were you trying to make when you asked -

Which country emits the most CO2? I was showing that the US is not the biggest CO2 emitter

Which country emits the most CO2 per capita?

and what was the purpose of the question - I was showing that the US is not the biggest CO2 emitter per capita.

Who said "The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees."? I was illustrating that AL Gore is sloppy with his "facts"

Why are you making excuses for Al Gore?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:56 PM

Generation Investment Management LLP is dedicated to long term investing, integrated sustainability research and client alignment.

Generation is an independent, private, owner-managed partnership with offices in London and New York. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by Al Gore and David Blood.

David Blood is Senior Partner of Generation Investment Management, a fund management business dedicated to long term investment and integrated sustainability research. Previously, David served as co-CEO and CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. His responsibilities included all aspects of the global business including portfolio management, sales and client service, risk management and infrastructure.

Generation's investment approach is based on the idea that sustainability factors—economic, environmental, social and governance criteria—will drive a company's returns over the long term. By integrating sustainability issues with traditional analysis, we aim to deliver superior investment returns.

We are closely aligned with our clients, and our performance is measured over the long term.
A Unique Research Platform to Analyze Global Challenges

Generation has built a global research platform to integrate sustainability research into fundamental equity analysis.

We focus on key drivers of global change, including climate change and environmental degradation; macroeconomics, poverty and development; water and natural resource scarcity; pandemics and healthcare; and demographics, migration and urbanization.

These global challenges pose risks and opportunities that can materially affect a company's ability to sustain profitability and deliver returns. Our research plays an important role in forming our views on the quality of the business, the quality of management and valuation.
A Diverse Advisory Board

Our Advisory Board, convened by our Chairman Al Gore, helps set our long term thematic research agenda into global sustainability issues. The Advisory Board is a diverse set of global thinkers who help us anticipate the changing context for business.
Vision

Generation's vision is to mainstream sustainability in the capital markets, and our core values reflect a commitment to responsible citizenship. Five percent of the profitability of the firm is allocated to the Generation Foundation, which will support global non-profit sustainability initiatives.

Global Equity is Generation's flagship product. We invest in long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies. We invest in high quality businesses and management teams whose securities are attractively priced to deliver excess returns over the long term.

    * We Buy High Quality Businesses: Dominant market positions, strong entry barriers, predictable future, pricing power, and secular growth trends
    * With High Quality Management Teams: Culture of integrity, respect for shareholders, well managed for the long term
    * At the Right Price: Key to our success is our price discipline and the ability to buy companies at sufficiently attractive prices to deliver performance

Long Term Focus

Long term investing implies identifying companies with an enduring capability to create value and sustain competitive advantage. Generation believes investment results for long-only equity strategies are maximized by taking a long-term investment horizon because a majority of a company's value is determined by its long-run performance.
High Conviction Investing

A concentrated approach allows maximum leverage of an intense research effort. We make investments only when we have high levels of conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:55 PM

Temps here are way above normal. We have Lilacs in bloom for the first time in history this early in May.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:11 AM

Glad to see you're OK, Sawzaw, I was getting worried about you. Would you care to asnwer any of the questions I asked on 20 Apr 10 - 08:04 PM?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:02 AM

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11224/images/Wx_tornadoTrend.png Works for me

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:24 AM

Sorry, 'image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11224/images/Wx_tornadoTrend.png' does not exist or is not available.

"Climate change is much more complex than the average temperature of one month in one location."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:41 AM

Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.

"Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion," said Pachauri. "The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable."

The Golf Links area in Central Delhi where Dr Pachauri lives is named after the nearby Delhi Golf Course and is one of the most expensive residential areas in India. Every home in this gated community has its own security guard and it enjoys round-the-clock police patrols to protect its wealthy residents.

Dr Pachauri’s neighbours include a former prime minister’s son and senior Indian business leaders. Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, Britain’s richest man with an estimated £10.8billion fortune, owns a home in the same area.

Currently, homes of a similar size to Dr Pachauri’s are being advertised at prices of around £6million.

Explaining the area’s sky-high property prices, the director of an international property broker told India’s Economic Times: ‘This area has a certain snob value attached to it. Buying a house here means announcing to the world that one has arrived in life.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247376/Controversial-climate-change-boss-uses-car-AND-driver-travel-mile-office---says-YOU-use-public-transport.html#ixzz0mpWr1YSO


Al Gore, Tipper Gore snap up Montecito-area villa

April 28, 2010 Los Angeles Times

The Italian-style home has an ocean view, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:19 PM

"Sydney has fifth warmest April in 151 years PAUL TATNELL
April 30, 2010 - 4:53PM Sydney Morning Herald"

Cherry picked data rears it's ugly head again.

Climate change is much more complex than the average temperature of one month in one location.

That is why the usual springtime tornado activity in the US this year is way below normal:

This chart shows the daily count for tornadoes as well as a running total for the year compared to the average for the past 5 years 2005-2009.

Notice that despite a few active days in January, only one day in February produced a tornado. March and April have continued to be quiet. This chart includes data up through Wednesday. Since then, an additional 40 tornadoes have been added on Thursday and Friday. That brings the total for the year of 2010 up to 138, still well below the 452 average ( more likely 470 compared to the same date range)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:36 AM

As Amos said - turbulence - the atmosphere is not uniform in temperature and humidity. Which is WHY we have 'weather'....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:25 PM

Ebbie:

Global planet is a huge, complex system with millions of variable mini-climates working within it. That's all. If the planet warms, some spots get hotter faster, others get hit with more wind, and the place and time of precipitation begins to alter its pattern. And that's just above sea-level. Within the massive regions of saltwater, major currents andf striations build up and shift their courses, their frequencies, their velocities, and their directional patterns, and the cycles of reptition change which adds more change to the complex patterns of air warming and rising or cooling and descending.

It's not "weather change", it's "climate change" that is being measured by the long term surface trends.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM

"both higher and lower...now I'm really confused FT."

One word - Turbulence. I have mentioned it before here, but the screaming abusive trolls swamped it with about a thousand posts of non-sense non-science....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:32 AM

both higher and lower...now I'm really confused FT.

but here's more..

Sydney has fifth warmest April in 151 years PAUL TATNELL
April 30, 2010 - 4:53PM Sydney Morning Herald

Sydney has experienced its fifth warmest April on record with a month of balmy nights and little rain. But don't put away the warm clothes just yet with predictions that winter is on the way; it's just running a little late. The average April minimum temperature was 1 degree above the average of 16 degrees. Combined with high humidity and little wind, temperatures rose.

With the average April maximum of 25 degrees, Sydney recorded its second highest maximum temperatures averages in 151 years. Meteorologist for Fairfax company weatherzone.com.au, Samuel Terry, said a number of high pressure systems meant pleasant weather, but, in bad news for our water catchments, very little rain.

"A high pressure ridge extended in over New South Wales for most of the month, preventing any real cold fronts from pushing through. Towards the middle of the month, a humid, northerly wind flow established which really bumped up temperatures," he said.

Mr Terry said Sydney had received well below its normal rainfall for 2010, which is unusual considering most of Sydney's rain usually comes before July. He said unless Sydney receives some "good rain" in May "we could be in a bit of trouble". "As well as being a warm month, April was a dry month, with the city collecting only 30 millimetres; just under a quarter of what is normal," he said.

"This made it the driest April in four years for Sydney, and it was similar for most other suburbs across the Sydney Basin, including Canterbury and Penrith."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM

Freda's article:

GW/CC Theory states that Turbulence will increase - thus both higher and lower temperatures may be experienced at the same location....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM

Headline in today's Sydney Morning Herald:
Hottest late April in 88 years April 27, 2010

NOT since the April days of 1922 has Sydney had such a run of warm weather so late in autumn. Last Friday, the temperature reached 30.7 degrees in the city - the hottest day this late in the season for 88 years. A Weatherzone.com.au meteorologist, Josh Fisher, said April typically had warm days but the recent ''late season heat'' was unusual.

But as the end of the month nears, 21 of 26 days so far have been above the long-term April average of 22.4 degrees. The average temperature so far this month has been 25.1 degrees. ''I would say that we would be coming up with quite a [significantly] warm April,'' Peter Zmijewski, a Bureau of Meteorology forecaster, said.

Sunday night was the coolest night since last October for some parts of Sydney, including Mascot and Homebush, hovering around 11 to 12 degrees. Mr Fisher said it has also been quite dry, with just 30mm falling in Sydney so far this month, compared with the usual 126mm in April.

The bureau expects temperatures to stay around average for the remainder of the week.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:50 AM

Confusing millions of degrees with thousands of degrees is an error of magnitude.
Confusing percent with standard deviation is an error type.
If the former erodes credibility, the latter demolishes it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 08:33 AM

CO2 emissions & global warming: Trains versus planes - Reduce CO2 emissions by up to 90% for same journey.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:04 PM

Sawzaw

So what you are saying Snail is that anybody that disagrees with you is stupid?

I have never said anything remotely resembling that.

It so happens I believe there is some global warming. I believe it is over hyped with scare tactics. And I believe there is a profit motive behind it.

Have you studied any of these things I believe?

I'm sorry Sawzaw, but studying your belief systems is not high on my list of priorities. Produce coherent evidence and I will happily discuss it.

You don't seem to be very good at answering questions so I'll repeat a few here -

Do you still believe that thermal pollution (equivalent to about an hour's worth of solar input per year) is a significant factor in the climate?

Why do you keep posting random, cherry picked charts that appear to show that there is no global warming? (Even though they often show no such thing.)

...and I'll add a couple more -

What point were you trying to make when you asked -

Which country emits the most CO2?

Which country emits the most CO2 per capita?

and what was the purpose of the question -

Who said "The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees."?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:17 PM

"It so happens I believe there is some global warming. I believe it is over hyped with scare tactics. And I believe there is a profit motive behind it."

And many also believe there is a profit motive behind those denying GW/CC.

Snap!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 02:39 PM

What does Gore's believability have to do with it? You could prove beyond a doubt that Gore was a lizardoid alien in a man-suit sent to curb our oil consumption so the alien mother ship could later come and suck all our wells dry for their own nefarious purposes, but there still would be global warming. Gore's famous bloopers are a handful of sand to throw in people's faces. Ask yourself, "Who would want to draw our attention away from the reality of global warming?"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 02:11 PM

So what you are saying Snail is that anybody that disagrees with you is stupid?

It so happens I believe there is some global warming. I believe it is over hyped with scare tactics. And I believe there is a profit motive behind it.

Have you studied any of these things I believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 09:24 AM

It may not matter to some of folks and the symbiotic relationship/fixatioon with the late Mr. Gore..(late, as to his influence on anything much in the real world). But, it sure does when it comes to a greater understanding our life supporting planet :)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:03 AM

It doesn't matter, Ed. In this case, Gore got it spectacularly wrong. According to the sceptics, this invalidates everything he says. Sawzaw has also got several things spectacularly wrong. Apply the logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM

Here is what I read in the past:

Figures I have seen speculate that the Earth's core temperature is between 5,000C to 7,000C, with many estimates on either side of this....some that I have seen as low as 1,500C. Anyone got a more specific deduced # ?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:45 AM

Sawzaw

Who said "The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees."?

Al Gore. We all make mistakes. For instance, you posted this chart under the impression taht it would demonstrate an absence of global warming when it did nothing of the sort. Would you like to go through everything Gore has said and check it to see how many bloopers he made?

Before you do that (which will take you quite a long time) could you let me know whether you still believe that thermal pollution (equivalent to about an hour's worth of solar input per year) is a significant factor in the climate?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:43 AM

Our fathers thought the world was flat, and we think it is round, not because the earth has changed its shape, but because men have revised their thoughts. — Damon Dalrymple

The earth is large and old enough to teach us modesty. — Hans Cloos

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:08 AM

Who said "The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees."?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:30 PM

On Earth cycles:
http://quakestar.org/milankovitch_cycles.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63E4SG20100415

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:21 AM

Sawzaw

Which country emits the most CO2?

China.

Which country emits the most CO2 per capita?

Qatar.

Your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 10:37 AM

Seems plausible to me Snail but I still want to study it some more.

Which country emits the most CO2?

Which country emits the most CO2 per capita?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:39 AM

"the amount of water vapour is on average a fairly constant percentage world wide."

Haha! Close enough for a 'back of the envelope calculation' guess! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:32 AM

No Snail! Unfair!

You resorted to Science, not .. er, ... um ... Rhetoric? er, no, um.....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:03 AM

Sawzaw

When Al Gore was asked what are the greenhouse gasses, why did he leave out water vapor?

Here you are.

Read and understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:00 AM

"When Al Gore was asked what are the greenhouse gasses, why did he leave out water vapor? "

Alas! I am not a mind reader! But I suppose you are, so you will come up with some esoteric conspiracy involving the colour of his underpants...

Also, at a layman's guess, the amount of water vapour is on average a fairly constant percentage world wide.

And, ya know, mate, when it gets too high a percentage, it's called Rain!
:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:43 AM

Foolestroupe:

When Al Gore was asked what are the greenhouse gasses, why did he leave out water vapor?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:08 PM

"Why do you keep posting random, cherry picked charts that appear to show that there is no global warming?"

People were doing that because they had no clue how Science works, or what the up to date cutting edge Theory of GW/CC was about - I posted a basic explanation of how Science works and why that attitude of taking something that a Theory predicts as proof that the Theory is wrong, exposed them as not understanding GW/CC in spite of their pretending to (bullshitting, in other words). The occurrence died down a little...

If they are still insisting on doing it

1) They lack the intellectual capacity to understand what the Science IS... or

2) They read that illumination of mine and just continue to post such rubbish purely for Trolling purposes.

It appears that some people only respond to The 12 gauge Solution - pity it is not PC...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM

Sawzaw

If you read my posts you will see where I said that if CO2 emissions were reduced to 0 or even reversed back to levels 200 years ago there will still be global warming due to man's use of energy which results in thermal pollution. More people=more heat.

From here -

"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[11] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[12][13]"

After you have read it and understand it let me know if you have a question.

I think I'd rather spend my time reading and understanding what qualified climatologists have to say. A question? Why do you keep posting random, cherry picked charts that appear to show that there is no global warming? (Even though they often show no such thing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:17 AM

1200 posts of garbage...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:18 AM

"refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure"

Haha! And those playing with genetics stuff claim that they can't release THEIR data either, because their material is 'commercial in confidence' because of trying to patent Nature...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:07 AM

At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:59 PM

"Why did the "researcher" hide the data for 10 years? "

Ah - a couple of Australians recently got the Nobel Prize.

It took many years for their ground breaking work, which involved some serendipity as well as discovering a whole new Genus of bacteria that behaved differently in many ways - hence the need for a new Genus to describe them, to be accepted - they were widely ridiculed at first by the leading 'experts'.

Now we accept that stomach ulcers are NOT "caused by stress, excess stomach acid, etc". The bacteria are held in check, probably even since birth, until the immune system is compromised, often by 'mental stress' or other illnesses, and they then multiply out of control. Nowadays, the accepted treatment is a course of defined anti-biotics, and a few other things, that destroys them and their resultant side effects in a couple of weeks. Taking medications that reduce stomach acid levels, eating mush food, etc are now recognised as nothing more than medieval old wives tales, that really have no effect any more than wishful thinking. My grandfather died back in the early 70s, if this 'discovery' had been made earlier, his ulcers would have been cured.

One guy even infected himself with a isolated preparation of the bacteria, got extremely sick and terrified his wife, then took the cure and regained his health.

These guys knew that they had to 'hide' their 'discovery' until the proof was overwhelming, and then could say - "here is what we did, now repeat the experiments for yourselves and come back and tell us what you found". The 'experts' did, and now these guys who LOOKED at Nature are Nobel Prize Winners - their detractors are not.

Many sincere hard working scientists do not release their findings immediately - look at the nutters who claimed to discover 'cold fusion' and desperately grasped at fame...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:49 PM

"Do you have anything to say about them?"

Who would care anyway - would you respect what I said?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:32 PM

Snail:

What is there in your links that is new?

There is probably some global warming and it is probably due to mankind.

If you read my posts you will see where I said that if CO2 emissions were reduced to 0 or even reversed back to levels 200 years ago there will still be global warming due to man's use of energy which results in thermal pollution. More people=more heat.

Read up on my posts so I don't have to reiterate.

You will even see a discussion [as opposed to personal attacks] of possible alternatives and ways to slow it down.

I am all for less CO2 emissions, less pollution and more efficient use of energy.

After you have read it and understand it let me know if you have a question.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM

"The Ozone hole, sea rise, etc."

Do you have anything to say about them?

Why did the "researcher" hide the data for 10 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM

Hi, Sawzaw. I take it you've now read and fully understood the links I posted above. What did you make of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM

The fool who thinks he is a fool is for that very reason a wise man;

But the fool who thinks he is a wise man is rightly called a fool.


:-)
The Fooles Troupe

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:57 AM

"Most of the research on global warming or climate change is objective."

Now THAT's a hell of an objective judgement. I could ask - show me the money (just which results are objective and which are not - ALL of them).... but..

The Ozone hole, sea rise, etc... oh, what the hell, I'm going to bed...


Well at least I seemed to have stopped the totally fuckwit "this example that I like (which is actually predicted by the Science) seems to disprove it from my misunderstanding of it, so that disproves it all" sort of non-scientific nonsensical garbage...


for the moment... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM

Who claims that?
The real experts are well aware of the variables.

read this... (Google it).

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 8350–8353, August 1997
Colloquium Paper
This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled ''Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change,'' organized by Charles D.
Keeling, held November 13–15, 1995, at the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Tree rings, carbon dioxide, and climatic change
GORDON C. JACOBY* AND ROSANNE D. D'ARRIGO
Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY 10964

Only the Dunning-Kroger effect crowd ever claims that anyone claims that. Those outside the science constantly think they have found the big flaw, the obvious thing that the experts overlooked. They think this only because they are so darn far behind in the science that they don't know how much they don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM

"...when confronted with several tree ring data sets, a "researcher" chose the set that reinforces the existence of global warming rather than average them all out or rejecting the extremes."

That seems to be true, but it is more complicated.

The assumption is that tree rings are wider in warmers years and narrower in colder ones.

Actually, the tree growth (as reflected by growth ring size), can change due to rainfall, nutrient availability, temperature, and probably CO₂ level plants take in as part of the cycle of photosynthesis.

Claiming that it is solely an indicator of global temperature is not science, it is politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM

"Foolestroupe has a valid point. His posting is in the form of a discussion as opposed to personal attacks. Bravo.

"Inductive:
Attempts to discover 'new' things."

I believe this is called a hypothesis. When a hypothesis is formed an attempt is made to prove or disprove it.

However it could be subjective research or objective research.

Most of the research on global warming or climate change is objective.

The research is to prove global warming or climate change exists rather that to find out if it does or does not exist.

For example, when confronted with several tree ring data sets, a "researcher" chose the set that reinforces the existence of global warming rather than average them all out or rejecting the extremes.

Therefore his research was subjective rather than objective like GWBs WMD research that ignored any evidence that there were no WMDs.

To further obfuscate the issue, the researcher blocked access to the data and methods he used for 10 years. Why would an objective scientist do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:40 PM

"a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming]"

There are so many different techniques, each intended for particular purposes. I'm no expert in that field, but IF the effect you are tracing IS accelerating, then THAT technique HAS ALWAYS been recommended to analyse it BECAUSE IT BRINGS OUT THE CHANGE. Doh!

SO - anyone criticising use of that technique is already prejudiced that the effect is NOT speeding up ... Doh!

Now
""It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the report concluded."

Now THAT is a rational statement....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 09:26 AM

Global warming graph attacked by study
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent

Published: April 14 2010 19:51 | Last updated: April 14 2010 19:51

A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as "exaggerated" on Wednesday by the UK's leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using "inappropriate" methods.

"It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming]," he said.

The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the "Climategate" e-mail scandal had behaved "honestly and fairly" and showed "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice".

The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.

Although Wednesday's report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK's prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit's scientists, it criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics.

"It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the report concluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:49 AM

Amos,

Apologies accepted.


8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM

Bruce:

Apologies for not looking closer when you first posted it, you old grump.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM

Ah Amos....

The problem with those who have made little effort/progress in Science is - as I said just recently, it uses Inductive Reasoning [not indisputable 'facts' whispered in their ear by some personal magical invisible sky fairy, and from which all further 'facts' are generated by Deductive Reasoning], which is just a bunch of best guesses and subsequent tests, and it always keeps moving on.

Since even those at the cutting edge in an area of Science need to run flat out just to keep up with the pack, what can you expect from those with little or no training in the specific fields who get most of their obsolete info from people who are out of touch and don't understand things, and often are driven by primal fear or may even have a financial motive to make sure that no one else understands either.

Consider Galileo - the Church won at the time by bully tactics, but someone finally realised that they were now 600 years behind the times. Of course it did begin to be a little bizarre when the Pope was asking the world to pray for the three guys in danger in a damaged capsule in space, when what they were doing was based on the very idea that the Church had spent 600 years fighting... :-)

I'm not making this up you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:32 PM

Seems to me, as a matter of general reason, that there are large fundamental shifts that may have defined the ranges of global temperature in epochs; but as far as I know the only epochal event we have going on in the last 2,000 years or so is the explosion of mankind and his expanding influence over all other life forms and environmental forces.

But I am no expert on epochal factors, that's for sure!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:08 PM

sorry- no cookie

Amos,

"Your argument appears to have some merit. This graph for example has a trend that is consistent with the planetary temperature trends I have linked to elsewhere."

Hmm. That is one of the graph's I pointed out a year or so ago, that you stated had no bearing on the GW issue.

As it shows, solar OUTPUT is now greater than the Medieval Maximum- with occurred at the start of the Little Ice Age that caused the failure of the Greenland colonies. If you look at the other charts I pointed out back then, you will see that the last 20,000 years have been anomolous compared to earlier times- Going to blame THAT of human effect as well?





To expand, the period of the Ice Ages were a LOW TEMPERTURE period of severl hundred thoudand years- compared to a HIGHER TEMPERTURE period of several hundred MILLION years. Which would you call the norm for the Earth, and why are you complaining about the CLIMATE going back to what it was for the vast majority of time- HOTTER than the LAST 130 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 03:33 PM

Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors

by Dr. Sallie Baliunas
September 17, 1996

The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth.
                 --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

The possible outcomes resulting from the predicted rapid and dramatic rise in global temperature deserve serious thought. What are the scientific facts in support of the claim that human-made global warming will be significant (i.e., larger than the natural fluctuations of climate) and even possibly catastrophic? How is it known that computer simulations of the climate, forecast 100 years into the future, are accurate?

One starts by testing the computer simulations against the record of temperature change of the last 100 years. In the last 100 years, the global average surface temperature of the earth has risen about 0.5 C. Also during that interval the concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphere. The increase in concentration is roughly equivalent to a 50% buildup in carbon dioxide alone. That substantial buildup gives a way to test the computer simulations of climate change due to greenhouse gases from human actions. That is, by studying the temperature response to the 50% increase over the last 100 years the computer simulations can be tested against the actual response of the climate.

The computer simulations say that the global temperature should have risen in the last 100 years by roughly 0.5 - 1.5 C (aerosols, whose theoretical effect is included in that range, will be discussed below).While the magnitude of the rise, as post-predicted by the computer simulations, seems to agree with the observed temperature rise of 0.5 C, it is inconsistent with the timing of the warming.

The record of global temperature (Chart 1) shows that most of the warming of the last 100 years occurred before 1940. But most of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere after 1940. Human-made greenhouse gases cannot cause a warming that took place before they existed in the atmosphere. Therefore, most of the 0.5 C rise must be natural. Only a small part of the 0.5 C rise -- no more than a few tenths degree -- could have been caused by human-made greenhouse gases. In other words, the 0.5 - 1.5 C warming predicted by the computer simulations exaggerates the greenhouse effect produced by the equivalent 50% buildup of carbon dioxide.

The solar influence

If the anthropogenic greenhouse gases did not cause most of the warming early in the century, then what did? One possibility is that the total energy output of the sun changes, thereby causing some warming and cooling. The evidence for this is in two parts: first, the sun has been observed by NASA satellites to vary in total energy output in step with the 11-year sunspot cycle of magnetic changes in the sun. Although the satellite records only began in the late 1970s, which is too short a time to obtain information on century-long climate variations, the association of brightness changes with surface magnetic changes allows us to obtain information on the sun's brightness changes going back several centuries, because records of the sun's magnetism are available over that long period.

The length of the sunspot cycle is a particularly interesting proxy for changes in the sun's brightness. Chart 2 compares the sunspot cycle length with surface temperatures going back to 17501. The correlation is nearly perfect.

The second part of the evidence for a solar influence on the climate is as follows. The sun's magnetic record can be converted to estimated brightness changes, using data from the sun and other sunlike stars, and input to a climate simulation. The results for the sun's changes are shown in Chart 3 for the years 1880-19932. If the sun has changed brightness in the way the magnetic records have indicated, then changes in sun explain more than half of the variance of the temperature record from 1880-1993. The results for the sun suggest that its brightness changes have had a significant impact on climate change. A brighter sun may be the explanation for a substantial part of, and possibly most of, the 0.5 C global warming observed in the last 100 years.

Aerosols

Pollutants such as sulfur dioxide complicate predictions of global climate change. Aerosols form a haze that absorbs or reflects sunlight causing a cooling that offsets some of the predicted greenhouse warming. Aerosols may also alter cloud properties.

Studies3,4of the response of climate change to aerosols are based on computer simulations. The theoretical effect of aerosols has been to cool the climate forecasts (Chart 4)3, both for the present and the future, and bring the computer forecasts more in line with the recent global temperatures. (However, allowing for the theoretical cooling effect of aerosols cannot explain the observed warming prior to 1940.) The modeled effect of aerosols does not change the conclusion that the computer simulations of climate are greatly exaggerating the size of the greenhouse warming.

Regional results and the "fingerprint" studies -- "Pattern" studies3,4 of anthropogenic greenhouse gases with the added effect of aerosols are considered in ensemble, region by region, and with height. They form the basis for the claim that the anthropogenic effect on climate has been detected5. But checking the forecasts in specific regions shows instead that the simulations fail to agree with observations. For example, two regions where the aerosol effect should be verified are heavily-industrialized Europe and North America (Chart 4) 3. There the aerosol effect worsens agreement of the computer simulations with the temperature observations.

Moreover, the combined greenhouse plus aerosol model can be tested with data from the region where the computer simulations predict the most warming, namely the troposphere over the southern oceans6. That test (Chart 5) shows no net rise in temperature from 1958 to the present.

Satellite temperature measurements

NOAA satellites have been measuring the temperature at a height of a few kilometers in the atmosphere essentially over the entire earth since 1979. 7 These records have smaller systematic errors than the surface records, which, unlike the satellite records, come from a variety of instruments, techniques and measurement histories, and whose coverage is sparse over large areas like the southern ocean. The very precise satellite record shows no net warming over the last 17 years -- contrary to the forecasts calculating the effect of the recent rapid increase in human-made greenhouse gases.

Temperature in the Arctic

Most computer simulations also post-predict a major, rapid warming in the Arctic, especially in the winter. The temperature record in the Arctic is thus a very sensitive test of the computer simulations. But over the last 50 years no net warming of the surface has been observed. The simulations also post-predict that the Arctic should have warmed by a degree or so in the last 17 years, the period during which satellites have made precise readings of the Arctic. Over the periods under study, the average temperature of the Arctic has not warmed. In the test of the Arctic records the computer forecasts exaggerate, by a very large amount, the warming that should have occurred.

Error budget and uncertainties in the computer simulations

Apart from the possible uncertainty of a significant solar variability effect in global climate change, there are other major uncertainties in the computer simulations. These uncertainties are demonstrated by the fact that simulations of the present-day climate differ from one another by 5 C in the tropics (and nearly 20 C in the polar regions).8

Water vapor feedback-- The computer simulations rely on water vapor, responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect, to amplify the small warming directly resulting from the increase in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases 9

However, this assumption has been challenged.10 After considering the water vapor feedback, Lindzen gives a preliminary estimate of 0.3 C for the global temperature response of an effective doubling of carbon dioxide (without any offsetting cooling by aerosols considered). Without a substantial, positive water vapor feedback, other feedback mechanisms are much less effective in amplifying the effect of increases in the minor greenhouse gases.

Magnitude of other uncertainties -- Chart 6 11 shows some of the uncertainties in the climate simulations. Compared to the 4 W m-2 radiative input to the atmosphere for an effective doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide, the uncertainty in the effect of humidity alone is about 20 W m-2. An additional uncertainty of roughly 25 W m-2 stems from calculating the heat flow from the equator to the polar regions12. This gives rise, finally, to area-by-area "flux adjustments" of up 100 W m-2 in some areas of the coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations. (Additional uncertainties in cloud physics are not discussed here).

Summary

No evidence can be found in the observations of the global temperature for a dangerous warming derived from human actions.

The computer simulations of climate, which estimate a warming of roughly 1 C over the last 100 years, have overestimated the warming that has actually occurred by a factor of three or more. The same computer simulations projecting for the next 100 years (the time frame cited for the equivalent of a doubling of carbon dioxide) must be corrected for these overestimates of past warming. When corrected, the forecasted warming for the next 100 years is a few tenths C. That warming, spread over a century, will be negligible compared to the natural fluctuations in climate.

Furthermore, delaying the onset of drastic emission reductions by as much as 25 years results in a penalty of only 0.2 C in added temperature by 210013, according to the current computer forecasts which are known be exaggerating the warming. Investing in and waiting for better climate science would be appropriate, considering that the IPCC-forecasted warming has dropped by nearly a factor of two just in the last six years.

Notes
        1         S. Baliunas and W. Soon, 1995, Astrophysical J., 450, 896.
        2         W. Soon, E. Posmentier and S. Baliunas, 1996, Astrophysical J., in press, December 1.
        3         J.F.B. Mitchell et al. 1995, Nature, 376, 50.
        4         B.D. Santer et al. 1995, Climate Dyn., 12, 79. 1996, Nature, 382, 39.
        5         "Increasing confidence in the identification of a human-induced effect
        6         on climate comes primarily from such pattern-based work." (IPCC, 1996, p. 37, Sec. E.4).
        7         P.J. Michaels, P.C. Knappenberger, R.E. Davis and D. Legates, 1996, submitted to AGU Fall 1996 meeting. The most rapid warming is predicted for 30-60o S latitude, at a pressure height of 850-300 mb.
        8         J.R. Christy, 1992, Global Climate Change: Implications, Challenges and Mitigation Measures, ed. S.K. Majumdar et al. (Pennsylvania Acad. Sci.), p. 165; J.R. Christy 1995, Climatic Change, 31, 455.
        9         IPCC, 1996, Sec.5.2.3.1
        10         "This feedback operates in all the climate models used in global warming and other studies." IPCC, p. 200, 4.2.1. However, note: "...[I]ntuitive arguments for [the feedback] to apply to water vapour in the upper troposphere are weak; observational analyses and process studies are needed to establish its existence and strength there." (p. 200, 4.2.1). Also: "Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models." (p. 201)
        11         R. S. Lindzen, 1994, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech, 26, 353; NAS R. Revelle Memorial Volume, 1966, in press.
        12         Adapted from R. Lindzen, private communication.
        13         12 "...[W]ithout knowing the dynamical heat fluxes, it is clear...that one cannot even calculate the mean temperature of the earth." (Lindzen 1996, ref. 10)
        14         13 T.M.L. Wigley et al. 1996, Nature, 379, 240.
Testimony presented on September 17, 1996 to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:06 PM

The United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), found that in 2009:

    * global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through December tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest on record as +0.56°C (+1.01°F) above the twentieth century average
    * the 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average,
    * ocean surface temperatures (through December) tied with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest on record, at 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average, and
    * and surface temperatures through December tied with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:37 PM

Keep it up, PeeDee- anything you say three times is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM

There is absolutely no correlation between solar flares, solar wind or sunspots, and the total energy output of our Sun.

There is absolutely no correlation between CO₂ in Earth's atmosphere and the Earth's ambient air temperature a few feet above land.

There is absolutely no correlation between the tiny 1^o F rise in ambient temperature seen since the Great Irish Potato Famine and 1995, with anything the Man has done.

There is absolutely no correlation between the volume of pro-GW propaganda and science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM

Sawz:

The word "global" has two distinct meanings which you should differentiate between. One means referring to the globe.   The other means throughout an entire system or frame of reference.

Bruce:

Your argument appears to have some merit. This graph for example has a trend that is consistent with the planetary temperature trends I have linked to elsewhere. It is not as closely correlated as the CO2 graphs I have also linked to but it does align with the general trend. I don't think we have all the data though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:33 PM

Dear Bruce:

If no-one felt there was such a hypothesis it seems odd anyone would bother making a story of its refutation, no?

Additionally, are you saying that the sun's output is independent of solar flares and sunspots? Doesn't it strike you they would be coupled?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM

(sorry- previous was really me)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beRDEDBRUCE
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:35 AM

Amos,

Repeating your erroneous posts will only force us to remind you that you havew already been challanged, and failed to substantiate your post.




Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

Amos,

You miss the entire point.

IT IS NOT SOLAR FLARES.

NO-ONE CLAIMS IT IS SOLAR FLARES.

The claim put forward to negate human causation of global warming is that the sun's OUTPUT ( since it is a variable star) has increased, as demonstrated by the larger (observed) melting of the Martian icecaps, and the significant change ( after over 300 years of observation) to the charecteristics of the Red Spot on Jupiter ( as well as global warming on Earth).

When you find information relating to this ( solar output variance cycles of greater than 300 years, please post them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:23 AM

Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature

April 7, 2010 By Lisa Zyga
(PhysOrg.com)

In contrast to a previous analysis, a new study has shown that the distributions of (a) the global temperature anomaly by month since 1880 and (b) the solar flare index by day over a few solar cycles are fundamentally different. One feature the detrended data do have in common is self-similarity: the probability density functions are the same on different time scales, which means that neither can be described as Lévy walks.

The field of climate science is nothing if not complex, where a host of variables interact with each other in intricate ways to produce various changes. Just like any other area of science, climate science is far from being fully understood. As an example, a new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth's global temperature. The new study points out a few errors in the previous analysis, and concludes that the solar and climate records have very different properties that do not support the hypothesis of a sun-climate complexity linking.


In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. Solar flares, which are large explosions in the sun's atmosphere that are powered by magnetic energy, vary in time from a few per month to several per day.

Although solar flares occur near sunspots, their frequency variation occurs on a much shorter time scale than the 11-year sunspot cycle. In their studies, the researchers' results seemed to show that data from solar flare activity correlates with changes in the global temperature on a short time scale. Specifically, their analysis showed that the two time records can both be characterized by the same Lévy walk process.

However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. For instance, the solar cycle has its 11-year periodic trend, where periods of lots of sunspots cause larger numbers of solar flares. Likewise, the global temperature anomaly has numerous other factors (a "multi-decadal, polynomial trend") that impacts global temperature fluctuations. By not detrending this data, the analysis resulted in abnormally high values of certain variables that pointed to Lévy walk processes.

By estimating the untrended data, Rypdal and Rypdal hypothesized that the solar flare records might be described by a Lévy flight, while the global temperature anomaly might obey a distribution called persistent fractional Brownian motion.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:39 PM

Yes, but let's not Leave out the natural cycles!

Foolestroupe, I've been 'awake' about the shenanigans of our political 'representatives' for a lot longer than you are aware. Let's not assume and project your late awakening on to everyone else!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM

Have pity Snail - you want him never to come back?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:09 AM

Here's a bit of light reading for you, Sawzaw -

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Come back when you've read and understood it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:43 AM

"You'd think that if the world was getting hotter, and Australia being an island/continent, you'd think it should be getting more humid"

Another proof of your ignorant foolishness.

It's called "El Nino" -
Google is your friend - and has been incorporated in the full Climate Change Theory. As we Aussies are seriously impacted by it (unlike Yanks!), we learn about it... (unlike Yanks)...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:18 AM

OK a few typos, I'm tird - if you cannot make proper sense out of it, I'll repost with the obvious corrections and ask the mods to delete the previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:15 AM

"Up here we have crackpot politicians who are using the issue for their personal gain..which is not cool....some people get 'hot' about it."
Which is why Aussies refer to 'arrogant ignorant Yanks' rather interrogatively...

BTW, when some people were breaking bones and teeth and spilling blood in the 1960's saying "American Govt and Politicians are lying to the world and manipulating US citizens for profit", where were you? Saying those protesters should have their heads kicked in, that'll teach em!!!! :-)

So now you have finally woken up and jumped on the bandwagon of distrusting EVERYBODY, you pick one topic that the deniers like you will kill us all with. :-) And, you are being manipulted, as you acknowledge, but by profit makers who will lose money if we do not change our ways. :-)

Many posters here are either deliberately trying to confuse - as their puppet masters have decreed, or they CAN NOT understand SCIENCE - or do not want to. :-) I'll explain it once....


Science is based on Mathematics - some of it so advanced and obscure to the layman that even I strain to cope with some of it - and if you know stats - I was tested at age 40 as being 5 standard deviations above average IQ - that is 3 in 100,000 - that's not my fault, that's the way I was born. So if I understand some things that you do not, that's not your fault either.

Maths is based on Logic. There are two types of Logic systems - look things up if really want to learn, I'll brief. Deductive Logic and Inductive Logic.

Deductive: Works on Absolute facts, such as ...
All X are Y, All Y are Z thus All X are Z.
All X are Y, some Y are Z, thuse only SOME X are Z.
It can only keep reducing the field of discussion, you cannot learn anything 'new'.

but things like this do not work
Some X are Y, some Y are Z thus All X are Z
u.s.w.

Inductive:
Attempts to discover 'new' things.

Science is based partly on this. So we 'make a guess' about things we have not yet proved, and THEN WE TRY TO TEST. We design experiments in whic we try to keep as many variables as we know about fixed, while changing one, and record what happens. If we made a good guess, the results will be in line without prediction. If, not, the results disprove our guess.

The THEORY of Global Warming made some guesses, and lo - THE TEMPERATURE WAS NOT RISING EVERYWHERE! (But just because you guys found ONE interesting fact that is RIGHT, that DOES NOT NEGATE THE WHOLE THEORY!) which is why I am not going to be nice anymore about your ignorant babbling!

So Science moved on and the Mathematicians said, Ha! as the total energy of the system increases, TURBULENCE increases, making some spots hotter and some spots colder! This is in line with the theory, and ignoramuses like you are NOT DISPROVING the theorey, by finding something the theorey ACTUALLY predicted! :-O

You of course are locked into the ignorant past when you THINK that GW/CC means that everywhere shows rising temperatures - which is why, logically you are fools. Endlessly repeating scientific nonsense does not make it true - that's called insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:40 AM

Foolstroup: "Your babbling that misuses terms and smears meanings with whatever YOU want at any moment to prove your point of the moment, is also proof positive that you are an ignorant loud mouth W*anker who CANNOT (and WILL NOT TRY TO) understand the Science! People HAVE tried - but you are so clever that you keep denying... you also believe that the Moon Landings are a faked Conspiracy too, doubtless..."

Apply that to yourself, because your losing it, pal....calm down.

Certain parts are warming, as I pointed out, (1500 miles west of South America), and some are not. Australia, according to you, is. Sawzaw shows different for North America...No need to get nasty and bitchy about it!

Up here we have crackpot politicians who are using the issue for their personal gain..which is not cool....some people get 'hot' about it. Up here, we are going through a waking up period for some, for whom some are FINALLY 'getting it'...on how much we have a lot of crooked politicians, who have exploited the 'Global Warming' issue for their personal self-aggrandizement. Along the way, they have deceived a whole lot of people, to gain their support. Gore is just one.

Now is you calm down, perhaps re-read some of the posts, you will not find others are half as belligerent as yourself. Look into what is being said, instead of re-acting like you are the only one with an 'inside track' on what is going on.

Perhaps, Australia IS going through a hot dry spell. A bit of Fosters should remedy that!...for the time being. You'd think that if the world was getting hotter, and Australia being an island/continent, you'd think it should be getting more humid............unless.......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:46 AM

"I think that global warming or climate change was supposed to mean that temperatures all over the world have risen"

Proof that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE ANNOYING US WITH!

Science moves on, incorporating new discoveries that the research into the predictions reveal do not work, so new ideas must be thought of, which feeds back into new theories - DISCARDING THE OLD ONES!!!!!. You have now revealed that you are out of touch with Science, and just a stupid fool babbling old outdated ideas which 'The Science' has moved past. And as I said, this reeks of Insanity - one diagnosis of which comes from refusing to accept reality, but insisting that your own stupid irrational ideas - which once MAY have been thought correct are now wrong. You want to keep bullying us that your outdated nonsense is the way that EVERYONE ELSE should think!

Science once believed in a magic substance that took part in combustion, now combustion is understood to have nothing to do with that, it involves the process of 'oxidation' (look it up!) - now anyone who tries to seriously bullshit about the old theory 'being true' may just get locked up! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:34 AM

"You criticize those, such as Sawzaw, because you say he is only reflecting his views, based on the FACT that in North America, it has been cooler, than usual temperatures, and you say it is localized to him, not globally .........then you turn around and say that because it is warmer to you, in Australia, that is IS global...when it is not..just to you!"

The SCIENCE says that localised parts of the world will reflect greater sensitivity - one part SERIOUSLY affected IS Australia!

Your babbling that misuses terms and smears meanings with whatever YOU want at any moment to prove your point of the moment, is also proof positive that you are an ignorant loud mouth W*anker who CANNOT (and WILL NOT TRY TO) understand the Science! People HAVE tried - but you are so clever that you keep denying... you also believe that the Moon Landings are a faked Conspiracy too, doubtless...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:29 AM

"If you look at the chart you will see that in my area "

Proof positive that you are an ignorant loud mouth W*anker who CANNOT (and WILL NOT TRY TO) understand the Science!

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 11:22 PM

"The FACT that in North America, it has been cooler, than usual temperatures,"

If you look at the chart you will see that in my area there has been no increase in the overall yearly average temperature since 1871.

I think that global warming or climate change was supposed to mean that temperatures all over the world have risen because of more CO2 in the atmosphere and will continue to rise until everybody is dead unless money is poured into fixes that may or may not work and stand to monetarily benefit the same "humanitarians" that are spreading this dire warning.

Even though this chart is only one weather station, it should show any global warming of the earth.

This seems to irritate some people and they feel the need to destroy anyone that disagrees with their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:09 PM

Not really...insisting on something that isn't true, over and over again and and doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results is, though........

You criticize those, such as Sawzaw, because you say he is only reflecting his views, based on the FACT that in North America, it has been cooler, than usual temperatures, and you say it is localized to him, not globally .........then you turn around and say that because it is warmer to you, in Australia, that is IS global...when it is not..just to you!

1500 miles east of South America the ocean floor has been heating up, and causing 'unusual' weather patterns, which the call 'El Nino' (pronounced: Ell Neenyo), are you going to claim that to is man made???

These are cycles beyond our control. They affect different places at different times. They should not be treated as a platform for political trickery(read: Al Gore's fraudulent nonsense), to promote his or any political agenda, for their profit!...such as Gore, and others. Frankly, he should be in prison, for the fraudulent crap, he has foisted on us all. Furthermore, he should be made to RETURN the $500,000,000 he received as a result of his criminal behavior. It has been PROVEN that he has based his claims on phony 'science'....that was known to be phony, when he did it!!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM

Hey Mr elitist Foolestroupe:

You never gave an answer either time.

The title of this thread is where is the global warming?

You keep parroting something about a farmer. Are you stuck in an elitist groove or something? Inflated with yourself?

Rather than answer a simple question, you ridicule the question and make ad hominem attacks on the person that asked the question.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your superior intelligence by answering these questions:

Which country in the world produces the most CO2?

Which country produces the most CO2 per capita?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 03:07 AM

Insanity: asking the same question over and over again and expecting different answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 03:05 AM

"Hey Mr. elitist Foolestroupe:
Where is the Global Warming in this chart?"

Sadly, you only reveal that you are left behind (perhaps intentionally on your part just so you can have fun ridiculing 'the true believers' - those who are not opportunistic sceptics like yourself).

Science (unlike those of you who keep parroting the "Where is the Global Warming" crap!) has moved on - the whole thing is now about "Climate Change" which emphasises that the EXTREMES are increasing - even the *** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' *** nowadays has recognised that the world has changed, and makes serious plans to grow different types of crops (including changing animal types) more suited to the changing climate in Australia.


*** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' ***

Aussie Folk lore - The old farmer won the big one - $30 million dollars. When asked what he planned to do with the money he replied "Keep farming till it's all gone!"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 01:02 AM

kendall: "Too many people confuse climate with weather."

GfS: "Too many people confuse politics with science."..........when its convenient for their agenda!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:43 PM

Which country in the world produces the highest total CO2?

Which country produces the most CO2 per capita?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:40 PM

Too many people confuse bullshit with truth.

Global means everywhere on the globe.

I suppose this is the only spot on earth that has not seen an average temperature rise since 1871.

Not too many cars spewing CO2 back in 1871 and it is supposed to be CO2 that has caused a global temperature spike.

Alarmists look at the chart and it shows no rise so their reaction is to heap verbal abuse on anyone that might see it as an indication that Global warming might be hyped.

They think they have a civic duty to be nasty to anyone that disagrees with them with ad hominem attacks.

Good job on the arrogant nasty comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:22 PM

Too many people confuse climate with weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM

The chart Sawzall linked to has temperature records for one geographic location.

That chart shows a slight (2+ degrees F) rise in average temperature between 1929 and 1949. Back to "normal" now.

Many sources report that the warmest period in the last 150 years was between WWI and the end of WW II, a similar observation.

To get graphs that perport to show a sharp rise in the period from 1995 to date, the phoney "scientists" at East Anglia spliced data from different location! Totally bogus.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:16 PM

"Where is the Global Warming in this chart?"

Unless it is a *Global* chart, that's a dumb question.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 11:50 AM

"Kendall - it's idiots like hime that will be crying for forward thinkers like us to pull them out when the shit hits the fan.... I'm seriously thinking of buying a gun to keep them away.... ;-)"

Turn off the fan!!!!......It's using electricity...maybe that's your problem!!!!

"Anyone who denies global warming is either blind or retarded."
"Some people see what thy want to see"...by looking at something else!

Oh, and about "I'm seriously thinking of buying a gun to keep them away.... ;-)"

......My MY MY!!...How the 'Peace/Love liberal way of thinking has evolved into that!!.....maybe you've been running down the wrong alley!.....You must have gotten wrong directions, by someone who sounded 'logical', and you bought into it!,,,,(Speaking of being,..ummm "either blind or retarded.".....Consider the source!

Waving to ya'
Peace!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM

Australia experienced its 14th warmest year on record in 2008 following its 6th warmest year on record in 2007. The annual average temperature for 2008 in Australia was 0.410C above the 1961 to 1990 average. Australia's annual average (mean) temperatures have increased by approximately 0.90C since 1910 . (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 4613.0 - Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends, January 2010)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:53 AM

Hey Mr. elitist Foolestroupe:

Where is the Global Warming in this chart?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 07:45 AM

Let me know what caliber you want. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 06:28 AM

Kendall - it's idiots like hime that will be crying for forward thinkers like us to pull them out when the shit hits the fan.... I'm seriously thinking of buying a gun to keep them away.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 06:10 AM

"I suspect the Aussie farmers are dealing with a cycle, if even that"

Haha! and you wonder why Aussies ridicule ignorant uneducated loudmouth Yanks like you (you always demand evidence from others - where is your evidence (you don't even LIVE here!) of such a 'cycle'?) who do not even KNOW where many countries in the world are - like their President...

We Aussies have lived with drought cycles longer than you personally have. And we have the hard experience in South Australia where a botanist said that north of a certain line should ever not be settled because the average rainfall would not support farms - he looked at the plants, but dickhead profiteering politicians 'opened up the land' in a cycle of higher than average rainfall - all the farmers went broke a couple of years later. The derelict stone farmhouses are now part of the tourist itinerary.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:15 AM

The dust bowl was caused by idiotic farming methods that plowed under all the prairie grasses that used to hold the soil. Then the rains didn't come...disaster.

Global warming? When I look at my garden and see daffodils, tulips and Lilacs that will bloom before Memorial Day, then I see Cardinals, the state bird of NC, plus Possums, I see global warming!

The glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by the end of this decade.
Anyone who denies global warming is either blind or retarded.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:45 AM

Was the Great Dust Bowl 'Climate Change"?...or just a cycle we went through? It lasted about seven years.
I suspect the Aussie farmers are dealing with a cycle, if even that....but if you want to believe in 'Climate Change', go right ahead. Hey, instead of voting for or making policy changes for everyone to pay for a new tax or fee, or whatever, why don't you promote you and your friends to make donations..I mean if you REALLY care about your fellow citizens, and their financial well-being,and want to keep them happy, while doing 'good'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM

"GfS: The 'Global Warming' Fad ran out of steam.....but a rose by any other name is still a rose....and that plant is being grown by economists, not scientists, for consumption of the gullible whiners... who think its hip to be full of shit!"

Ah! another gullible brainwashed uneducated ignoramus!

Aussie farmers in our areas most sensitive to Climate Change gave up taht brainwashed bullshit several years ago - and adopted modern farming techniques that DEPEND on the real Science behind Climate Change

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:15 AM

Foolstroupe: "Science (unlike those of you who keep parroting the "Where is the Global Warming" crap!) has moved on - the whole thing is now about "Climate Change......"

GfS: The 'Global Warming' Fad ran out of steam.....but a rose by any other name is still a rose....and that plant is being grown by economists, not scientists, for consumption of the gullible whiners... who think its hip to be full of shit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM

"Where is the Global Warming in this chart?"

Sadly, you only reveal that you are left behind (perhaps intentionally on your part just so you can have fun ridiculing 'the true believers' - those who are not opportunistic sceptics like yourself).

Science (unlike those of you who keep parroting the "Where is the Global Warming" crap!) has moved on - the whole thing is now about "Climate Change" which emphasises that the EXTREMES are increasing - even the *** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' *** nowadays has recognised that the world has changed, and makes serious plans to grow different types of crops (including changing animal types) more suited to the changing climate in Australia.


*** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' ***

Aussie Folk lore - The old farmer won the big one - $30 million dollars. When asked what he planned to do with the money he replied "Keep farming till it's all gone!"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:05 AM

Reason for Global Warming....

Global warming promoters

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 01:19 AM

Where is the Global Warming in this chart?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 12:12 AM

Stating the current status is not an ad hominem attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 01:09 AM

Here ya go TIA, attack the idiot that said this:

"the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:42 AM

Stating the current status is not "twisting" anything.

It is not crap to be seen through. It is a ray of light shining through the crap put out by the IPCC and Gore who stands to profit from trying to prevent global warming and Pachauri who stands to profit from trying to prevent global warming.

Isn't the research done on Global Warming an attempt to prove global warming?

Is it subjective or objective? Every where I look it is overstated and hyped like the video of the little girl hanging on to a tree. Isn't that to be considered twisting? There is no little girl hanging from a tree is there? Isn't it a scare tactic?

I say there is some global warming possibly brought on by man.

However I do not believe it is a catastrophic as claimed and even if it was, we couldn't stop it.

Even if we stopped CO2 accumulation in it's tracks, even if we reversed it, even if we found a perfect non CO2 producing energy source, there will be thermal pollution from ANY source or use of power that will warm the earth.

So if you would read what is posted above you would understand a little better what my position is.

But you would rather make your ad hominem attacks rather than do a little thinking for yourself.

Do you feel good after a personal attack? Do you feel self righteous? Victorious?


OSLO, Feb. 29 2008 (Xinhua) -- The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

    The shrinking of the Arctic ice cap has been astonishing, Orheim said in an interview with Xinhua.

    "The ice sheet hit the historical low of 3 million square km during the hottest weeks last summer, while it covered 7.5 million square km on average before the year 2000, " he said.

    "If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions," Orheim said.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:28 PM

BS: Where's the Global Warming????

Its over there...next to the figment

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:43 PM

Three major earthquakes, 7 points or high, within this month....damn SUV's, we need another tax!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM

Sawzaw (th poster child for Dunning-Kroger) says:
"Dear KP. I was wrong.

The 1979-2000 mean is 15.6 million square kilometers.

The ice area is currently 15.44 million square kilometers,

1% below average."

Well cherry-picked old fellow! What really happened was a steady decline of 2.6% per decade (in March ice extent) since 1979, then in April, there was this highly unusual, brief event that brought the extent up to within a few percent of the 1979-2000 average (not above, or even equal to the average, still below). And this brief event is evidence that the extent of seasonal Arctic Sea ice is *not* generally decreasing.

Now get back to twisting, selecting, and misunderstanding the numbers. I will get back to educating the next generation to see through this kind of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:08 AM

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

On balance, the entire profession has been seriously harmed by the scandal. "We are currently suffering a massive erosion of trust," concludes German climatologist Hans von Storch. "Climate research has been corrupted by politicization, just as nuclear physics was in the pre-Chernobyl days, when we were led to believe that nuclear power plants were completely safe."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:17 AM

Liberals love global warming!......they absolutely do not like Facts!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM

Well Amos, I thought a fair minded person like you would know but it appears once again that you only know half of the story.

The U.S. government, of course, has been spending roughly $2 billion a year on global warming and now proposes a new $6.3 billion package, which includes a set-aside for public "education."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:12 AM

Sawz:

Do it yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:37 AM

"is U.S. taxpayer's money and the feds have no right to give it away"

Wrong!

What planet did you say you came from? You certainly don't seem to understand how the USA works...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:41 AM

I suppose that is meant to be funny?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: ichMael
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:28 AM

An Inconvenient Arrest

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:08 AM

Amos:

Please outline the entities that are spending money to promote Global Warming and how much they are spending?

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:37 PM

ENVIRONMENT -- REPORT REVEALS OIL GIANT KOCH INDUSTRIES IS A 'FINANCIAL KINGPIN' OF CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS: A new Greenpeace report has revealed privately owned U.S. oil company Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to climate change denying groups from 1997-2008, outstripping even Exxon Mobil in its funding efforts and "also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels." According to the report, the Kansas-based company -- owned by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who have long worked to burnish their reputations by buying museum and opera halls -- has contributed $24.9 million to global warming denying groups since 2005 compared to Exxon Mobil's $8.9 million in contributions. The report also finds that Koch Industries "provided financing for organizations that heavily propagated the so-called 'ClimateGate' scandal." For example, Koch funded a 2007 junk science analysis that disputed the risks climate change posed for polar bears and financed supposedly independent Spanish and Danish studies that attacked green jobs and propagated a pack of lies about the costs of climate legislation. Responding to the report's charges that Koch Industries amounted to the "financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition," the company's communications director Melissa Cohlmia said they have "worked to advance economic freedom and market-based policy solutions to challenges faced by society."

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

This thread is wrongly titled, and that's leading to a lot of unnecessary rhetoric here. It should be titled: "What is causing Global Warming?"

Further questions to add to that one...

"Are human activities a primary, a secondary, a tertiary or a negligible factor in causing global warming?"

"And is there much that humans can do to reduce global warming...or are we simply going to have to adapt to it in the best way we can manage?"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:19 PM

Solar flares have been shown to cause interference in radio transmission.

They are not the cause of Global Warming.

As said many times before, "This NOAA chart...shows it more clearly. It shows about 0.7 degrees C of global warming in the last 115 years."

Repeat as often as needed until people listen.

The warmest part of the last 115 years was probably around 1937.

A glacier that was here 60 million years ago has been melting for 60 million years. It just works that way.

The problem is that certain groups think they can extract trillions of dollars to "fix" Global Warming. They make their livings on the concept already.

I believe that Hillary Clinton promised to hand over 200 billion to Third World countries just a few months ago in the summit in Denmark.

That is U.S. taxpayer's money and the feds have no right to give it away, especially since it is essentially being done through extortion.

If the general public realizes that it is all hype and junk science, the GW hawkers will have to get real jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:57 PM

Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth's future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had "pulled the trigger" on global warming as it built its civilizations.

'We're not really guilty. We didn't deliberately set out to heat the world'

What is more, he predicts, the earth's climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in "jerks and jumps", and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

Prof Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.

Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data".

And while renewable energy technology may make good business sense, he says, it is not based on "good practical engineering".

At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can".


videos

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

Amos,

You miss the entire point.

IT IS NOT SOLAR FLARES.

NO-ONE CLAIMS IT IS SOLAR FLARES.

The claim put forward to negate human causation of global warming is that the sun's OUTPUT ( since it is a variable star) has increased, as demonstrated by the larger (observed) melting of the Martian icecaps, and the significant change ( after over 300 years of observation) to the charecteristics of the Red Spot on Jupiter ( as well as global warming on Earth).

When you find information relating to this ( solar output variance cycles of greater than 300 years, please post them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

My Dad sent us pictures of harp seal pups on the beaches in Newfoundland towns, right next to houses. This has never happened before. The seals usually give birth miles out to sea on the ice pack. The only ice pack this year was many hundreds of miles to the north.

Maybe not proof of global warming. Certainly proof of unprecedented local warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:51 PM

A careful statistical analysis rebutting the "solar flares" causality argument.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM

An amazing presentation on glacier losses worldwide. Especially for Sawz' attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:19 PM

"Global warming has neither stopped nor slowed in the past decade, according to a draft analysis of temperature data by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Scientific American


STILL WARMING: Global temperatures over the past decade have "continued to rise rapidly," despite large year-to-year fluctuations.
NASA


Global warming has neither stopped nor slowed in the past decade, according to a draft analysis of temperature data by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The analysis, led by Goddard director Jim Hansen, attempts to debunk popular belief that the planet is cooling. It finds that global temperatures over the past decade have "continued to rise rapidly," despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the tropical El Niño–La Niña cycles.

The analysis also predicts, assuming current El Niño conditions hold, that 2010 will go down in history as the hottest year on record despite an unusually snowy winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

"Communicating the reality of climate change to the public is hampered by the large natural variability of weather and climate," the Goddard scientists wrote in the draft, which was circulated by Hansen Friday evening and posted on the ClimateProgress.org blog shortly after.

"We conclude there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15 (to) 0.20ºC (per) decade that began in the late 1970s."

The new analysis combines sea-surface temperature records with meteorological station measurements and tests alternative choices for ocean records, urban warming and tropical and Arctic oscillations. It concludes the urban "heat island" impacts are small compared to the warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

And it finds that, while this winter's unusually strong Arctic Oscillation - which funnels cold northern air to the East Coast and pulls warm mid-latitude air up to the Arctic - is predicted as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, seasonal temperature anomalies associated with it aren't enough to blunt long-term warming trends.

"In the United States only one of the past 10 winters and two of the past 10 summers were cooler than the 1951-1980 climatology, a frequency consistent with the expected 'loading of the climate dice,' " the scientists wrote.

Hansen and other co-authors could not be reached for comment. The analysis has not been subjected to a peer review, though Hansen, in an email sent discussing the paper, said he intended to revise it for submission to a journal "within a month or so."

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, called the analysis solid.

"Essentially he's just pointing out that we've come out of this short-term, relatively cool period," Mann said. "The globe clearly continues to warm."

Joe Romm, editor of ClimateProgress.org and a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, added that the study is "important for those who care about the science."

Whether it would quell the debate over global cooling - fueled in part by the East Coast's hard winter and the revelation of errors in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report - is less certain.

Mann said many claims of global cooling are spurious and "intellectually dishonest."

"The question becomes can you confront those who are choosing to be intellectually dishonest with more facts and hope they become more honest? Unfortunately, that's not the case," he said.

"But hopefully, as evidence continues to come in, those who have genuinely, honestly skeptical views about climate change will be swayed by the fact that evidence continues to ... to be stronger and stronger."..."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM

http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/03/23/usa-today-global-warming-handmaiden/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:50 AM

Sorry, LH, I didn't realise that. Mr Moore deserves better than being misquoted. but the reading's good - I'm reading and reading..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:19 PM

That looks like a really interesting article, Freda. I've taken a quick look at it and will take a longer look in a bit.

It's not by Michael Moore, though it is on his website. The article is written by Bill McKibben.

There are a long series of interesting comments from other readers below the article too. It'll take quite a while to read and digest all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:11 PM

I hate to do this but this is 1111.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM

Speaking of Michael Moore, here's what he says about attacks on climate change science..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

Speaking of Global Warming...this is hot!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 12:18 AM

By the way, whenever you use that term "armwaving", this is what comes to my mind...

1. Kermit the Frog (waving his little green arms around frantically while introducing a guest on the Muppet Show)

and... This

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 12:08 AM

Yeah... (smile)

He was not the kind who really needs to think much about it, was he?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:23 PM

Well, sir, I do know some of them personally and have a great deal of respect for their accomplishments and their thoughtful methodology. But that doesn't mean I am on any bandwagon. I am thinking that the data presented so far strongly supports the warming diagnosis and also supports the anthropogenic diagnosis as well.

I don't think armwaving or histrionics makes any of it less valid or more or less frightening. I don't traffic in fright and see no reason to do so. Or hate, either. It's a waste f time. Why consent to it? In this, I suspect we agree. Given that, ther

There are a lot of folks who think the purpose of language is to generate both. I have no respect for them. W was one, which is why I had no respect for him. He was uncurious, as though the facts didn't matter as long as he had God talking to him through his hair-dryer.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:14 PM

I'm sure that there are some large commercial and hierarchical outfits that are very opposed to the present popular global warming theory, Amos, because it presents a threat to their immediate profits. No argument there.

However, I think there's another consortium of special interests who are very interested in promoting the present popular global warming theory, because it is advantageous to their immediate jurisdictional power, profits, and self-interests.

So...I think there are 2 sets of dogs loudly baying on either side of the fence, as it were, when it comes to climate change and either one of them or both of them may be quite intent on misleading the public for their own personal gain.

I know the media loves nothing better than a good scare story, and so do our leaders, because it gets us all onside to let them change laws and alter various things in drastic ways...and it gets us to panic and spend our money.

RUSSIA INTENDS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

That one eventually fizzled out, but it funded decades of gigantic military spending, and a whole bunch of small wars.

THE BEES ARE ALL MYSTERIOUSLY DYING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm. Well, they were all dying for awhile, but now they seem to be recovering.

H1NI FLU IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!! BUY OUR VACCINE TO SAVE YOURSELF!

Hmmm. That turned out to be much ado about nothing, didn't it?

SARS IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Hmmm. Nope. False alarm.

SADDAM HAS WMDS!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA BE BLOWN UP UNLESS WE INVADE IRAQ!!!

Nope.

1974 - A NEW ICE AGE IS COMING!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA FREEZE AND DIE!!!

Nope.

KILLER BEES ARE COMING NORTH FROM SOUTH AMERICA!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Nope.

NORTH KOREA HAS THE BOMB!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Oh, just shut up and go away, would you?

IRAN IS BUILDING NUKES! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

Israel already has 200 of them. Scream about that, why don't you?

GLOBAL WARMING!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Yeah. Gee, it's a wonder any of us are still alive, isn't it? I mean, hey, it's a goddamn dangerous world, you know. Just listen to the media. They'll tell you all about it. When one horror recedes, another soon advances to take its place.

I am wondering if before my life is over I will see giant officially sponsored headlines in all the media screaming: SPACE ALIENS ARE PLANNING TO INVADE THE EARTH!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

I mean, heck, it's about the only official alarm bell left that the powers that be have not used to terrify us into dumb obedience up to this point in time.

Terror and constant anxiety is a good way of keeping people off balance and helplessly dependent on Big Brother, so I don't think it's accidental. I think it's a fairly deliberate policy to always have one major scare story blazing on the front burner and another one waiting in reserve on the back burner if the first one fizzles out.



I have just copied and pasted the above....because my previous post got truncated somehow.

Amos, I do not have the confidence in "the science community"...or any other hierarchical authority group in this society... that you do. If I knew them personally, it would be a different matter. Then I'd be in a far better position to assess their actual motives and to know who is really saying what about what...and why.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM

Those histrionic misguided exagerrations wer enot promulgated by scientists.

If you review the actual measurements there is a pretty clear correlation between anthropogenic CO emissions and temperature rise.

Just because the media like to electrify everything does not mean you can't think clearly and drill down to hard data.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM

I'm sure that there are some large commercial and hierarchical outfits that are very opposed to the present popular global warming theory because it presents a threat to their immediate profits, Amos. No argument there.

I think there's another consortium of special interests who are very interested in promoting the present popular global warming theory, because it is advantageous to their immediate power, profits, and selfish interests.

So...I think there are 2 sets of dogs baying on either side of the fence, as it were, when it comes to climate change and either one of them or both of them may be quite intent on misleading the public for their own personal gain.

I know the media loves a good scare story, and so do our leaders, because it gets us all onside to let them change laws and alter various things...and it gets us to panic and spend money.

THE BEES ARE ALL DYING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm. Well, they were all dying, but now they seem to be recovering.

H1NI FLU IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!! BUY OUR VACCINE TO SAVE YOURSELF!

Hmmm. That turned out to be much ado about nothing, didn't it?

SARS IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Hmmm. Nope.

SADDAM HAS WMDS!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA BE BLOWN UP UNLESS WE INVADE IRAQ!!!

Nope.

1974 -

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:44 PM

I think rhe "oligarchic manipulators" version of reality is highly irresponsible. Sure there are large companies whose future is tired to continuing to burn oil as fast as possible. In fact, such companies--whose interest would be in denying climate shift caused by human activity--are probably more massive in their influence than those who would have a financial interest in militating for reduced carbon footprint. So the rationale of the "giant corporations are lying to us" story is kinda wonky.

Furthermore every decision made in the name of such corporations is made by a meat-bodied two-leg just like thee and me, and they sweat when you heat them as surely as they bleed if you prick them.

So I doubt they are as deeply invested in refusal of change as is being painted.

Who DOES refuse to change is the human committed to the preservation of safe ignorance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:03 PM

Interesting number: 1101

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:54 PM

That may well be so. But what do we do about it? What would you recommend? (not that anyone out there is going to act on your recommendations, I'm just curious...)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM

The effect of global warming is not just hot weather. It's wildly fluctuating weather conditions
and the rise of sea levels because of melting icebergs. Scientists have a consensus on this.
In the future, unless we address this issue, there will be more tornadoes, tsunamis,
fires and desertification of lands throughout the world. Also, snow storms. This attributable to the hydrologic cycle. We will see small islands disappear due to the rise of the water table. We will see air pollution increase as the corporate energy owners dismiss this. We are playing with meteorological dynamite.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 10:51 AM

I don't think it's a leftist conspiracy. I think it's a governmental and oligarchic conspiracy, and those guys are beyond Right and Left. They simply used Right and Left like a sports league uses 2 hockey or baseball teams...to divide the public into 2 opposing sets of fans who hate each other's guts and who dutifully cheer whenever their side scores.

As long as you buy into the Right/Left mythology, you get caught up in the game, and the game is all smoke and mirrors, and the point of the game is that huge, moneyed organizations should make even more money and further extend their monopolistic control of marketing, media, taxation, and anything else that makes money.

I am pretty sure we are experiencing genuine global warming. I doubt that the human carbon contributions are a key factor in producing it, so I don't think we are the cause of it.

And I might be wrong too....I'm in no position to be totally sure about it one way or another.

But my view on this matter has absolutely NOTHING to do with supporting "the Right" or "the Left", because I am well aware that both the Right and the Left these days are caught up in various forms of divisive hypocrisy, delusion, false propaganda, mutual contempt, an unholy desire to destroy one another, and much choreographed nonsense, not to mention knee-jerk conformity to peer group pressure and prejudice that precludes them having any form of independent rational thought or objectivity on certain issues.

I am utterly disgusted with both the Right and the Left at this point. I wouldn't trust either of them to have a clue what they're talking about most of the time.

The only people I see whom I have some respect for are a few courageous individuals like Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore and Ron Paul, all of whom have the guts to speak the truth about what is really occurring. And what is occuring? Well, it looks a lot like the fall of the Roman Empire to me. It exhibits the same sort of symptoms, but it's happening quite a bit faster than it did in the case of Rome.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:23 AM

:-)


how did we get the idea that global wareming is a leftist conspiracy?
$427 million - spent by the oil and coal industries in the first six months of 2008 in political contributions, lobbying expenditures and advertising to oppose climate action.

And from people like dear old...

Lord Monckton      To the tune of My Bonnie lies over the Ocean

Lord Monckton lies over the ocean
Lord Monckton lies over the sea
Lord Monckton lies over the airways
O what a great liar is he!

Ch
Mad Lord Monkton, he's manic and all his publicity's free
Mad Lord Monkton, he's got a concocted CV.

He wants to lock up all the greenies
He says that Al Gore's just a hick
And science is not for compliance
Global warming's a communist trick.

Ch

Lord Monckton supports all emissions
His mission's tradition and fees
He's label's more noble than Nobel
He's Lord of Denial you see.

Ch

Lord Monckton's got eyeballs like golfballs
They roll and they quiver and pop
I wonder if Monckton's got no balls
He's a counter-delusionary fop.

Mad Lord Monkton, he's manic and all his publicity's free
Mad Lord Monkton, he's got a concocted CV.

Lord Monckton's a worrying warrior
A windbag, all bluster and gout
His hot air's a big source of emission
Whenever he opens his mouth

f.u.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM

freda underhill: "For anyone who believes in karma, everything we do has an effect."

GfS: My Karma just ran over your dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 01:38 AM

Dear KP. I was wrong.

The 1979-2000 mean is 15.6 million square kilometers.

The ice area is currently 15.44 million square kilometers,

1% below average.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:19 PM

For what?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM

SHow me some reliable numbers, LH.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM

I finally got time to watch that whole video, Alice. Interesting.

If she's correct in her opinions, then her points are well taken. If she's not, then they're another misleading propaganda effort on behalf of the folks she's representing. I don't know which it might be. I also don't know if she's sincere, although she may well be quite sincere.

The thing that primarily interests me is whether the anthropomorphic factor in climate change is as big as the people she agrees with say it is? That's what I wonder. Or are the primary factors driving climate change natural cyclical ones, not anthropomorphic ones? If so, then the message we have been given by "An Inconvenient Truth" is a misleading one.

There are a number of scientists who dispute the existing theory, and I've seen them on videos and read things they had to say...I'm not aware that any of them are connected with the 3 men she focuses on in "Merchants of Doubt". If they aren't, one can hardly establish guilt by association then, can one?

Did you read the variety of comments below the video? The usual set of strong opinions, pro and con... ;-)

Now, here's the thing. Take a deep breath and consider this. It won't change anything if you convince me of your opinion on climate change or I convince you of mine. It will not alter the future of the world debate on climate change, and it will not save the planet.

I already know that! ;-) I'm not sure that the other vociferous arguers here do. I think most people here get so caught up in the struggle of their own ego to assert itself and "save the world" that they actually imagine, like Don Quixote assaulting the windmill, that they are engaged in real heroics that will yield a tangible result!

That is not the case. We are all talking here for one simple reason: it gives our restless, hungry little minds something to focus on and do for a few more minutes of our life, and it enhances our ego's sense of its own existence while so doing. It's like an ant shouting at the sky, and imagining that the sky is going to take notice.

I'm quite interested in the climate change debate simply because it is interesting, in its own right. However...I do not imagine for one moment that my opinion about it is going to change anything that's going to happen in terms of government policy nor that my "winning" some argument with you or Amos or anyone else here is going to accomplish anything tangible either. I just enjoy talking about it, because I find it interesting. Period.

I expect to keep disagreeing with Amos forever about it, and that's okay, because it wouldn't change diddly-squat if he changed his mind anyway...nor would it change diddly-squat if I changed mine.

Trust me. The people who determine national policy do it for much larger and more pragmatic reasons than worrying about what you or I or Amos thinks about climate change...and they will make their decisions on the basis of utterly ruthless pragmatism driven by huge vested interests. And I know it.

In the meantime, it remains an interesting subject, and one I will continue to read about merely because I would like to know more about it. I have a curious mind that wants to know. I am always aware that there is more to know, and that I might find out something that alters my entire view of something like climate change. But I KNOW that I'm doing it just because my mind is hungry....for fun, in other words. If my mind didn't find it engaging for some reason, I wouldn't be thinking about it, would I?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM

But, if the Ice Ages were cyclical, why is it so heavily poastulated that "our impact" might not help to even out the the extremes?

If our impact has caused massive pieces of ice shelves and glaciers to break off and drift into the oceans, perhaps these will cool things down and be a catalyst to move ocean currents. Maybe it's a good thing. Certainly, the evidence, as presented, indicates we should just hide in a fuckin cave, but I really can't see that happening.

Now, here's sommat that is gonna sound REALLY nuts. Large chunks of ice end up in the oceans. Almost the size of Orson Welles. The water levels rise and provide just enough pressure to push the tectonic plates apart 0.00001mm. This allows magma to rise in the 0.000001 wide cracks at the fault zones near the coasts. The magma (h)eats it's way up the crack and BOOM! Ya got Chile Con Carnage.

Sorry. But if I only have a wee bit of time left before Imagettin outta here, I'd like to go out with a joke.

I must see about cookin up a little chicken for supper.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:15 PM

It's interesting what shifts when you include all the information. Thanks for the detective work.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Martin Harwood
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:36 AM

here's the page that Sawzaw's latest graph comes from. The graph below it shows a steady shrinking of the ice.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM

"It looks like we might be in a situation at the moment where sea temperature is rising but the air temperature doesn't seem to be."

This has been explained many times here on this very forum. See Pacific Ring of Fire activity in the last 20 years or so. Way up.

Volcanic activity on the ocean floor warms the ocean waters, increases water vapor, warms the Antarctic ice (the part that is not above land), changes some ocean current paths, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM

Sawz:

If the numbers are actually wrong, that would be significant. But, just offhand, it seems to me more likely you have been suckered by the same shill that bit LH.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 07:03 AM

Sorry Sawzaw,
Hate to be pedantic but your graph shows the ice is 2 standard deviations away from the average not 2%. That means that there is a 95% probability that the ice cover is below the average. See here for an explanation of the stats:
68-95-99.7 rule

You hear people using phrases like 'the change is statistically significant' and they are usually implying that the new data is more than 2 deviations away from the mean.

It looks like we might be in a situation at the moment where sea temperature is rising but the air temperature doesn't seem to be. That's a pain for the experimentalists as trying to get good average sea temperature data is really hard by all accounts!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:09 AM

Amos: How is the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap coming along?

Seems like it is within 2% of the 1979-2000 average

Better luck next year Pop.


Flashback: March 4, 2009

    Our main conclusions so far indicate that there is a very low probability that Arctic sea ice will ever recover. As predicted by all IPCC models, Arctic sea ice is more likely to disappear in summer in the near future. However it seems like this is going to happen much sooner than models predicted, as pointed out by recent observations and data reanalysis undertaken during IPY and the Damocles Integrated Project. The entire Arctic system is evolving to a new super interglacial stage seasonally ice free, and this will have profound consequences for all the elements of the Arctic cryosphere, marine and terrestrial ecosystems and human activities. Both the atmosphere and the ocean circulation and stratification (ventilation) will also be affected.


More smugness and arrogance: December 15, 2008

Arctic melt passes the point of no return, We hate to say we told you so, but we did

The UK's Independent reports on a study to be presented Tuesday to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco by top cryosphere scientists:

    Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.


Even more GIGO:

OSLO, Feb. 29 2008 (Xinhua) -- The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

    The shrinking of the Arctic ice cap has been astonishing, Orheim said in an interview with Xinhua.

    "The ice sheet hit the historical low of 3 million square km during the hottest weeks last summer, while it covered 7.5 million square km on average before the year 2000, " he said.

    "If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions," Orheim said.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:13 AM

U.S. TEMPERATURES: ADJUSTED OR MASSAGED?, BY: DENNIS T. AVERY

CHURCHVILLE, VA—My neighbor, physicist Edward Long, is afraid our temperature records have been falsified to support the man-made global warming scare. e;He's afraid HDr. Long recently chose two sets of U.S. meteorological stations from the master list offered by the National Climate Data Center. One data set was rural, one urban. Each had a site in each of the lower 48 states. From the 1890s to 2006, the urban set of measurements showed an increase of 0.72 degrees—but the rural set showed only 0.11 degrees of warming.

The vast majority of America is rural, and our cities obviously create their own "heat islands" with masses of cement, brick, and blacktop. Thus, the U.S. temperature record should logically show a true temperature gain that is close to the low rural increase of 0.11 degrees C. In fact, NCDC record shows an overall U.S. temperature increase of 0.69 degrees C.

Ed Long says on the American Thinker blog, "The NCDC's massaging, they call it 'adjusting'. has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11C/century to an adjusted value of 0.58C/century, and no change in the urban values. . . . This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the increase in the size and activities within urban locations unless deception is the goal.

The warming alarmists embedded in our government-sponsored research units have already wasted billions of dollars to endlessly run misleading computerized "climate models." They have come close to bankrupting our society through the forced substitution of costly, erratic solar and wind power for coal, oil, and natural gas while we refuse to authorize new nuclear facilities. Next would come the job losses, as U.S. industries shut down due to high energy costs or flee to Third World countries with no energy taxes.

Now we find that the man-made global warming record, which has supposedly triggered all of this, is "supported" by government-manipulated temperature records:

    * The Russians say Britain's East Anglia University officially deleted most of the thermometer sites scattered across Russia's vast hinterlands because the readings didn't show global warming.

    * New Zealand's official record shows a major warming in the 20th century, but none of its weather sites shows that warming trend.

    * Veteran meteorologist Joe D'Aleo of Icecap recently charged, on John Coleman's KUSI-TV special, that the U.S. temperature record has been similarly corrupted over the years, weeding out non-warming weather sites. .

    * James Goodridge, then California State Climatologist, published a peer-reviewed report in 1992 that found California's urban counties had experienced a strong warming, the suburban counties a moderate warming, and the rural counties no warming at all.

We've been enthralled by the Green Wave of guilt and redemption. I recently reminded in a column that the 1995 IPCC report claimed a "human fingerprint on our warming" with no credible scientific to support it and no such scientific support has since been proffered. An NIH physician who believes in man-made warming looked at this column and said, What do I care about a 14-year-old report?"

Heavily-taxed energy will double and triple the real costs for everything we buy. Look for food costs to soar five-fold as nitrogen fertilizer made with natural gas is forced out of the farm economy. Steel will have too big a "carbon footprint" so the steelmakers and manufacturing will be in China and India. Yet there is only a 22 percent correlation between our global warming record and the rise of human-emitted CO2 in the 20th century. The correlation with sunspots is 79 percent.

The government-sponsored climate research community for whatever reasons has apparently betrayed us.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 08:50 PM

They are physically real, meaning they hover around 98.6 and process food. But as for being real in any cognitive sense, they are far, far from it .

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Scorpio.
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM

Are these threaders real? Are there really people over there who think concern for the environment is a communist plot? Or Obama is Hitler because he suggests that Americans take care of each other? Bit scary for us Europeans, when USA decides what happens to the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM

Horse pucky, Hawk. Re-examine the numbers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM

"Carbon dioxide doesn't affect global warming

Saturday, October 7, 2000

In reading Dispatch Science Reporter David Lore's recent article "Evidence keeps mounting that Earth is warming up,'' it is difficult not to retort: So, what else is new?

I learned about global warming 50 years ago reading geology as one of my subjects in natural sciences at Cambridge University.

The "news'' at that time was that the ice sheets had been retreating since the early 1900s, and Earth warming had started about the middle to late 1600s.

This followed a 300- to 400-year cooling period, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, which came after the much hotter Medieval Warm Period, running roughly A.D. 900 to 1300, depending on the source. During that warm period, the Vikings had two settlements on the west coast of Greenland -- try that today -- which vanished with onset of the Little Ice Age.

And, the further point in the article that climatologist James Hansen gets so excited about is the contribution of carbon dioxide. What has carbon dioxide to do with all this?

Almost nothing, from what I have seen, looking at the numbers for the last 30 years, which raises major questions both about both the feasibility and the pointless cost to society of trying to control such emissions.

It is well-known and fully recognized, if one checks the relevant Web sites, that the two principal thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide.

However -- and this point is continually missed -- the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top limit, it is closer to 100-to-1.

This means that the carbon dioxide is simply "noise'' in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done.

So, if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving up the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide?

One can easily run the numbers by using the standard psychrometric chart as used by the friendly neighborhood air-conditioning man. This is a graph of the ratio of water to air in the atmosphere plotted against temperature, for different levels of relative humidity.

If one calculates the ratio of carbon dioxide to dry air and plots it on the same graph, one would see it is just above zero. In other words, at such a small relative concentration, how can carbon dioxide have any significant influence on the atmosphere? If anyone has an answer, I'm listening.

Robert H. Essenhigh
Professor of energy conservation
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Ohio State University"


source

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM

For anyone who believes in karma, everything we do has an effect. As well as the planet pumping away on its own slow throb of eons, we worms on the surface have been doing more than existing in harmony.

There has been a huge increase in the global concentrations of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide since 200 years ago to levels not observed for the past 800,000 years or more. The average rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 was at least five times larger over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the two millennia before the industrial era. The majority of the increase comes from burning fossil fuels.

LH, for a quick discussion of why what's happening is different from the cycles hundreds of millions of years, check this info from the Australian Department of Climate explains with sources.

In the meantime, I have to say that it's good to be skeptical and belief in conspiracies is rational, given the nature of humans and their obsession with power. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everything you disagree with politically is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 05:51 PM

Little Hawk, before you too tightly embrace the views of others, please do keep in mind that there are a couple of individuals here who do believe that there is no global warming at all, not just that human beings have no share in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 05:47 PM

I am espousing natural wisdom and graceful acceptance of reality, sir, and you are the victim of a very well choreographed government and media-inspired scare campaign...similarly to all those folks who recently fell for the giant H1N1 vaccine marketing tempest-in-a-teapot scam and went out to get vaccinations they never needed or benefited from.

;-)

I still have not really had enough time to watch Alice's video. I just got back from Toronto, and I must go out shortly to play music. I should be able to watch it tomorrow, though.

Just imagine what would happen if I watched it tomorrow and changed my mind!


Nothing. It wouldn't change the future of the planet one iota.

But you and Alice would be delighted that I now agreed with your own view of the theory of global warming...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM

You are espousing ignorance, vehemently. A bad sign, indeed, M. Hack!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:02 AM

The Earth warms. The Earth cools. The Earth warms again. The Earth cools again. An ice age comes. A warm period comes. The climate changes. The climate always changes. Change is the essential fact of existence. People come. People go. Other species come and go. The Earth just keeps on going. Get used to it and stop being scared all the time about something.

I still don't have time to view Alice's video, as I must drive to Toronto in about 10 minutes. Like the next global cooling phase, however, I shall return if you wait for a suitable period of time. (probably) (You never know for sure, do you?)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 08:19 AM

2009 was Australia's second warmest year on record, containing three significant heatwaves, while 2000-2009 was Australia's warmest decade since the Australian Bureau of Meteorology commenced high quality national records in 1910. Last year, floods affected large areas of northern Australia, northeast NSW and Tasmania, while the year started with extremely dry conditions in the southeast and for parts of WA. We have just completed the globe's warmest decade on record, while sea level was also at record levels in 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 01:06 AM

Global warming????

Another fraud perpetrated on the people to control the masses, mostly from the 'liberal' Democrats. You'd think that after all the stuff coming out about a myriad of corruption, and lies, that some light bulbs would be flickering on.

Now, I'm not a Republican, either..nope!..I'm from Sanity-Land! ..Just here visiting. You know, if you stay objective, and stop choosing sides, or 'issues' raised by either side, to get you all emotionally tied in, the lies, bribery, corruption, incapability, and general subversiveness of our 'so-called' elected 'representatives', and 'leaders'(read dictators),...seems reminiscent of times past....WHEN A LOT OF YOU FOLKS WERE BITCHING....but now its ok, huh? ..Methinks as you get older you're getting conditioned that bullshit in government, is just O.K...as long as they convince you, that you're all on the same side!

By the way, Al Gore, should be stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize, made to return the $500 million, and face criminal charges for conspiracy to defraud.....you know, like Bernie Madoff.

But no-o-o-o-o-o, he's our 'liberal' icon who is for us little people!

The jokes on you!!!!!!

Redistribution of wealth.....from us tax-payers to the corrupt pieces of crap, that tells us WHAT to think....so they can increase THEIR power and money!!..and stick it to us!!!

Happy Easter, and Health Care Deform!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:51 PM

Alice - I'll have to get to it tomorrow...or Wednesday. It's too danged late now, and I've got an early day tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM

Righto. I will. Right after tonight's song circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 04:01 PM

watch the lecture

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM

Or did they do their usual subversive job at the time and oppose the media's notion that we were going into a new ice age?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 02:46 PM

Were they also behind the great "global cooling" scare of the early 70s?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 02:31 PM

Here is a new book being released on May 25 and link to video lecture by one of the authors:

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
"Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era."

product description from Amazon.com
Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly?some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it.

University of Rhode Island dept of Oceanography speech, video of presentation by Oreskes
Answering Climate Change Skeptics
VIDEO on you tube, lecture

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 02:14 PM

I LOVE that guy, Hawk. But I would take his cosmic perspective with a grain of salt.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

Here...this'll drive you nuts. ;-)

George Carlin comments on human arrogance, conceit, and self-importance...

George Carlin on global warming, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 10:25 AM

The solar minimum at the end of each 11-year solar cycle is characterized by a reduction in the number of sunspots, flares, and other solar activity. The most recent, from 2008 to the beginning of 2009, lasted fifteen months longer than expected.

The study used 13 years' worth of results from SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which was launched jointly by the European Space Angency and NASA. Among the data gathered by SOHO are measurements of the ionized gases moving from the sun's equator to the poles in what is known as the meridional flow. The scientists then tried to correlate the flow with variations in the sunspot cycle.

The researchers, Lisa Rightmire of the University of Memphis, Tennessee, and David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, found the normally slow meridional flows started to speed up a few years before 2008, when the number of sunspots declined. In the previous solar minimum the speed was around 30 kph, but in 2008-9 was about 47 kph. The scientists suggest the solar minimum was longer than usual because the magnetic fields produced by the gas flows at the poles were weaker, but it is not known why the speed of the meridional flow increased.

Hathaway said the meridional flow carries with it magnetic fields that oppose the flows of strongly magnetized material on the solar surface. When the meriodional flow is faster the opposition to the other flows is greater and the polar magnetic field cannot become as strong as it otherwise would, and this may have delayed the start of the current solar cycle that began in 2009. Hathaway said the strength of the magnetic flow at the poles is critical since the magnetic fields fall below the surface and set up the conditions for sunspots, and when the fields are weaker they take longer to reach the required strength to produce sunspots. Hathaway and Rightmire also predict the current solar cycle is likely to have less solar activity than the previous cycle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:24 AM

Here's some more information, from the Australian government's two major scientific agencies – the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.

State of the Climate This link is to a six page summery of a larger report.

Changes observed include:

Highly variable rainfall across the country, with substantial increases in rainfall in northern and central parts of Australia, as well as significant decreases across much of southern and eastern Australia. Rapidly rising sea levels from 1993 to 2009, with levels around Australia rising, between 1.5 and 3mm per year in Australia's south and east and between 7 and 10mm in the country's north

Read it and see for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:19 PM

It's unquestionably the most significant way in which the Earth warms and cools itself. Heat in any given region causes evaporation of surface water, lake water, ocean water, etc. That evaporation puts water vapor into the atmosphere. The moist, warm air rises until it hits cooler temperatures, and the water vapor condenses and forms clouds. Clouds help cool the earth below them. Further cooling causes those clouds to condense into rain or snow. The rain and snow further cools the surface of the Earth, starts evaporating, and the whole thing starts over again.

You could say it's like a giant air conditioning system.

There's also a large exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the pant world, so I think I'd call that part of the Earth's natural warming and cooling system too.

Man's activities would certainly have some effect on the overall situation, the question is "how much?".

These warming and cooling phases have been happening for millions of years, as is shown in the geological record and in ice core samples. There have been periods when there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than now....and life flourished during a number of those periods. That makes me skeptical that an increase in CO2 is the apocalyptic scenario that we have been presented with.

I also can't see why there would have been a notable planetary cooling phase between 1940 and 1975 if our increasing level of industrial emissions were the key factor behind increased planetary warming. It just doesn't make sense in the light of that historically recorded cooling period (which led to scare stories in the press during the mid-70s about the threat of a new "ice age").

It seems more likely to me that changing solar output of energy to the Earth is the dominant factor.

I'm not saying that our activities have NO effect on planetary warming and cooling, but I think their effect has probably been exaggerated of late.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:05 PM

A question regarding water vapor: (I know little about the subject)   Might water vapor be THE natural way that Earth warms and cools itself? And further, might the increased levels of greenhouse gases have upset the natural balance?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:20 PM

That's a very interesting article. It looks like there are both dangers and opportunities created by the warming in the Arctic region.

I found that description of how the great boreal forests of Canada and Russia absorb a huge amount of CO2 during the summer, then release it during the winter fascinating...the analogy being that it was like the planet "breathing".

I find it a little odd that the article talks about greenhouse gases and then specifically mentions CO2 and Methane....but has nothing to say about water vapor which is the largest greenhouse gas of them all by far.

A warmer world would encourage the growth of vegetation...providing human beings allow that growth to happen.

It seems likely to me that the planet has a way of regulating itself quite intelligently through the ability of the plant world and other biological systems to adapt and change to fit new conditions and thereby bring those new conditions back toward a central balance....but humanity is a wild card in that process, because we cut down forests, kill off other species, and radically alter the environment in our continual desire to expand "civilization".

It's not an intelligent or wise approach to tie oneself to an economic model where "more" is always considered to be "better".

We need a new economic and political philosophy: one that is based on principles such as...

1. reducing population (by peaceful and unharmful means)
2. restoring the natural environment
3. replacing a competitively drive system with a cooperatively-driven one that sets out to secure a good life for ALL citizens as a normal civil right.
4. an end to warfare (which is another form of competition)
5. a work ethic that is based on acommplishing something that is GOOD for everyone, not just making money no matter how you do it, and with no regard to how it may affect other people, Nature, and the planet.
6. a moral ethic that values all life on this planet, not just human life...

We need, in short, to stop being egocentric destroyers of everything else around us.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Welcome to Barrow, Alaska

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:38 AM

The one from the Smithsonian? I'll have a look. Got a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM

In other words, LH, you're not going to read that article.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:26 AM

Two features were on BBC Radio 4 news yesterday morning: the Met Office confirmed that man made global warming really is occurring and then this was followed by a feature about a Scandanavian ship becoming stuck in the ice as this was one of the coldest winter in the Baltic on record. I wonder was this juxtaposition accidental or deliberate.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:28 AM

It's not anecdotal evidence I'm all that interested in, Ebbie, because anecdotal evidence is more often about changing local weather than it is about anything which would shed much light on questions of overall global warming.

No, it's actual observations by trained scientific personnel such as climatologists that I am interested in....deep ice core samples from the ice pack over Greenland and in other locations...atmospheric temperature readings done by balloon and satellite...surface temperature readings done in consistent locations with professional equipment, the geological record of the past, that sort of thing.

That's what I find more reliable than computer models or anecdotes, because it's direct scientific observation of actual confirmed data...not hypothetical projections based on a computer model.

I'm not much interested in the anecdotal stuff from people here and there, because it varies too much and it is too dependent on rapidly changing weather patterns in a single season for a single location. I don't consider that very helpful in determining whether or not we are experiencing global warming, nor does it help in determining exactly what is causing such global warming....and that is what I'm mostly concerned about: what are the primary causes? Man-made or natural? If they are natural causes, then the GW theory the IPCC is espousing is incorrect.

I have heard some murmurs lately that world temperatures have stopped increasing in the last few years...I don't know if that's correct or not. It may be. I'd have to look into it further, because I have no basis yet for either categorically denying or totally accepting that notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM

Little Hawk, you say that you would put more trust on anecdotal evidence, rather than the models in the laboratories (paraphrased). So read this month's Smithsonian Magazine. It has an article from page 59 to page 66, titled 'Welcome to Barrow, Alaska- Ground Zero for Climate Change.'

It is well written, complete with graphs and pictures and replete with locals' views and stories.


Incidentally, you said that "no one" is disputing that the globe is getting warmer, that the point of contention is to whether man has a major part in it. If you notice, Sawzaw does NOT accept that the climate is changing, and in fact, most recently you appeared to agree with him that the earth has in the last decade stopped warming.

I suppose that it's possible, when it comes down to it, that most of us will be long gone before the worst of the effects are known or experienced- but I wouldn't bet on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:59 PM

That explains it all Amos.

Now you can start forking your nice green tax dollars over to Gore and Pachauri's "Green" companies.

The green jobs myth
washingtonpost.com February 26, 2010

"Green jobs" have become a central underpinning of the Obama administration's rationale to promote clean energy. But how valid is the assumption that a "clean-energy" economy will generate enough jobs to mitigate today's high level of unemployment -- new jobless claims were up 22,000 this week -- and to meet the needs of future generations? A green economy would have to spout jobs in the millions to do both. The facts challenge the prevailing thinking among some policymakers and officials that green jobs are a principal reason for transforming the economy.

Let's consider just one clean-energy sector, the smart grid, for its job-creation potential. The Obama administration allocated a little more than $4 billion in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the smart grid, an unprecedented amount for a hitherto-neglected but critical piece of our national infrastructure. Much of this is to be spent installing close to 20 million "smart meters" over the next five years. Smart meters are digital versions of the spinning electric meters that are omnipresent nationwide. Whereas spinning meters have changed little in more than a century and must be read by workers, smart meters automatically transmit electricity consumption data to a utility. Virtually eliminating human intervention, smart meters promise more accurate measurement of electricity usage as well as increasingly efficient management of energy production resources.

Nearly 40 million smart meters have been deployed worldwide, mostly in Europe. Jobs created in this industry can be broadly classified into four categories: installation, manufacturing, research and development, and IT services.

First, installation: It typically takes a team of two certified electricians half an hour to replace the old, spinning meter. In one day, two people can install about 15 new meters, or about 5,000 in a year. Were a million smart meters to be installed in a year, 400 installation jobs would be created. It follows that the planned U.S. deployment of 20 million smart meters over five years, or 4 million per year, should create 1,600 installation jobs. Unless more meters are added to the annual deployment schedule, this workforce of 1,600 should cover installation needs for the next five years.

Although a surge of new digital meters will be produced, the manufacturing process is highly automated. And with much of it accomplished overseas, net creation in domestic manufacturing jobs is expected to be only in the hundreds. In R&D and IT services, high-paying white-collar jobs are on the horizon, but as with manufacturing, the number of jobs created is forecast to be in the hundreds or low thousands.

Now let's consider job losses. It takes one worker today roughly 15 minutes to read a single meter. So in a day, a meter reader can scan about 30 meters, or about 700 meters a month. Meters are typically read once a month, making it the base period to calculate meter-reading jobs. Reading a million meters every month engages about 1,400 personnel. In five years, 20 million manually read meters are expected to disappear, taking with them some 28,000 meter-reading jobs.

In other words, instead of creating jobs, smart metering will probably result in net job destruction. This should not be surprising because the main method of making the electrical grid "smart" is by automating its functions. Automation by definition obviates the need for people.

In other "clean-energy" sectors such as solar and wind energy, jobs are predicted to emerge in the same broad categories of installation, manufacturing, R&D and IT services, but the near-term expected levels of investment in and adoption of these renewable sources of energy mean that net job creation should top out in the tens of thousands, as opposed to the desired hundreds of thousands or more. Electric vehicles represent another promising green sector, but even if the vehicles were rolled out in substantive quantities, jobs would be created mainly in research and development and infrastructure support, and there, too, only in the hundreds or maybe even thousands. Manufacturing jobs would grow only incrementally since electric vehicle production will for the most part cannibalize that of gasoline-powered cars.

For the purpose of creating jobs, then, a "clean-energy economy" will not offer a panacea. This does not necessarily mean that America should not become green to alleviate climate change, to kick its addiction to foreign oil or to use energy sources more efficiently. But those who take great pains to tout the "job-creation potential" of the green space might just end up inducing labor pains all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

Lost in the coverage of the so-called climategate email controversy is a key point about the IPCC's track record of climate change estimates. James McCarthy is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment. He spoke February 21st at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego:

"If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate. Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently."

—Steve Mirsky
podcast here

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:03 PM

Regarding Fallujah and the birth defects...the USA has been using various toxic materials in their weaponry for some time now, including artillery shells with depleted Uranium in them. A lot of people in the battle areas have been made sick by the aftereffects, including the local people and American soldiers as well. Gulf War Syndrome affected a great many veterans of Bush the Elder's war in the Gulf. Again, it was due to some kind of toxic poisoning of American military personnel during the campaign. To put it briefly, there is a lot of weird shit going on!

Sometimes I think that the few people at the top in this world are clandestinely actually trying to kill off a majority of the world's population by a variety of means. If so, they are not succeeding very well at it, but they're causing a great deal of terrible suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

I have looked over the rebuttals from Hansen's "superior", who says he was not his actual reporting superior. Here's the important point. Yes, computerized models are flawed. The US ones are more flawed than the EU ones. Granularity is one of the issues, to be sure. ANother one is completely unknown phenomena such as the recently discovered Niiler striation circulation patterns that change our understanding of ocean carbon processes.

But that level of detail and modeling itself does not rebut the raw values of temperature and CO2 ramp up, which are pretty clearly correlated chronologically even if with a little lag.

And most important, they do not change the fact that those values are breaking out of a range they have held for thousands of years.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM

Amos, I have posted links to various videos in which a number of scientists and professionals in the field explain their opposition to the anthropomorphic global warming theory. Just go back and find them and spend some time viewing them.

Read the link that pdq posted today.

There's all kinds of stuff out there now from scientists who dispute the theory which you favor. The only way you can not be aware of it is by willfully avoiding looking for such information or refusing to take it seriously or read it with any real attention when you find it.

If you're like most people, though, you'll just dismiss such opinions by saying, "Oh, well...he's a wingnut, and you can't trust what he says." It's a handy way of retaining an opinion you have alaready grown accustomed to and comfortable with in the face of contrary evidence from another source...and it's what most people do when confronted with contrary evidence. They just engage in the old ad-hominem attack on the messenger if all else fails.

At the end of the day (as the saying goes) most people just go on believing what they already want to believe, regardless of the evidence. This is why I don't break my back trying to change people's minds around here much of the time. It's like trying to calmly talk a cat into taking a much needed bath...hopeless! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

"...so something must be done to reduce the birth rate worldwide." LH

On ABC last night - there is television here where I'm housesitting - they featured an article on Falujah. Evidently since it was so thoroughly subdued by American forces six years ago, babies are being born with severe birth defects. (One baby was born with three heads- they showed a quick picture.) Many more were born with brain damage or with facial defects or with parts of limbs missing. One doctor said that two or three babies a DAY have severe effects.

The official advice at this point: Don't have a baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM

I am not here to defend or promote CFLs but as an example, I replaced 28 40 watt bulbs in my bathroom light bars a few years ago and only one has burned out.

That one went early on as is typical of the lifespan of the IC chips in the circuitry that replaces the old fashioned ballast transformer.

Chips either die young or live to an old age. The bulb however does not burn out, the electronic ballast goes bad.

Plus I get more light, lower electric bills and less load on my AC.

That's 1120 watts being replaced by 252 watts. That's a 77.5% savings in energy consumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM

I saw the LEDs. they were too expensive and they were barely more efficient. The whole thing looked like a heat sink with eyes, the LEDs being the eyes. lEDs are bluish too.

http://www.led-lighting-manufacturers.com/showing_44/Power-LED-Bulbs.html

There is mercury in fluorescent lamps also.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

LH: I get the soft white ones that put out a warmer, more pinkish or yellowish light as opposed to the bright white or day light which are bluer or cooler.

  Color temperature               kelvins          
  'Warm white' or 'Soft white'  ≤ 3,000 K  
  'White' or 'Bright White'       3,500 K          
  'Cool white'                    4,000 K          
  'Daylight'                    ≥ 5,000 K

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM

LH...thanks for saying things in you own words instead of giving people a steady diet of "copy'n'paste" BS like some here do.

Frodo in Oz...read this and you will get a better idea who James Hansen is ...

                                                               from Hansen's superior

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:28 AM

A normal courtesy would be to point your faithful readers to a reference or citation of the scientists you are drawing your data from, LH.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:27 AM

The material I've been reading that questions the currently popular theory about anthropomorphic global warming by CO2 emmissions doesn't emanate from non-scientists, Ebbie. It emanates from scientists.

I think the biggest threat to humanity in general stems from our rising population, so something must be done to reduce the birth rate worldwide. Something must also be done to restore the forests that once covered much of the planet. North Africa, for example, was once forested, as was most of the Mediterranean rim...and probably most of the Indian subcontinent. It all got cut down over a couple of thousand years by the civilizations that arose in those areas.

One thing for sure....Nature itself will eventually find the solution to our overpopulation and over-exploitation of the land if we don't. The planet has ways of protecting itself, ultimately, against any species that oversteps its bounds here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 02:37 AM

While people quibble, Arctic seabeds are belching massive quantities of methane

James Hansen of NASA is the most eminent contemporary climate scientist. He says that 20,000 years ago the Earth was 5°C colder and the sea level 110 metres lower than today. As temperatures began to elevate 14,000 years ago, sea levels rose at a very rapid rate, about 1 metre every 20 to 25 years.

Seven thousand years ago global temperature and sea levels stabilised. This is the period when what we sometimes speak of as human civilisation developed. According to Hansen, this stability is now clearly under threat. He argues it is certain that unless dramatic action is now taken – essentially the end of all coal-burning – various "tipping points" will soon be passed that will eventually make inevitable the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and the carbon-intensive Siberian and Arctic permafrost, and the radical extension of what the relevant scientists are already calling the sixth mass extinction of species in the history of the Earth.

Hansen argues that .."If humanity burns most of the fossil fuels, doubling or tripling the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level, Earth will surely head toward the ice-free condition, with sea-level 75 meters higher than today. It is difficult to say how long it will take for the melting to be complete, but once ice sheet disintegration gets well under way, it will be impossible to stop."

Given what is at stake – the future of the Earth – for non-scientists to dismiss Hansen's warning seems folly or arrogance of an astonishing kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:19 PM

OSLO (Reuters) - Large amounts of a powerful greenhouse gas are bubbling up from a long-frozen seabed north of Siberia, raising fears of far bigger leaks that could stoke global warming, scientists said.

It was unclear, however, if the Arctic emissions of methane gas were new or had been going on unnoticed for centuries -- since before the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century led to wide use of fossil fuels that are blamed for climate change.

The study said about 8 million tonnes of methane a year, equivalent to the annual total previously estimated from all of the world's oceans, were seeping from vast stores long trapped under permafrost below the seabed north of Russia.

"Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap," Natalia Shakhova, a scientist at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, said in a statement. She co-led the study published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

The experts measured levels of methane, a gas that can be released by rotting vegetation, in water and air at 5,000 sites on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf from 2003-08. In some places, methane was bubbling up from the seabed.

Previously, the sea floor had been considered an impermeable barrier sealing methane, Shakhova said. Current methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.

GLOBAL WARMING

"No one can answer this question," she said of whether the venting was caused by global warming or by natural factors. But a projected rise in temperatures could quicken the thaw.

"It's good that these emissions are documented. But you cannot say they're increasing," Martin Heimann, an expert at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Germany who wrote a separate article on methane in Science, told Reuters.

"These leaks could have been occurring all the time" since the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, he said. He wrote that the release of 8 million tonnes of methane a year was "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tonnes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

Darned right they don't last as long as they are advertised to. I found that out soon enough. What a crock. Looks to me like another clever way of swindling the public out of their hard-earned money.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:45 AM

"If you mean those little spiral-type bulbs that are actually small flourescents, I have to say I don't much like the light they give. I am not fond of them." ~ LH

Good statement.

The CFLs contain very poisonous Mercury and should be disposed of in a toxic waiste dump. They don't last a fraction as long as claimed and cost too much. They also destroy AM radio reception for many people.

Get LED bulbs.

Repeat: get bulbs made with light-emitting diodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM

You can wave your arms all you want, but it'll never get you off the ground. ;-)

I agree that these ancient cliched attacks on Al Gore over supposedly having said that he "invented the Internet", and other fluff like that, are just silly cheap shots which add nothing useful to any dialogue about Global Warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:15 AM

GtS' characterization of Gore is an example of histrionics. Gore never made the claim to having invented the Internet, just for example. The Republican canard was amplified with guffaws nation-wide by Republidroids but anyone with two brain cells to rub together has discovered it was a false story--which GtS has now resurrected in a fit of arm-waving.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:55 AM

That may well be so, Ringer. I'd been wondering about it myself. It would not be surprising if global warming had tapered off recently, because the Sun has been in a very quiet period for the last few years.

What I place the most confidence in is actual field readings and observations of what is occurring, using direct observation of environmental temperature changes by people in the science community...NOT a bunch of hypothetical computer models. A computer model can tell you anything that its programmers set it up to tell you, but real field observations tell you the truth.

If the warming phase has indeed halted in the last decade, there must be a sense of panic building at the IPCC...if you know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:34 AM

"...a computer model is only as good as the data which was put into it..."

Correct, Little Hawk. But even if the input data is correct, if the computer-model's underlying model is incorrect then its predictions will be incorrect. For example, if the underlying model is "each 1ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration lowers the global temperature by 3degF", then input data of "atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase with time" results in the computer-model predicting falling temperatures.

I, btw (pace Little Hawk), deny that temperatures are increasing at present. There has been no "global warming" for a decade or more, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 05:57 AM

LH,

Again, an accurate assesment.


Amos,

"Objecting histrionically by senfding out clouds of confused opinions with huge emotional vectors is counter-productive, unanalytical, and kinda dumb."

I have noted this. Do you intend to stop doing so anytime in the near future??


Looking at who stands to profit , it seems that far more are invested in the "Global Warming" side: With the redistribution of wealth and the political power that is being proposed, I think that I have reason to be suspicious of the Goreistas's motives.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:07 AM

If you mean those little spiral-type bulbs that are actually small flourescents, I have to say I don't much like the light they give. I am not fond of them.

Okay, KP...for a start, I suggest you do a search on "Greenhouse Gases" for a start, and get some info on that. Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas by far, CO2 is the next most significant, and there are a number of others after that.

Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas, but it also results in clouds, and clouds cool the surface of the Earth, so it's a complicated situation.

I think the most damaging thing people have done to the ecosphere is this: we have cut down most of the world's forests! This has been a huge factor in creating ecological problems. Forests consume much CO2, so if you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, you need to stop cutting down trees and let forests recover. Forests also hold water in the soil and provide shelter to millions of different lifeforms.

If we have just one worldwide environmental cause we should push (other than reducing the human birth rate), it is to save and recover our forestlands.

Further to that, KP, I suggest you view a number of the videos that are on Youtube and elsewhere...both those that support the conventional global warming theory AND those that oppose it. Give them both fair consideration and think about what the various scientists have to say. They do not all agree on what's happening.

Then decide for yourself.

One thing that seems quite significant to me is that the Earth has been through many warm periods in the past several hundred thousand years...periods warmer than this one we're in...and with far higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere... and the planet was teeming with animal and plant life. Warmer periods don't seem to threaten life as far as I can see....they are a boon to life on this planet. It's cold periods that cause species to die off en masse as glaciers advance from the poles.

But there's one difference now from that remote past. We have cut down most of our old growth forests worldwide. Forests are said to be the lungs of the planet. They are absolutely vital to the health of a vast array of living things, and we have cut them down to build things and to make money. This was shortsighted behaviour, and people are beginning to pay a very heavy price for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:12 AM

Let's hear Amos's definition of histrionics.

Ain't often LH takes up arms about anything but has sure got his hackles up about Global Warming.

By the way I have switched over to CFL bulbs everywhere possible to help save the environment and save money at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:43 PM

Little Hawk: "...In any case, I liked Al Gore and I thought he was probably telling the truth...."

GfS: Al Gore telling the truth???...about what???..inventing the internet?...That clown has never told the truth about anything!..Shit!..He's a politician!

By the way, ..Yo-Ho!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 01:49 PM

Guys...I have to go out now, but I'll get back to this in a bit. Okay? Kinda busy at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM

I submit for consideration, LH, that you are not addressing the actual changes in climate, but what one Atlantic Monthly writer called the "psychological climate of our perceptions". That is, of course, a climate much harder to change than the physical one. The psychological climate has its own toxins, such as BS, political brouhahaha and hyper-emotive histrionics, all of which cause it to freeze more solidly over time and increase its net resistance to acceleration in any direction.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM

Hawk
Interested to hear your take on 'CO2 is not a major factor in causing planetary warming, and that human-produced CO2 in particular is a very minor factor'.

Is that because you don't believe humans have caused the rise in CO2? I ask because there have been some rather confusing assertions made about sources of CO2, and I've been trying to follow people's reasoning.

Meanwhile I find myself agreeing with Sawzaw's comment about unintended consequences!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Yes, well, a little less heat on both sides might help, right? ;-) (No pun intended.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM

Objecting on the basis of fact, sir, or even on reasoning from facts in a clear methodical way, is one thing. Objecting histrionically by senfding out clouds of confused opinions with huge emotional vectors is counter-productive, unanalytical, and kinda dumb.

Bruce's snide comments notwithstanding, I always try to add reasonable explanations when I get huffy and start mouthing off, after I cool off some. Anyone who cares to do the homework can identify what kinds of things get me riled up. On the present topic I have pointed to dozens of graphs and explanatory articles in support of the anthropic climate change conclusion which is presented by the IPCC, and even allowing for the data errors and misdemeanors relating to a few minor aspects of that model, I still think the data adds up.

"How stupid that you do not see the real reason is sunspots." is not an example of a reasoned counterpoint.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM

It's a very complex situation, Amos, and I'm certainly interested in the various different viewpoints that are being offered.

You can listen to one set of scientists and they tell you one thing. You listen to another set and they tell you a different thing. You have a lot of stuff being promulgated on computer models...but a computer model is only as good as the data which was put into it...and the data must be 100% complete in all relevant factors to render an accurate result! I am skeptical of the computer models which have been used, because I doubt that they correctly worked in all the natural factors. All I can say is that the reading I've done so far has gradually moved me in the direction of feeling that CO2 is not a major factor in causing planetary warming, and that human-produced CO2 in particular is a very minor factor in that regard.

(shrug)

So, I not saying I know for certain. All I can go on is what I read about it, same as anyone else here, and I read many differing opinions about it.

I hope that we can see a more open and tolerant debate of the different theories about global warming in years to come, rather than just one theory being pushed in the media like a religious crusade, which is mostly what we have had in the last decade.

I don't care for any situation where anyone who objects publicly to a mainstream popular theory which has become virtually sacrosanct (such as the current global warming theory...or the official report on 911) is ridiculed, dismissed as a crank, vilified or equated with someone like a holocaust-denier, and then just shut out by the mainstream media and the powers that be.

It gets my back up, and it suggests to me that someone in high places might very well have something they want to hide...or a self-serving agenda they want to push.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:37 AM

"They are shrill, they are unfriendly, and they are bullying"

Sounds like a certain poster from the Left Coast...







"Jeeze, what a string of concatenated blither."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

Or plain cyber-bullying by the inadequately informed.

"Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned
Researchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence, simply part of the job of being a climate scientist

By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate   


The e-mails come thick and fast every time NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt appears in the press.

Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.

To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.

"I get a lot of hate mail," said Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who also runs RealClimate.org, a website devoted to debunking myths and errors about climate change. "I get a lot of praise mail, but pretty much every time I have a quote in a mainstream publication I'll get a string of emails from various people accusing me of various misdemeanors and fantasizing about my life in prison."

Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has a 19-page document of "extremely foul, nasty, abusive" e-mails he's received just since November.

Australian author and academic Clive Hamilton noted that many of the country's most distinguished climate scientists are increasingly the target of e-mail attacks aimed at driving them from the public debate.

"The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate," Hamilton wrote in a column published last week by Sydney's ABC News. "While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate."

The bullying has long been part of life for many climate scientists. Retired NCAR climate scientist Tom Wigley said he's been fighting it for the last 20 years or more. Most of the e-mails appear to be the work of frustrated individuals, ranting into the ether, scientists say. But some appear to be the work of coordinated campaigns, and many, scientists say, appear to be taking their cue from influential anti-climate change advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and ClimateDepot.com.

Scientists say the bullying, if anything, emboldens them. But it does have a cost.

Organized, "McCarthyite" tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful, Schmidt said. "Frivolous" Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers' time.

But worst of all, he said, are "intimidating letters" from congressional members threatening dire consequences to scientists working on climate change.

"That is chilling the work of science in the agencies," Schmidt said. "It's certainly very off-putting for scientists who want to talk about their stuff in public but fear the political consequences."

"Nobody wants to create an enemy on the Hill."

For the most part, the rants have remained just that - rants. Threats of physical harm remain rare and are usually discounted, scientists say. "These people don't really know you," Schmidt added. "They're not really talking about you. You're just a symbol that has an e-mail address."

The pace picked up late last year, when several years' worth of stolen correspondence among climate scientists were published on the Web. The onslaught intensified as errors in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's most recent report surfaced in January and policy makers and reporters began to question what has become the gold standard of climate science.

What's clear is the e-mails show anger and hostility. There's no effort to ask questions or seek what Trenberth called "the truth." Scientists aren't the only target; journalists covering the issue also routinely find their inbox stuffed with epithets.

"They do not tend to be reasonable," said Rudy Baum, editor-in-chief of Chemical and Engineering News, who has been covering science for the magazine for 30 years. "They do not seem to be interested in dialogue. They are shrill, they are unfriendly, and they are bullying."
..." SciAm.

The full article discusses some of the rationalizations used, and the initiators of the cyberbully campaigns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:30 PM

"Global Warming or not, there is no excuse for not using less packaging, being careful with natural resources, recycling wherever practicable and investing in renewable energy that reduces our dependence on the Middle East. "

AMEN

Problem is all this hype by the alarmists is turning more people into skeptics who claim there is NO global warming.

Blowback.

Unintended results.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 08:33 AM

PDQ,
You had some interesting questions about my comments to Little Hawk, where I tried to show the potential impact of atmospheric CO2. So I said:
"...its quite easy to calculate how much energy all that CO2 could absorb - its about 6E+20J (followed by 20 zeros) joules for every absorption cycle."

and your comments are:
'The trouble I see with that is: you are telling us how much energy the CO2 can absorb/hold/release in the atmosphere, not the amount of heat it does absorb/hold/release. Not the same thing.'

'At 361 ppm, CO2 is involved with a tiny portion of the total radiated heat, the rest passes through the atmosphere and makes contact with nothing.'

I agree with your first comment. I was trying to show that 361 ppmv or 380 ppm(w/w) was indeed enough to trap a significant amount of heat from first principles. Those simple numbers illustrate that potentially that small amount of CO2 could easily absorb enough energy to shift the climate. As you say, what actually happens in real life is highly complex, and that is what the practicing scientists are trying to do. One approach is the oft-criticized global climate models, which are literally and metaphorically 'over my head' (doesn't mean they're right or wrong, just that I don't understand them).

The other approach, which bears on your second comment, is more based on radiation physics and involves looking at the total radiation budgets. From classical physics (Stefan- Boltzmann) you can calculate the infra-red emission given off by the earth bearing in mind its average temperature. And you can use satellites to measure the radiation actually going out into space from the earth's atmosphere. And you can also measure the wavelength of any infra-red radiation coming back down to earth from the atmosphere. What is found is:

1. The earth radiates about 390 Joules per second (or Watts if you prefer) for each square meter of its surface. The energy is emitted in a smooth bell curve with almost nothing at 5 micron radiation and not much beyond 50 microns. The peak is between 15 and 20 microns.

2. That peak at 15-20 microns is quite close to the CO2 absorption band at 14-15 microns and in principle you'd expect to see strong absorption there. And looking at the radiation going into space from the atmosphere, you do indeed see a strong band. Instead of a nice smooth bell curve with a peak at 15-20 microns there is a curve that looks like someone has put an axe into the top (and around the sides as well). The dent in the curve is pretty well at the strongest point of the CO2 absorption.

3. There is significant (>30W/m2) energy being radiated back to the earth's surface at 14 microns.

There is a summary paper by Kiehl and Trenberth (of the US meterological society) where they look at these heat flows. They would probably disagree with your second statement, as they comment 'that very little radiation is actually transmitted directly to space as though the atmosphere were transparent'.

My view is that there is is little doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it contributes to our current climate.

For sceptics of man-made climate change, there are two areas of genuine scientific uncertainty as far as I can tell. One is the complexity of the earth's climate with all of the inputs from solar variation, Milankovitch cycles, aerosols, vegetation impacts on albedo, which makes the predictive climate models necessarily complex. Some sceptical scientists are meteorologists rather than climatologists, and the gist of their criticism is usually around the fact that the earth's system is too complex to be quantitatively modeled.

The other point is made by physical scientists - the atmospheric absorption by CO2 is already so strong that adding more will not make that much more difference, because most of the 14 micron radiation is already absorbed. And again, calculating the answer to that point is very complex - is the 14 micron band saturated at all parts of the atmosphere, or just in the lower troposphere? Unfortunately, one of the new satellites meant to look at that issue blew up on launch last year.

So what will happen if we add a large 'slug' of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere rather quickly in geological terms? The paleoclimate stuff is interesting but not conclusive because there haven't been many occasions where the CO2 levels have changed as fast as they are right now. Well, we're now doing the full scale experiment and it remains to be seen what kind of results we get back...

Sorry if that's all too long! These are not questions where its easy to give a quick answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:37 PM

So, Amos?

You have NOT shown anything other than that Obama is \responsible for the increase in mortgage defaults.

If the CO2 absorbtion of seawater has decreased substantially as of 2000, how does that reflect on the recent decrease in temperature? The ENTIRE model seems flawwed- Both water vapor and methane are more effective greenhouse gasses, and you do NOT take into account the variations there- if the sea level IS rising, then there is LESS surface area ( as compared to glacial ice) and the H2O vapor will drop. So we are entering a period of global cooling, staved off ONLY by the excess pollution that Al Gore is putting out in his trips to meetings demanding that the rest of us stop traveling.

Try reading what LH posted- it is something you have not yet even acknowledged.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:25 PM

Oceans losing ability to absorb greenhouse gas
January 11, 2010 by Jennifer Fitzenberger


UCI Earth scientist Francois Primeau and colleagues report that oceans are growing less efficient at absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide.


(PhysOrg.com) -- Like a dirty filter, the Earth's oceans are growing less efficient at absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas produced by fossil-fuel burning, reports a study co-authored by Francois Primeau, UC Irvine Earth system science associate professor.


The oceans largely kept up when carbon dioxide emissions began soaring in the 1950s, but the absorption rate has slowed since the 1980s and dropped off even more noticeably since 2000, according to the recent study in the journal Nature.

Here, Primeau answers questions about the research, which suggests the oceans may not be as reliable as previously thought at guarding against global warming.

Q: Why are the oceans absorbing less carbon dioxide?

A: Oceanographers refer to the time since water was last at the surface as its "age." The age of water masses in the ocean ranges from zero to more than 1,000 years, but the bulk of waters that upwell to the surface typically are less than a few decades old. Because older water was in contact with the atmosphere at a time when airborne carbon dioxide levels were lower, it contains less manmade carbon. On the other hand, younger water tends to have higher levels of this carbon. In particular, water that is less than a few decades old has man-made carbon levels that reflect the large ramp-up in emissions that began in the 1950s. This water is now showing its age by already having significant levels of carbon when re-exposed to the atmosphere. The extra carbon is making surface water more acidic. The resulting change in seawater chemistry is diminishing the oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

Q: How was the absorption slowdown identified?

A: When we measure the carbon concentration of seawater, it's not possible to distinguish carbon that originated from fossil-fuel burning and the large background level of natural carbon. So instead of trying to directly measure the increase in ocean carbon, we created a mathematical model based on tens of thousands of ship-based measurements collected over the last 20 years that allowed us to determine where and how long ago the water in the ocean's interior was last at the surface. The model was then used to track all of the ocean's water masses backward in time to when they last exchanged carbon dioxide with the atmosphere. We reconstructed a year-by-year inventory of the manmade gas in the ocean from 1765 to 2008. This allowed us to identify trends in the uptake of human-generated carbon dioxide.

Q: What effects might this have on global climate change?

A: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. If the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide emissions more slowly, more of them will stay in the atmosphere for a longer time, leading to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - which contribute to global warming. To reverse this cycle, we have to bring down levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We can do this by reducing the amount of energy we waste and by choosing food produced with as little fossil fuel as possible.

Q: How did you contribute to this study?

A: My contribution was to formulate the mathematical model that integrated ship-based data on the ocean's temperature, salinity and chlorofluorocarbon, radiocarbon, oxygen and phosphate content to help us understand the invasion of manmade carbon without having to know the actual circulation of the ocean.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

(PhysOrg.com) -- Climatologists have long known that human-produced greenhouse gases have been the dominant drivers of Earth's observed warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But other factors also affect our planet's temperature. Of these, the ocean plays a dominant role. Its effects helped nudge global temperatures slightly higher in 2009, and, according to NASA scientists, could well contribute to making 2010 the warmest year on record.


Covering 71 percent of our planet's surface, the ocean acts as a global thermostat, storing energy from the sun, keeping Earth's temperature changes moderate and keeping climate change gradual. In fact, the ocean can store as much heat in its top three meters (10 feet) as the entire atmosphere does.

"The vast amount of heat stored in the ocean regulates Earth's temperature, much as a flywheel regulates the speed of an engine," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "The ocean has a long history of capturing and giving up heat generated by both human activities and natural cycles; it is the thermal memory of the climate system."

Heat and moisture from the ocean are constantly exchanged with Earth's atmosphere in a process that drives our weather and climate. Scientists at NASA and elsewhere use a variety of direct and satellite-based measurements to study the interactions between the ocean and atmosphere.

"These interactions result in large-scale global climate effects, the largest of which is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation," explained Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. This climate pattern appears in the tropical Pacific Ocean roughly every four to 12 years and has a powerful impact on the ocean and the atmosphere. It can disrupt global weather and influence hurricanes, droughts and floods. It can also raise or lower global temperatures by up to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.4 degrees Fahrenheit).

The oscillation pattern is made up of linked atmospheric and oceanic components. The atmospheric component is called the Southern Oscillation, a pattern of reversing surface air pressure that see-saws between the eastern and western tropical Pacific. The ocean's response to this atmospheric shift is known as either "El Niño" or "La Niña" (Spanish for "the little boy" and "the little girl," respectively). ... (Phys Org)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:13 PM

The above post is missing a "/a" right after "these figures". If some kind Elf could fix that it would look much better.

According to these figures...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

According to these figures, LH, the present dramatic upsurge in temp change did not start in 1975.

The carbon count upramp dates from around 1800--remember James Watt and the construction of the British rail system, etc.? The PPM count has broken out of its usual variation (270 to 285). By 1900 it had climbed to 295. By 1950, to 300. Between 1950 and 2000, it galloped up to 335.

The delta of temperatures between 1861 and 1911 was slightly cooling, but between 1861 and 1991 the trend was up to +.35 deg. F per year.

The solar-misbehavior hypthesis seems unlikely to me because of the coupling of the temp and CO2 curves. It is improbable that solar cycles cause increases in anthropic CO2 emissions, except in a minor way by making people run air conditioning. And I don't see a coupling between solar activity and the rate of change.

I'd like to see some numbers on this solar vedctor, BB. Do you have some?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Andy Jackson
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM

Well said Little H, nail on the head time. I've printed it out and will keep it near.
I started to quote bits I particularly agree with but realised I was going to quote the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:53 AM

Thanks, BB. It's refreshing to be able to agree with you about something now and then. ;-)

To all the "CO2 crisis" folks out there...let me just tell you how thoroughly I am enjoying talking about this worthy subject with you. I expect we'll be chatting about it for a long time yet. Remember this: every time you exhale, you introduce MORE CO2 into the atmosphere!!! Scary, scary!

But the plants of this Earth love you for doing it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:48 AM

Thank you, LH.

An excellent summary.




When Al Gore explains the "unprecedented" weather changes to Jupiter and melting of the Martian icecap, perhaps I might listen. But he and Amos have ignored the probable increase in solar output, and thus all the computer modeling in the world will not reflect the real-world situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM

Why do you who are supporting the current GW theory keep pretending that those who are not supporting it are saying that there is no global warming occuring?

That's not what we are saying. It would be convenient for your argument if we were saying that, but we're not.

We are saying that human-produced CO2 is not a significant factor in producing this global warming that has been occurring since 1975. If it were, we would not have had a 35-year long global cooling phase between 1940 and 1975, because human-produced CO2 levels were rising steadily throughout that entire period.

The global cooling between 1940 and 1975 led to scare stories in the media in the mid-70s about global cooling and the threat of a new ice age. Those stories were couched in the usual dramatic terms. We were all going to freeze in the cold!!! ;-) Then the climate began warming up in 1975...and that put an end to those scare stories. Awwww....no more "ice age" crisis for the media to rave on about.

I suspect the same thing will happen to the present scare stories about "global meltdown" in awhile.

By the way, there was one scientist in the mid-70s who proposed a way of possibly reversing the global cooling that was occurring and that had the scientists quite worried at the time. He suggested that if the industrial world were to pump a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere that it might help to counteract the global cooling through the greenhouse effect.

And there, folks, you have the origin of the very idea that is being touted now as a cause of global warming. Only they're talking about it from the other way around...fearing the CO2...because now the planet is in a warming phase.

Scientific study of ice core samples from Greenland has indicated, however, the following:

1. Are higher CO2 levels normally found in the atmosphere during warmer periods? Yes. There have been many such periods, some with much higher CO2 levels than at present.

2. However...the increase in CO2 follows the onset of a warmer period by approximately an 800-year lag. The planet gets warmer first, the CO2 level increases later...apparently as a result OF the warmer environment.

3. The reasons for that are uncertain, but what causes the production of CO2 in nature? Well, you get CO2 from animal emissions, decaying vegetation, volcanoes, forest fires, etc...basically it is combustion in one form or another which produces CO2. The oceans also give off large amounts of CO2 through evaporation.

4. Why would more CO2 in the atmosphere follow a warmer climate phase by a lag of several hundred years? Perhaps because a warmer climate phase produces a lot more vegetation, a lot more animal and human life, a lot more forest fires, and a lot more evaporation from the world's oceans...all of which will cause an increase in CO2. And plants love CO2...so they will consume it and thrive.

Yes, we all go to the scientific evidence. ;-) But here's how it works. People simply look up the evidence from the specific scientists or spokesmen they agree with, and that's what they quote. That's what I just did. That's what you who believe the present popular GW theory also did. You went to one set of authorities. I went to another. We both looked for scientific opinions, and we picked the ones that we thought were the best.

One of us is probably right. ;-) And the other is wrong.

And there are plenty of scientists on BOTH sides of this CO2 issue. We all have scientists who support our particular view. They all seem to agree that global warming is indeed occurring. They don't all agree about the CO2 factor and how it works, however, and that is what I am talking about here.

I am NOT saying there is no global warming occurring. Got that? Print it out, and stick it on your monitor so you don't forget that I am NOT saying there is no global warming occurring.

I just don't think WE are causing it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM

"And it is doing so exactly in time-coincidence with the ramp up of human additives of CO2 "

No, Amos. The ramp-up of CO2 from whatever source is LAGGING the rise in temperature- just as it would if it was warming due to increased solar output, which was releasing CO2 from natural sources.




" If you look at the graphs, the rate of increase of global temperature breaks out of the range it has been in for a couple of thousand years by an order of magnitude."

1. Said graphs are only valid for the measurement period of just over 100 years. No data exists for earlier on the level that is significant.

2. You have ignored the PROVEN flaws in taking measurements from a site as equal when the local environment has changed. When the weather station is now in a bank parking lot instead of on a bare mountainside, the failure by warmists to compensate for the known effects invalidates that data point- yet it is included in the graph.

3. You presume that evidence of the effect is proof of the cause, which is not valid. Should I say that, since the correlation of house repossions vs Obama's time in office show a strong relationship, that thus Obama is entirely responsible for the mortgage crisis? THAT is just as valid as what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:11 AM

Jeeze, what a string of concatenated blither.

The point to understand is simple. If you look at the graphs, the rate of increase of global temperature breaks out of the range it has been in for a couple of thousand years by an order of magnitude. It is not, as LH suggests, going up an fown as it always has, in the traditional "snake in a tunnel" series of rises and falls. It is breaking out of the range. Significantly.

And it is doing so exactly in time-coincidence with the ramp up of human additives of CO2 to atmosphere, which is also breaking out of its normal oscillation by an order of magnitude. Naturally this makes carbon pollution a prime suspect.

Systems don't do that sort of thing unless a significant change in process has occurred. In our case the process that changed is the intense high-volume uncovering of carbon deposits which we then incinerate. Anyone got any numbers on how much carbon we (homo sap) adds to atmosphere by our industrial processes, internal combustion systems, etc.?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM

GUEST, KP...you say:

"...we know that each molecule of CO2 can absorb radiation at a certain frequency (14 micron wavelength) and that water doesn't absorb at that frequency."

and

"...its quite easy to calculate how much energy all that CO2 could absorb - its about 6E+20J (followed by 20 zeros) joules for every absorption cycle."

The trouble I see with that is: you are telling us how much energy the CO₂ can absorb/hold/release in the atmosphere, not the amount of heat it does absorb/hold/release. Not the same thing.

At 361 ppm, CO₂ is involved with a tiny portion of the total radiated heat, the rest passes through the atmosphere and makes contact with nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:47 AM

..things are hotting up!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:42 AM

"Global Warming or not, there is no excuse for not using less packaging, being careful with natural resources, recycling wherever practicable and investing in renewable energy that reduces our dependence on the Middle East. "

AGREED.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:41 AM

Bruce,
I like this comment from underneath the Brooker article you reference:

'I'm not terribly interested in the rights and wrongs of the IPCC and whether or not climate-change can be influenced by man.

As a Conservative I believe in personal responsibility and cleaning up after myself not expecting someone else to do it for me.

It would be a great shame if all this ballyhoo over the IPCC led to people behaving like Socialist litter-bugs and assuming the State was somehow responsible for clearing up their profligacy.

Global Warming or not, there is no excuse for not using less packaging, being careful with natural resources, recycling wherever practicable and investing in renewable energy that reduces our dependence on the Middle East.

Those would seem to be self-evidently conservative philosophies which we adopted in the last war and would be sensible to make permanent in our lifestyles today.

The alternative is the socialist approach of littering, wasting, unlimited profligacy, expecting someone else to clean it up for free and leaving future generations a rubbish pit country to live in.

England's Green & Pleasant Land won't stay that way if everybody keeps moaning when they're told to clean up after themselves and pay the true costs of rubbish disposal for themselves and accept some discipline in waste collection services...... '

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

KP, I know :-) felt good.

and btw, experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:33 AM

"The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled", the "consensus" is intact.

But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.

All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all – the notorious "hockey stick" graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC's 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world's politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December's Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed. "



from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:06 AM

Freda
That's cheating! 4 itsy little posts just to be certain of getting number 1000!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:24 AM

wanna read some BAAAAD science?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

some of you guys don't seem to like Al Gore. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. And he did it without a single vote from Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:01 AM

By the way, January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 05:27 AM

An environmentalist, a climate sceptic and George Bush walk into a bar. They each order a beer from the bartender. "I'll have a Heineken" says the environmentalist. "Gimme a Bud" says the sceptic. George Bush says, "I guess I'll have a Panda. Mama's always wanted a nice rug for the den".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 05:20 AM

Hawk says:

'If you look at the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere...then at the amount of CO2 produced by human civilization...and compare it to the overall greenhouse effects of water vapour and a few other secondary greenhouse gases...it's just utterly negligible.'

Time to get the physics out again.

1. There are 380 ppm of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere - and that might not sound a high proportion.

2. But 380 ppm of CO2 evenly mixed in the atmosphere means over 3 trillion tonnes (3 followed by 12 zeros) of the stuff.

3. Now we know that each molecule of CO2 can absorb radiation at a certain frequency (14 micron wavelength) and that water doesn't absorb at that frequency.

4. We also know that radiation has an energy quantitatively linked to its frequency.

5. So its quite easy to calculate how much energy all that CO2 could absorb - its about 6E+20J (followed by 20 zeros) joules for every absorption cycle.

6. And that is getting close to the total heat capacity of the entire atmosphere - if you put an extra 6E+20J into the atmosphere you'd expect to move its temperature.

7. Now there are huge uncertainties when you try to quantify further - how long does it take for an excited molecule of CO2 to lose its heat and how does it do it? How much energy absorbed by CO2 has been re-emitted to from other CO2 molecules? How much energy is absorbed by the ground or lost to space?

8. However, the point is that 380 ppm CO2 is easily enough to have a big potential impact on the temperature of the the earth's atmosphere. And it looks like we're going to increase that by about another 50% over the next 50 years.

The other point is that this analysis doesn't need the complex models and data sets that the climate professionals are grappling with -its quite standard 19th century physics (and some long multiplication) taught me (quite a few years ago) at high school. Happy to give more details for those enthusiastic about big numbers!

(oh and btw great hockey game at the Olympics last night!)
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 10:44 PM

Good god, pdq. McCain and Clinton did not go to the north as tourists. They were on a factfinding mission. As you well know.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 09:59 PM

"Remember when John McCain and Hillary Clinton visited ANWR a few years back? They came back as believers." ~ Ebbie

And just exactly what can a tourist in ANWR, in the middle of Summer, tell about anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 09:39 PM

Ebbie: To put it bluntly, it says Gore is inflated with excess impacted fecal matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 08:12 PM

Ebbie, I have said over and over again that we ARE in a global warming phase right now. It's been happening since around 1975.

Therefore I am not disagreeing with all those good people you know who have ski slopes, etc, that there IS global warming occurring.

How does that keep getting missed here???? I don't get it. I say again and again that I KNOW perfectly well that there is global warming occurring, but that I don't agree with the present popular theory that human activity is any significant factor in what is causing it.

I think it's a natural cycle that has occurred over and over again in past geological epochs, as confirmed in ice core records from Greenland. I think it is caused by the changing activities of the Sun, not by CO2 levels changing.

It is not Al Gore's statement that global warming is occurring that I am in disagreement with...I am in disagreement with the part of this theory that applies to the proportional effect of that global warming caused by human-produced CO2.

And I am not just disagreeing with Al Gore on some kind of personal vendetta. I don't really care much about Al Gore in that sense, pro or con. He's just one proponent of this theory. I care about the entire effort that is behind the theory. Al Gore is just one spokesman.

If you look at the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere...then at the amount of CO2 produced by human civilization...and compare it to the overall greenhouse effects of water vapour and a few other secondary greenhouse gases...it's just utterly negligible.

Yeah, sure there is global warming going on! Obviously. And so it has done so many times before in just the same fashion, long before we had an industrial civilization. But I don't think it's occurring due to our carbon emmissions. Therefore, I think they're pushing a false agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 07:30 PM

I do admit that when I have not done my homework regarding who to vote for in a local election, I do check out who is supporting each candidate. When I respect someone's opinion and know that they generally do their homework that's good enough for me.

I don't think I believe something because of who is saying it. However, I do take into account past history, credentials and obvious brain power.

It is not just Al Gore who is promulgating human-caused/ exacerbated climate change. Far from it. He is merely the most visible, the one with his neck out the farthest.   Remember when John McCain and Hillary Clinton visited ANWR a few years back? They came back as believers. Ask pilots. Ask hikers. Ask hunters and fishermen. Ask tourist attraction people. Ask people who run ski slopes. Ask weathermen. Ask local people from the affected areas.

And then go home and tell people comfortably that you have decided that it is just another stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 04:34 PM

Or rather...I did buy it initially, but after awhile I changed my mind. The main reason I bought it initially was that I liked Al Gore, and because of that I had confidence in what he had to say.

People usually choose to initially believe or NOT believe something, dependent on ONE and ONLY one thing:

**** who is saying it. ***

They will accept in a moment something from someone they already like and trust (Al Gore). They will believe almost nothing that emanates from someone they already detest (George Bush).

It works exactly the opposite way round with people who already detest Al Gore and already like George Bush... ;-)

Thus are people's political opinions usually as predictable as a Dachshund's reaction to a hot wiener...or a hot bath. Their present viewpoint has already been dictated by their past political habits, their past likes and dislikes. It takes one hell of a lot to shift them off that paradym...and at least half of them, in fact, will probably never shift off it...no matter what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 04:18 PM

Well, Ebbie, given the fact that I do honestly believe that the theory Al Gore is espousing regarding the proportionate effects of human-produced CO2 on global warming is incorrect....

And I believe so based on scientifically reported data that I have read, not on the basis of any prior hostility toward Al Gore (whom I always liked WAY better than George Bush)...

Given my honest beliefs about the matter, it leaves me (though not you) wondering...did Al Gore deliberately lie?...or was he simply not fully understanding the situation regarding CO2?

Why would I not wonder that? After all, like I said, I've always liked Al Gore. I would much prefer to find out that he was honestly mistaken than that he is consciously lying to the whole world. And, yes, I'd like to know.

Regarding Al Gore's truthfullness...we may never know. But regarding CO2 and its proportionate effects on global warming, I think we will know eventually in a conclusive manner, by which time the powers that be will probably be trying to scare us silly with something else entirely...they are not going to rest on their laurels when it comes to that. There's always a new scare tactic in the works.

The reason you can't identify with my concerns about Al Gore and his theory is simply that you've bought that theory, and I haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

I don't quite grasp the significance of the column Sawz posted. Care to elucidate?

Speaking of delusionary thinking, Little Hawk, I'm excited that you are trying to decide between: Is Gore knowingly lying?" and "Or does he just not understand the problem?"

At last we will have THE answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM

I guess yours is the merely delusory side (without the paranoia), is it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 01:22 PM

Delusion on one hand, and paranoid delusion on the other. One helluva conversation.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM

"...Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?"


from here:

                                     http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 01:12 PM

Forget it. He has no chance, and I'll tell you why...because Chongo is running in 2012, that's why, and this time he's gonna take ALL the bananas!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 12:57 PM

The Goracle
Maureen Dowd New York Times

Al Gore now has a movie with an Oscar and a grandson named Oscar. Who could ask for anything more? Al Gore could. The best ex-president who was never president could make one of the most interesting campaigns in American history even more interesting. Will he use his green moment on the red carpet in black tie to snag blue states and win the White House?

Only the Goracle knows the answer.

The man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq admitted that maybe his problem had been that he was too far ahead of the curve. He realized at a conference that "there're ideas that are mature, ideas that are maturing, ideas that are past their prime ... and a category called 'predawn.'

And all of a sudden it hit me, he told John Heilemann of New York magazine last year. Most of my political career was spent investing in predawn ideas! I thought, Oh, that's where I went wrong.
As Mr. Gore basked Sunday night in the adoration of Leo, Laurie David and the rest of the Hollywood hybrid-drivers, Democrats wondered: Is this chubby guy filling out the Ralph Lauren three-piece tuxedo a mature idea or an idea that's past its prime? With Hillary overproduced and Barack Obama an unfinished script, maybe it's time to bring the former vice president out of turnaround.

Hillary's henchmen try to prognosticate the Goracle's future by looking at his waistline, according to Newsday; they think if he's going to run, he'll get back to fighting weight.

With her own talent for checking the weathervane, Hillary co-opted Mr. Gore's eco-speak right after the Oscars, talking environment throughout upstate New York. Given his past competition with Hillary, Mr. Gore must have delighted in seeing his star rise in Hollywood as hers dimmed.

If he waits long enough to get into the race, all the usual-suspect-consultants will be booked — which would be a boon for Mr. Gore, since his Hessian strategists in 2000 made him soft-pedal the environment, the very issue that makes him seem most passionate and authentic. The same slides about feedback loops and the interconnectedness of weather patterns that made his image-makers yawn just won his movie an Academy Award.

But what's going on in his head? Like Jeb Bush, Al Gore was the good son groomed by a famous pol to be president, only to have it snatched away by a black sheep who didn't even know the name of the general running Pakistan (the same one he just sent Vice to try to push into line.) It must be excruciating not only to lose a presidency you've won because the Supreme Court turned partisan and stopped the vote, but to then watch the madness of King George and Tricky Dick II as they misled their way into serial catastrophes.

Even though Chickenhawk Cheney finally got close to combat in Afghanistan, his explosive brush with a suicide bomber has not served as a wake-up call about the danger of Osama bin Laden's staying on the lam, and Afghanistan's slipping back into the claws of the Taliban and Al Qaeda while we are shackled to Iraq.

A reporter asked Tony Snow yesterday what the attack on the Bagram Air Base that targeted the vice president and killed at least 23 people said about the Taliban's strength. "I'm not sure it says anything," he replied.

Mr. Gore must be pleased that he's been vindicated on so many fronts, yet it still must rankle the Nobel Peace Prize nominee to hear the White House spouting such dangerous nonsense. He must sometimes imagine how much safer the world would be if he were president.

The Bush-Cheney years have been all about dragging the country into the past, getting back the presidential powers yanked away after Watergate, settling scores from Poppy Bush's old war, and suppressing scientific and environmental advances. Instead of aiming for the stars, the greatest power on earth is bogged down in poorly navigated conflicts with ancient tribes and brutes in caves.

Surely the Goracle, an aficionado of futurism, must stew about all the time and money and good will that has been wasted with a Vietnam replay and a scolding social policy designed to expunge the Age of Aquarius. When he's finished Web surfing, tweaking his PowerPoint and BlackBerrying, what goes through his head? Does he blame himself? Does he blame the voting machines? Ralph Nader? Robert Shrum? Naomi Wolf? How about Bush Inc. and Clinton Inc.?

With the red carpet rolled up, the tux at the cleaner's, and the gold statuette on the director's mantle, not his, the Goracle is at his Nashville mansion, contemplating how to broker his next deal. Will he cast himself as the savior of the post-Bush era, or will the first Gore in the Oval Office be Karenna, mother of Oscar?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM

I have looked at the measurements, Amos. That is just it.

Here's another video you may enjoy:

More views on the actual causes of present global warming.


GfS - Well, it was about the only thing I had to go on at the time, you see. ;-) In any case, I liked Al Gore and I thought he was probably telling the truth. I have since decided that either he wasn't telling the truth...or he simply doesn't understand the situation. (but probably the former)


***

There are enormous entrenched governmental forces involved internationally in trying to push the present CO2/global warming scare...just like they pushed the H1N1 scare recently. They will make sure to publish a great deal of propaganda supporting their view of it, because they are well-funded. They with the funds control the media. What will eventually determine who is really telling the truth about it, however, will not be determined by media propaganda. It will be determined by the inevitable flow of actual reality on a planetary and solar system scale, and that is not controlled by the funding of powerful interest groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM

A Rebuttal to those who would like to wish it were not so appeared today in the NYT.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:35 PM

The great global warming collapse

The Globe and Mail Feb. 05, 2010

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, "The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty." To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true and even if we knew what to do   a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, "The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet." Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.

And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.

Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian among the most aggressive advocates for action on climate change has found that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed, and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Meantime, the IPCC the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.

For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article "a mess." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:17 PM

National Geographic News
June 20, 2008

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

---

The National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) [8%] below the 1979 to 2000 average for January, but 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in January 2006.

Antarctic Sea Ice

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:12 AM

Why don't you just look at the measurements?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:24 AM

Little Hawk: "When I first saw "An Inconvenient Truth", I was totally convinced by it."

I'm flabbergasted! You actually gave that crap even one brain cell of activity????!!!

I'm telling Chongo on you!

Yo-Ho,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:29 AM

I agree. It has been overhyped by:

#1 People who stand to profit from the spending programs to save mankind.

#2 People who actually believe it will happen and they must hype it and fudge the numbers to make people act sooner.

Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the IPCC report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM

"live long enough", I meant...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:20 PM

I agree with Bearded Bruce on this one, freda. Extremely bad science is what has been foisted on us through the mass media.

When I first saw "An Inconvenient Truth", I was totally convinced by it. It took quite a while before I began to wonder if I'd been fed some misleading information and incorrect assumptions. I eventually reached the point where I reversed my ealier opinion regarding CO2 and global warming. I do not believe human-produced CO2 has much, if anything to do with the current global warming phase which has been happening since about 1975 (following a global cooling phase between 1940 and 1975...one which prompted hysterical media stories in the mid-70s about the danger of the world going into a new ICE AGE! The scare headlines were very similar to what we've seen about global warming more recently.)

There have been a long series of similar warming and cooling phases in the past going back thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They occured prior to the development of our industrial civilization, and many of them involved higher planetary warming than we are experiencing now. This can and HAS been confirmed by scientific means through examining deep ice core samples from Greenland.

CO2 plays a very small role in planetary warming. The main greenhouse gas is water vapor. Human-produced CO2 plays an even smaller role in planetary warming than naturally-produced CO2...to the point where its influence can be said to be negligible.

In short, we have been sold a false story...a story which has been embraced by the mainstream media and pushed by a special interest group at the U.N. Why that has been done, I'm not sure. It could have to do with a globalization agenda. It could have to do with levying carbon taxes. It could have to do with people simply not being able to admit they made an error. I don't know.

But this whole global warming by CO2 thing is, in my opinion, a scam.

We ARE experiencing a genuine global warming phase since 1975 till now. There's nothing unusual about that, it's happened many times before (with no significant threat to life on this planet), and it happens due to natural cycles which are, in my opinion, driven primarily by the changing energy activities of the Sun.

It's not an emergency, it's just another cyclical swing of the world climate, as has happened so many times before. It does not justify levying a Carbon tax, because human-produced CO2 is not causing it.

And that's my opinion.

Declare me a heretic. Excommunicate me. Warn you children against me! I can take it. ;-D

I don't take sides on any popular theory in the media merely on the basis of whether it first emanated from the political Right or the political Left. They are both frequently dead wrong about things, and they are both occassionally dead right about something. This time, maybe the luck of the draw, I think the political Right, whom I have no fondness for whatsoever, happen to be quite correct in their response to global warming. They think it's a big scam. So do I. It's no realer, in my opinion, than the media scare about "a new ice age" in the mid-70's.

There is a tactic afoot all the time in our media, and that is to manipulate the public by scaring the daylights out of them. It can be done with things like:

the Oklahoma Bombing
the 911 attacks
SARS
H1N1 flu
Saddam's reputed WMDs
Iran's reputed nuclear ambitions
Global Warming

All these things get pushed bigtime by the media at some point in order to scare people into compliance with something....what that something is keeps changing...it may be a reduction in civil liberties, it may be the sale of billions of dollars worth of drugs and vaccines, it may be the levying of a burdensome new tax, it may be the launching of a new war.

Whatever it is, the main thing is that people must first be scared silly by the media coverage, and then they will willingly go along with whatever the system has in mind for them to go along with.

Anyone who challenges such media scare campaigns is ridiculed, vilified, and equated with "holocaust deniers" or something along that line. The very ferocity of the negative response to people questioning these officially sanctioned scare stories is an indicator of just how fragile a basis they actually are built upon, in my opinion. They do protest overmuch their supposed legitimacy! ;-)

This CO2-caused global warming thing simply doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense scientifically. There are a great many scientists who do not agree with it at all. And it WILL, in my opinion, turn out to be quite untrue.

If we both live live enough, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 12:37 PM

Sawz:

I don't think anyone is advocating running around with our heads cut off.

The reason behind carbon cutbacks is that the CO2 we add to atmosphere exceeds the systems natural capacity to resorb and recycle it; and as the excess adds up it increases the greenhouse effect so the system fails to balance its heat gain with heat loss and thus earms up, messing up the balance of life forms, as well as lots of locasl weathers.

Trying to reduce population growth is valuable, not so much because of the heat the bodies add but because of the excess energy demand and increased CO2 production it takes to sustain more people all the way up and down the food chain(S).

Seems to me the unsustainability of our current trend is a combination of both factors--increasing population which increases impact on neighboring systems AND the rising standard of manufactured living we all seem to enjoy so much.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 12:20 PM

Amos:

I didn't notice any misteak but thanks for correcting whatever it was.


I learned about a new and somewhat controversial method for generating electricity on location that is clean and efficient. The technology exists and it is being tested by Ebay, Google, Fedex, Walmart, Coca Cola, BOA and others. The technology is SOFC Solid Oxide Solid Fuel Cell

However it uses fossil fuels, it operates at 800+ degrees plus and produces heat pollution. It might be better than coal and other fossil fired electric generating plants but it still not a permanent solution to global warming. It appears to be mainly a money saving device for big corporations.

"Bloom Energy Server [generator not computer server] technology is based upon stacking small fuel cells which operate in concert. Bloom Energy has made a technological advance by developing stacked fuel cells where individual plates expand and contract at the same rate at high temperatures. Scott Samuelsen of the University of California, Irvine National Fuel Cell Research Center questions how long the reliable operational life Bloom Servers will be. "At this point, Bloom has excellent potential, but they have yet to demonstrate that they've met the bars of reliability." Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory expert Michael Tucker told the San Jose Mercury News, "Because they operate at high temperatures, they can accept other fuels like natural gas and methane, and that's an enormous advantage... The disadvantage is that they can shatter as they are heating or cooling."

John Doerr, who is one of the major venture capitalists of the company, asserts that the Bloom Energy Server is cheaper and cleaner than the grid. An expert at Gerson Lehrman Group, wrote that, given today's electricity transmission losses of about 7% and utility size gas fired power stations efficiency of 26-48%, the Bloom Energy Server is up to twice as efficient as a gas fired power station, but no less efficient than one. In a followup story entitled "Bloom Box: Segway or savior?" Fortune noted on 24 February 2010 that "Bloom has still not released numbers about how much the Bloom Box costs to operate per kilowatt hour" and estimates that natural gas rather than bio-gas will be the primary source of fuel for Bloom Energy Servers. Jonathan Fahey of Forbes comments:

    Are we really falling for this again? Every clean tech company on the planet says it can produce clean energy cheaply, yet not a single one can. Government subsidies or mandates keep the entire worldwide industry afloat... Hand it to Bloom, the company has managed to tap into the hype machine like no other clean tech company in memory."

Sridhar also said the boxes will have a 10 year life span. The CEO of eBay says Bloom Energy Servers have saved the company $100,000 in electricity bills since they were installed in mid-2009, yet Paul Keegan of Fortune calls that figure "meaningless without the details to see how he got there." ...More here

I still believe that instead of all this hype and running around like Chicken Little, we need to take a deep breath and think farther into the future where there will be just too many people consuming energy that will create thermal pollution and global warming, even if the source is 100% carbon neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 11:11 AM

Those are both fairly loose accusations, Bruce.

The bulk of the fact collection on this topic has been done in good faith; there have some errors and some deceptions on both sides. The ones that have made scandals in the media such as the recent emails flap have been more than balanced by histrionic (or commercially motivated) denials of almost every aspect of the data.

As to political motivation, I wonder what you specifically mean.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:00 AM

BAD science???????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:17 AM

"people from a first world country arguing against science"


NOT against science, just against BAD science and politically motivated programs.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:52 AM

It's strange to hear people from a first world country arguing against science. meanwhile,another floating iceberg's on the loose!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:48 PM

Here's a video with commentary from a number of climatologists that makes for interesting viewing...

scientists discussing global warming and cooling phases

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:56 PM

Here's an interesting overview of nine major planetary systems and their interactions--and what we may not know about them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:59 PM

Whoops--looks like I slipped an order of magnitude there in my haste. Sorry.

The disproportionality I spoke of, I think, stands regardless of that silly error on my part.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:56 PM

"I am happy to report I do not know the answer to your question, and suggest you consult those who have more expertise in the particular field. "

So Amos finally admits he does not know what he is talking about and he must rely on others to do his thinking for him.

Here Amos, I refer you to this information to assist with your decision making:

PHIL JONES MOMENTOUS Q&A WITH BBC REOPENS THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ISSUES

by Indur M. Goklany | February 14, 2010

# Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.

# There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.

# The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.

# This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.

# The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.

# The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.

# There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:11 PM

"One hundred thousand years ago the biosystem hadn't even stabilized"


Huh????


Mankind has been around 2 - 5 million years.

Dinosaurs died out ( or flew away) about 65 million years ago.

Life started perhaps 1,500 million years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:11 AM

Futher to my last, here are two more from the same directory:

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/carbondioxide.html.

If you look closely you will see that compared to present trends it has been 100,000 years since the global temps were in this range.

One hundred thousand years ago the biosystem hadn't even stabilized. You're looking at a system that settled into a working range from -2.5deg C. to -10 deg C. for eighty thousand years and in the presence of a carbon graph that starts running away about 200 yrs ago, suddenly breaks out of that range.

So it strikes me your earlier references are plotted against such a long period as to obscure meaningful correlation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:03 AM

You post a chart of change rates. The links I posted show measured or calculated temperatures. Apparently the two datasets do not agree. Your first chart (regarding temp change) do not go past 1950, apparently--hard to tell exactly from the resolution. In any case, why do you suppose the two are so different in scaling of the last twenty decades? That's the critical region. It escapes me why you assert my references constitute not bothering to check.

Anyway, the point is that we have conflicting datasets. I don't have the time to drill down and investigate who got what data and who paid for it.

And I note that the same directory from which you draw your graphs DOES have a direct temperature graph. It's at http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/globtemp.bmp and draws on the IPCC information.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:55 AM

"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The pace of global warming continues unabated, scientists said on Thursday, despite images of Europe crippled by a deep freeze and parts of the United States blasted by blizzards.

The bitter cold, with more intense winter weather forecast for March in parts of the United States, have led some to question if global warming has stalled.

Understanding the overall trend is crucial for estimating consumption of energy supplies, such as demand for winter heating oil in the U.S. northeast, and impacts on agricultural production.

"It's not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven't warmed in the past 50 years," veteran Australian climate scientist Neville Nicholls told an online climate science media briefing.

"January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen," said Nicholls of Monash University's School of Geography and Environmental Science in Melbourne.

"Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen," he said of the satellite data record since 1979.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in December that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850, and that 2009 would likely be the fifth warmest year on record. WMO data show that eight out of the 10 hottest years on record have all been since 2000.

Britain's official forecaster, the UK Met Office, said severe winter freezes like the one this year, one of the coldest winters in the country for nearly 30 years, could become increasingly rare because of the overall warming trend.

MORE EXTREMES

Scientists say global warming is not uniform in all areas and that climate models predict there will likely be greater extremes of cold and heat, floods and droughts.

"Global warming is a trend superimposed upon natural variability, variability that still exists despite global warming," said Kevin Walsh, associate professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne.

"It would be much more surprising if the global average temperature just kept on going up, year after year, without some years of slightly cooler temperatures," he said in a written reply to questions for the briefing...."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:05 PM

Amos, I had posted this before.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/temperatures.html



If you bother to check, the high value of your chgart is nowhere near as high as has been found in the past. You just need to look at significant periods of time- a few thousand years does NOT matter geologically, or astrophysically. Look at the longer (time) plots.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:25 PM

Sawz:

I have given you the references I have found, so I don't see why you accuse me of dodging anything, sirrah. The question is one of degree. Our current warming spell is outpacing any previous period of warming on record or reconstructed.

If you have an interesting research question, you might do better to find a possible answer and to post it for discussion, instead of playing twenty questions with me just in order to try, unsuccessfully, to make me look wrong. THat's a stupid game to play anyway. Even when I play it!! :D

I am happy to report I do not know the answer to your question, and suggest you consult those who have more expertise in the particular field.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:50 PM

Ok Amos. Now that you have arrogantly dodged the questions about the accuracy of the glacier monitoring with your usual display of rhetorical blather, can you answer this one?

Why the glaciers in Alaska were shrinking 200 years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:39 PM

Horsepucky. The "science that defends itself against" various PR shenanigans is the PR of science, not the actual scientific process. LEt's not be stupid about this. Things that are associated are not identical. I would suggest you try to identify WHICH propositions, made by whom, you feel are invalid, and WHY rather than just spewing these opinions about.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:38 PM

In its January 2002 issue, Scientific American published a series of criticisms of the Bjorn Lomborg book "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels said the attacks came because the book "threatens billions of taxpayer dollars that go into the global change kitty every year."

Journalist Ronald Bailey called the criticism "disturbing" and "dishonest", writing, "The subhead of the review section, 'Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist,' gives the show away: Religious and political views need to defend themselves against criticism, but science is supposed to be a process for determining the facts."

The May 2007 issue featured a column by Michael Shermer calling for a United States pullout from the Iraq War. In response, Wall Street Journal online columnist James Taranto jokingly called Scientific American "a liberal political magazine".

{yes, if Scientific American ever was an objective science magazine, it is not so now}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:01 PM

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Emission cuts pledges made by 60 countries will not be enough to keep the average global temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius or less, modeling released on Tuesday by the United Nations says.

Scientists say temperatures should be limited to a rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times if devastating climate change is to be avoided.

Yearly greenhouse gas emissions should not be more than 40 and 48.3 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent in 2020 and should peak between 2015 and 2021, according to new modeling released on Tuesday by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Keeping within that range and cutting global emissions by between 48 percent and 72 percent between 2020 and 2050 will give the planet a "medium" or 50-50 chance of staying within the 2 degree limit, said the report, which was based on modeling by nine research centres.

However, the same study found that the world is likely to go over those targets. The pledges were made by nations that signed up to the Copenhagen Accord.

"The expected emissions for 2020 range between 48.8 to 51.2 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent, based on whether high or low pledges will be fulfilled," the report said.

In other words, even in a best-case scenario where all countries implement their promised cuts, the total amount of emissions produced would still be between 0.5 and 8.8 gigatonnes over what scientists see as tolerable.

Greenhouse gas levels are rising, particularly for carbon dioxide, because more is remaining in the atmosphere than natural processes can deal with.

Carbon dioxide is naturally taken up and released by plants and the oceans but mankind's burning of fossil fuels such as coal for power and destruction of forests means the planet's annual "carbon budget" is being exceeded. (SciAm)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM

Gee, PDQ, that's pretty loaded opinion. Perhaps you could be more specific and provide your reasoning instead of your deeply emotional conclusions?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:32 AM

The following is a short list of the "climate crimnals" who have pushed the Global Warming hoax for years:

    James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri

All have taken taxpayer money under false pretenses and produced conclusion-driven propaganda in the name of scientific research.

All should be prosecuted and forced to return every penny they have taken. Some should be considered for jail time.

Anytime you see one of the names cited in an article or bibliography, you know you are reading crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM

Bruce:

THis graph gives the lie to your assertion about ignoring the Little Ice Age and hiding the extent of the time line. It makes it very clear that going back TWO THOUSAND years we are in a break-out phase higher than any previous range.

I hope this puts that incivil assertion of yours to rest, you frabjous banderlog.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:33 AM

Oh, Sawz, don't be asinine. I posted the links that provided the approximate count of glaciers int he first place. Your obsession with counting glaciers is just a bunch of tanglefoot, as far as I can see, ignoring the sytemic condition by zeroing in on local variations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony.

February 23, 2010 - by Charlie Martin Page 1 of 2

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

"In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted," Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today's hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency's Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway "purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration's attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report "strengthens the case" for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General.

Senator Inhofe's announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

more here

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:29 AM

Ebbie I did not know that there were glaciers at the north pole.

Do you know why the glaciers were shrinking 200 years ago?

---

"Of those being monitored, the net effect planet wide is shrinkage, significant loss of mass."

Amos: Is the one that is growing in Alaska included? If not, how can the results be accurate.

I used to think you were extremely smart but just hyper and too smart almost like a savant. You certainly project that image with those wonderful words you impress yourself with.

I am now developing a different opinion.

You do not even know how many glaciers are being monitored even though it is right here in this thread.

Have you even read this thread or do you just come here to post your rabid ad hominem attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM

Composite Temp Measurements for the last 200 years with a discussion on provenance and reliability...

Goddard Institute compilation of mean tem changes 1880-2005.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:25 PM

AP) -- Top researchers now agree that the world is likely to get stronger but fewer hurricanes in the future because of global warming, seeming to settle a scientific debate on the subject. But they say there's not enough evidence yet to tell whether that effect has already begun.

Since just before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, dueling scientific papers have clashed about whether global warming is worsening hurricanes and will do so in the future. The new study seems to split the difference. A special World Meteorological Organization panel of 10 experts in both hurricanes and climate change - including leading scientists from both sides - came up with a consensus, which is published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"We've really come a long way in the last two years about our knowledge of the hurricane and climate issue," said study co-author Chris Landsea, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration top hurricane researcher. The technical term for these storms are tropical cyclones; in the Atlantic they get called hurricanes, elsewhere typhoons.
The study offers projections for tropical cyclones worldwide by the end of this century, and some experts said the bad news outweighs the good. Overall strength of storms as measured in wind speed would rise by 2 to 11 percent, but there would be between 6 and 34 percent fewer storms in number. Essentially, there would be fewer weak and moderate storms and more of the big damaging ones, which also are projected to be stronger due to warming.

An 11 percent increase in wind speed translates to roughly a 60 percent increase in damage, said study co-author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at MIT.
The storms also would carry more rain, another indicator of damage, said lead author Tom Knutson, a research meteorologist at NOAA." (Phys.Org)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:54 PM

I found your oil cut off post. #9,401 out of 54,856

THis may be a data base glitch but when I go to that number it is a quote from The Onion and says nothing about oil.

How about a link or a timestamp, there?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:33 PM

"back as far as measurements can be constructed."

Which is HOW LONG???


I see more horsepucky in your posts than I can even dream of.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM

That is sheer horsepucky, BB. The graphs I have linked to upthread go back as far as measurements can be constructed.

All this neener neener ad-hominem bullshit is wearing, not enlightening, adds no insight and simply makes the argument mediocre--the kind of sluggishness in which the right-wing seems to specialize as their most important product.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM

Amos,

"of a magnitude not seen in my lifetime"


I am glad the your lifetime is of geological significance. But what about looking a little farther back, and seeing the same warming ( such as before 1100ad, which was the start of the "little ice age")

ALL the statements include the comment that this is the worst melting " in the records", and keep silent that the records only go back 100 years or so- a geologically ( and astrophysically) insignificant time.

THEN you complain about people who take a single storm to indicate the overal weather? YOU are taking a single century to indicate weather over times measured in thousands of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:31 PM

Scientific American:

"Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, James McCarthy of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment noted that the IPCC usually errs on the conservative side. Steve Mirsky reports



Lost in the coverage of the so-called climategate email controversy is a key point about the IPCC's track record of climate change estimates. James McCarthy is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment. He spoke February 21st at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego:

"If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate. Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently.""

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM

PErmafrost conversion, giant calving of a magnitude not seen in my lifetime, and a LOT of reliable scientific observations tend to support the notion that the rate of warming, not just the temperature, is increasing.

That--to me--is the critical issue.

If you have good reason to believe this is not the case, what facts (rather than an intermittent invalidation) do you base this on?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:21 PM

ALL scientific data should be constantly be reviewed, re-evaluated and updated. Sadly, Sawz and BB are twisting this to insinuate that ANY error or update on some detail casts doubt on overall indications and widely accepted general patterns.

(Some conservative politicians and Faux News pundits have actually been sarcastically saying that recent weather in Wash DC indicates that overall warming patterns are an illusion. I think Ebbie in Alaska & various folks in Canada could explain to them that the warmer air ain't gone....it's just relocated briefly)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM

NO, Amos, as you well know.

"Lemme see--you have just proposed that correcting a single false report about sea-levels rates of rise means that glacier shrinkage measured by international scientific agencies is not clear?
"

**I** state that the fact that the number of reports that have been called into question requires anyone interested in the truth as opposed to a predetermined result will LOOK AT THE FACTS, and stop saying that everything is known and determined.

YOUR statement is flawwed logic, as you know. Any reason you feel your view is so weak that you need to resort to such a cheap shot?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM

Lemme see--you have just proposed that correcting a single false report about sea-levels rates of rise means that glacier shrinkage measured by international scientific agencies is not clear?

The implication is that when a scientist withdraws an erroneous report, it proves that all scientists are liuars...

I thought you were capable of thinking more clearly than that, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:49 AM

Amos,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

"Going around and arguing about them one by one is puerile when the system-wide facts are clear."

And when the system wide facts ARE NOT CLEAR?

Then demanding all believe one view, when it is NOT proven nor accepted by as many as you claim, is even more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM

Phil Jones' interview by the BBC

I haven't seen a link to this here, just some selected quotes. Apologies If I have overlooked the link to the interview.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:38 AM

There are probably 100-200 thousand glaciers on the planet.

Of those being monitored, the net effect planet wide is shrinkage, significant loss of mass.

Going around and arguing about them one by one is puerile when the system-wide facts are clear.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:14 AM

The shrinkage in Alaska and at the North Pole is unprecedented in recorded history. As you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:02 AM

"the glaciers" How many? You have mentioned one that is growing but it is not among the three that are being monitored and are shrinking.

All they do is a sample. Is that sample representative?

Of ALL the glaciers, how many are shrinking, how many are static and how many are growing?

Even after that is determined you have to account for the different sizes of the glaciers to get an accurate measure.

Posted by Sawzall:
"Two hundred years [dating back before the CO2 buildup started] of glacial shrinkage in Alaska,"

Why were the glaciers in Alaska shrinking 200 years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:48 AM

(radioactive ores produce heat)

That is a good point but concentrating the ore does consume a lot of energy just like the production if Cornohol. Or maybe Nuclear could be used to refine the ore.

Ultimately nuclear makes steam which drives a generator which is not 100% percent efficient and it goes through a power grid which is not 100% efficient and drives motors or lighting which are not 100% efficient.

I forgot about Tidal but like Hydro The generators will produce heat that was not there.

Geo takes heat that is already there to heat a home and it takes heat from the home and puts it back in the earth's crust.

I believe that most Geo uses a heat pump to collect the heat which has a motor that uses electricity some of which turns into heat.

The direct Geo system you described would be good with no compressor to waste heat. Run it on solar during the day and wind at night and there will be virtually no heat pollution.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:04 AM

Posted by Sawzaw:

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

"Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too."

Living in Alaska, I can attest that the summer of 2008 was a wet, chilly one. It will evidently go down in history that way, because it is frequently referenced locally.

The summer of 2009, on the other hand, was gorgeous. Instead of being the normal "drizzle two weeks and 2 days sun" it was the other way around. That summer too will go down in history.

And neither one has a thing to say about global warming or climate change.

What is true is that the glaciers in Alaska are thinning, retreating, breaking up.

Incidentally, why the U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia chose to refer to the Taku Glacier beats me. We are well aware that the Taku is one of the few that is still growing. It    is in the Taku River valley where they routinely experience 35 feet of snow or more each winter; perhaps that is why. You will find no deer there evidently for that reason although there are moose.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:22 AM

Guest KP,

"I think you could make the same argument for nuclear. What you are doing is concentrating heat that was already there in the earth (radioactive ores produce heat) and using that to make electricity and creating waste heat. The heat will be coming out into the air (or into the cooling water that nuclear plants) use rather than into the earth's crust so there will be some heat capacity issues but the total amount of heat released will be same. However, I'm more of a chemist than a physicist so I'll check that out some time."

The problem with nuclear ( which I prefer, for other reasons, but realize it's weakness) is that the heat release is accelerated- the natural rate of decay would be thousands of years or more, which a reactor releases in a few years. Waste is a problem ( though less than coal, since the amount of fuel required is so much less) but but recycling of used fuel , and reuse of waste as radioisotopes for medical and industrial use would take care of that.

Recycling in general is good- it takes less energy to reuse aluminum than to produce it from ore.

MOST of what the Goreistas want to do has some benefits- it is just that
1. the reason they give is false, which WHEN CLIMATE CHANGE occurs anyway will invalidate ( to the public) what they propose, EVEN WHEN IT IS a good thing to be doing.
2. They do NOTHING to adapt the population or even civilization to the change that will occur, regardless of their actions. The false sense of "safty" they offer will prevent the required actions to adapt until it is both more exspensive, and much more likely to be done by violent actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:01 AM

'Where is the physics guy KP?

What do you think about Geothermal as a partial answer to heat pollution?'

Sawzaw, I'm on a different time zone to most of the rest of you guys (Bruce, Amos etc) hence you'll get comments from me at seemingly random times. Plus I spent much of the weekend digging a car out of a foot of snow in Northern Scotland.

Two points.
1. Geothermal is good. I know people with experience on ground source heat pumps, and who certainly wouldn't build/buy a new house without one. They work well with underfloor heating, which means you don't have radiators taking up wall space. I don't have experience of heat pumps with cooling/conditioning systems as air con is less essential at 55 North...
Main issue with ground source heat pumps is having enough space to drill the holes, especially if you are in town. In much of America, that shouldn't be a problem as you have a lot more room!

In the longer and bigger picture geothermal energy could be very important for the US. There is a technology called 'hot dry rock' or 'enhanced geothermal' where a fluid is pumped into fractured subsurface rocks. The fluid can be used directly for heat or indirectly for electricity. MIT have estimated the US could install 100GW of this technology by 2050 (total US electricity demand is between 650-750GW). Geothermal using existing technology seems undeveloped and there is at least 10GW of buildable plants see
US Geothermal Power Could Top 10 Gigawatts.

Here is a summary I wrote about the current status of various renewable technologies (apologies if I put this up before, its been a long thread!)
Current Status of Renewables

2. Regarding your worry about heat pollution, I think that on a global scale all renewables are good. Let me explain without any maths.

Heat pollution will only warm the planet if the heat wasn't there to start with! So a coal fired plant creates a lot of excess heat (about 45%) that goes into the atmosphere. Where did the heat energy come from? From the chemical energy in the coal, which has been locked up for 250 million years. So burning that coal suddenly is going to release heat that wasn't there before (at least for 250 million years). And there could be a 'global warming' effect.

But think about a wind or wave power plant. Was it is doing, is just concentrating energy that is already there in the atmosphere or oceans of the planet. The waves are already pounding away and the wind is already blowing. Ultimately that energy comes from the heat supplied by the sun - no sun, no atmospheric circulation, no wind. So in a wind/wave plant we are taking a little of the earth's heat, concentrating and transforming it to a convenient form (generally electricity). We are not producing heat that wasn't there before, so on a global scale wind/wave/solar plants are not going to warm up the planet. To get heat from a wave plant, we are in effect cooling the ocean slightly, so it all balances out.

As you have pointed out, all these technologies have waste/inefficiencies. There could well be local heat pollution - in fact there is almost certain to be somewhere, whatever technology you use, but that's a different story and its not going to warm the plant as a whole.

I think you could make the same argument for nuclear. What you are doing is concentrating heat that was already there in the earth (radioactive ores produce heat) and using that to make electricity and creating waste heat. The heat will be coming out into the air (or into the cooling water that nuclear plants) use rather than into the earth's crust so there will be some heat capacity issues but the total amount of heat released will be same. However, I'm more of a chemist than a physicist so I'll check that out some time.

Finally, I am encouraged that both you and Bruce are both (as he puts it) 'all in favor of geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric power'. I'd guess that Bill D and Amos are as well. So essentially, despite the near 1000 posts of argument here, there is actually a consensus there. Some people might say 'build renewable plants because of global warming' some might say 'build renewable plants to avoid pollution' and some might say 'build renewable plants so we don't have to get oil from the Middle East'.

I just worry that the need to get on and build the things gets obscured by the politics of everything. We know/expect that there are lots of interested parties and vested interests, but the actions that need taking seem fairly clear - build renewable plants, encourage energy efficiency at home and in offices, inflate your car tyres properly. And the nice thing is that some of this is stuff that individuals can do as well as governments and corporations.

If this thread is going to carry on, I'd like to see people trying to aim for a consensus rather than just keep posting quotes that support their arguments - and I'm not looking at anyone in particular there.

cheers KP

PS It amuses me how the most argumentative threads among US Mudcatters are the political ones whereas the Brits get all het up about the definitions of folk music. Do you think I could start an inclusive thread along the lines of 'Obama supports 1954 definition' or 'Palin likes Show of Hands'? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:30 AM

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

The Maldives is likely to become submerged if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 10:40 PM

Where is the physics guy KP?

What do you think about Geothermal as a partial answer to heat pollution?

Even The generator in a hydro electric plant produce heat because they are not 100% efficient.

Same way with Wind power.

Solar does not produce heat when it is generated.

However the energy produced all 3 ways ends up as heat when the electricity is used.

Nuclear generation makes a huge amount of heat.

---

Geothermal heat pumps (sometimes referred to as GeoExchange, earth-coupled, ground-source, or water-source heat pumps) have been in use since the late 1940s. Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) use the constant temperature of the earth as the exchange medium instead of the outside air temperature. This allows the system to reach fairly high efficiencies (300%-600%) on the coldest of winter nights, compared to 175%-250% for air-source heat pumps on cool days.

While many parts of the country experience seasonal temperature extremes from scorching heat in the summer to sub-zero cold in the winter a few feet below the earth's surface the ground remains at a relatively constant temperature. Depending on latitude, ground temperatures range from 45°F (7°C) to 75°F (21°C). Like a cave, this ground temperature is warmer than the air above it during the winter and cooler than the air in the summer. The GHP takes advantage of this by exchanging heat with the earth through a ground heat exchanger.

As with any heat pump, geothermal and water-source heat pumps are able to heat, cool, and, if so equipped, supply the house with hot water. Some models of geothermal systems are available with two-speed compressors and variable fans for more comfort and energy savings. Relative to air-source heat pumps, they are quieter, last longer, need little maintenance, and do not depend on the temperature of the outside air.

A dual-source heat pump combines an air-source heat pump with a geothermal heat pump. These appliances combine the best of both systems. Dual-source heat pumps have higher efficiency ratings than air-source units, but are not as efficient as geothermal units. The main advantage of dual-source systems is that they cost much less to install than a single geothermal unit, and work almost as well.

Even though the installation price of a geothermal system can be several times that of an air-source system of the same heating and cooling capacity, the additional costs are returned to you in energy savings in 5 -10 years. System life is estimated at 25 years for the inside components and 50+ years for the ground loop. There are approximately 50,000 geothermal heat pumps installed in the United States each year.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 10:27 PM

Amos:

I found your oil cut off post. #9,401 out of 54,856

Where do you want it?

Here or on another thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 02:36 PM

"net mass of icebergs from those being monitored has declined continuously over the last 20 years. The measurement population, though, is between 29 and 80 glaciers."

Is 29 to 80 glaciers out of 100000 is a fair sample?

There are 15000 in the Himalayas alone. How many of them are being monitored?

You let someone else do the thinking for you. Are you in incapable?

When asked for some specific facts you refer people elsewhere.

"The USGS Benchmark Glacier Program began in 1957 as a result of research efforts during the International Geophysical Year (Meier and others, 1971). Annual data collection occurs at three glaciers that represent three climatic regions in the United States: South Cascade Glacier in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State; Wolverine Glacier on the Kenai Peninsula near Anchorage, Alaska; and Gulkana Glacier in the interior of Alaska "

3 whole glaciers represent every glacier in the US.

---

Two hundred years [dating back before the CO2 buildup started] of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 07:11 PM

BillD,

"*IF* serious problems continue and the outlook looks bleak, we MUST reduce the overall population of the Earth by at least half.... if serious problems mitigate and we seems to have breathing room, we SHOULD reduce the overall population by 'almost' half.'



I agree. But who gets to decide which half gets reduced? By NOT addressing the problem, and pretending that "carbon limits" will solve all problems, the Goreistas are making the next World War much more likely than any rational reduction of population.

IMO, of course- you may disagree. feel free to tell me how ignoring the population problem contributes to world peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

"I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER- Nor should I be deciding for the Canadian Government. "

Then...I shall provide the answer. It is not possible to both move millions of people from ANY areas which become almost uninhabitable to areas like Canada & Siberia and feed & house them adequately also.

*IF* serious problems continue and the outlook looks bleak, we MUST reduce the overall population of the Earth by at least half.... if serious problems mitigate and we seems to have breathing room, we SHOULD reduce the overall population by 'almost' half.

I could type 9 paragraphs explaining it, but those who agree already understand, and those who don't won't accept it.

(Do I know HOW? Yes.... Do I think there's any possibility of getting any world-wide consensus on any such idea?   No...)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:32 PM

I don't know why I should do your legwork for you, pal.

To answer your question, a roughly estimated 100,000 exist. Some are growing, most receding.

The net mass of icebergs from those being monitored has declined continuously over the last 20 years. The measurement population, though, is between 29 and 80 glaciers.

Here's the World Glacier Monitoring website.

Here's an inventory of over 100000 glaciers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Here's the United States Geodetic Survey fact sheet giving their results.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM

Amos:

How many glaciers are there in the world?

How many are shrinking?

How many are not shrinking?

How many are growing?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM

The retreat of glaciers and the loss of moisture from soil due to climate change will likely increase the number of large-scale dust storms, such as those that blanketed Sydney in 2009, scientists predict.

"Every year, hundreds of millions of tonnes of African dust are carried westward across the Atlantic to South America, the Caribbean and to the North America," as well as across the Mediterranean and the Middle East, said Joseph Prospero, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Miami.

His group has been measuring global dust plumes from a site in Barbados since 1965 – the longest dust storm data so far collected – and matching it with satellite images.

Whitish haze

The storms create a whitish haze in the summer skies for several days, depositing a thin film on homes and cars in southern USA and the Caribbean.

Data from a collecting site established in Iceland in 1991 shows similar dust storms over the Arctic, which dump fine soil over North America and northern Europe. His group believe they most come from retreating glaciers, he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

"Huge spike"

"Every huge spike we see in our samples – we're talking about hundreds of micrograms per cubic mere of dust – we can identify in satellite images, from the most part, from para-glacial deposits in the five major glaciers on Iceland," Prospero said.

"These glaciers are retreating, and if they continue to retreat, then you're going to be exposing more of this sub-glacial grinding," leading to more dust fallout over Britain and Europe, he added.

Scientists have long known that the grinding of rock by massive icesheets during the last ice age created the rich soils of Europe and North America. "Glaciers are profound producers of fine-grained particles through the rock-grinding process that creates 'rock flour'," said Daniel Muhs of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver.

"There were periods in the Earth's past that were dustier than now … and those primarily correspond with glacial periods," he added. ...

Cosmos Mag

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 09:07 AM

I am all in favor of geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric power generation.

There are effectively carbon neutral energy sources ( I am looking at a wood pellet system) and it is reasonable to try to reduce pollution.


This does NOT mean that I think that reducing one of several greenhouse gases will change the climate changes that have been in action for the lasst 1.5 billion years or so.

IF one wishes to take action, how about moving those people in harms way, instead of claiming you can stop the water from rising?




"Seems they are not doing the 'right' things to prepare...like planning to move millions of people further North. He hasn't said what expects Canada to do with all those Latinos...) "

And isn't TODAY the time to ASK about those plans, instead of when those Latinos are moving north because their homes are no longer habitable? I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER- Nor should I be deciding for the Canadian Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:58 PM

I have a thought.

Geothermal energy uses heat from the earth to heat and cool. Therefore it does not use fossil energy or produce any heat to create energy except for pumps. It merely transfers heat to or from the earth's crust.

Geothermal systems are available now. It is not some theoretical unproven future technology.

Perhaps geothermal energy is the answer to thermal pollution.

Up in PA they have hot springs they use for heating.

If you could drill into the magma near a volcano you could produce steam for electric generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:46 PM

"This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man."
Well then cut it out Amos.

Do you have any facts to present or just negative statements, ad hominem attacks and rhetoric?

Amos
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 04:13 PM

The straight answer about ad hominem arguments: they have no lefgitimate place in debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:51 PM

Can't remember who said it, but:

"We'll not have solar power until they figure out how to run a sunbeam through a meter."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:43 PM

(and yes, I recognize the minority opinions, such as beardedbruce, who sort of accepts that 'something' is happening, but still has a list of things to criticize liberals about. Seems they are not doing the 'right' things to prepare...like planning to move millions of people further North. He hasn't said what expects Canada to do with all those Latinos...)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:33 PM

There are various reasons why many people have come to be skeptical about climate change & warming. Part of it is just who they listen to and where they get their news. If they get 98% of what they process is from Faux News and related sources, they are gonna hear "it ain't true" 98% of the time.
There are also those who talk themselves into skepticism because *gasp*,,,Liberals DO mostly accept the climate change scenarios.
Some disbelieve because,like 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are SO many web sites claiming 'evidence' about the 'fraud'.

Now.... the reasons why there are so many ...mostly conservatives... who publish & post and talk and rant about their 'doubts' are quite different. The driving forces behind getting all those sheep to nod and baaaaahhhh in agreement are based on the serious financial inconvenience it will be to certain major corporations and investors IF the world in general takes the problem seriously.
There is WAY too much money tied up in preserving the status quo, or at least delaying action until they can get their cash cows into a different pasture. The trail of who is funding what in denial of climate change/warming is a scary labyrinth of vested interests paying ad agencies and lobbyists and funding 'experts' to do 'studies' which say what they want to hear.
(Remember the campaign to slow down and discredit the anti-tobacco movement? That pales in comparison to this!)

There was a 'rule' propounded about political issues a few years ago..."No matter what they're talking about, they're talking about MONEY!"

(naawwww...don't ask me to 'prove' this. But watch... once alternative energies are common, see who controls them.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,infowars.com
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM

The best summary of the global warming situation I've come across lately can be found in an analysis of the movie Avatar. The note on "verbal manipulation" at the link below. Second point in that note talks about what happened in March of 2008. Fascinating:

http://www2.moment.net/~michael/Avatar.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:17 AM

The fracture lines are countless, but probably the most important one runs through public opinion. A recent poll showed only 36 percent of Americans believing that the evidence of human-induced climate change is firm, down from 47 percent in early 2008. The rise of unemployment has perhaps made people more reluctant to accept adverse news on living standards. There is also considerable public confusion about climate science and possible remedies.

Vested interests, especially coal and oil, play their predictable role. Half the states produce at least some coal, and around 30 states produce at least a bit of oil. In the dozen or so major coal or oil states, opposition to climate change action is politically powerful and well organized. Oil-producing states in the Gulf of Mexico tend to resist climate action even though the Gulf is probably already experiencing damage from rising hurricane intensity.

The environmental community is also divided. Many environmental groups oppose nuclear power and any use of coal, even with carbon capture and sequestration technology. Conservationists have fought many renewable energy projects, opposing wind power near farms and coastlines, solar thermal plants in the desert and high-voltage transmission lines near residential communities.

Another factor is the bargaining approach to climate legislation. Rather than defining a plan toward a low-carbon economy, the White House has left the negotiations to Congress and the lobbyists. The result is sprawling draft legislation, hard for the public to understand and replete with hidden and overt financial transfers to vested interests, especially in the allocation of emissions rights under a complex cap-and-trade system.

Perhaps the legislation can still narrowly pass, which at this point would be the best option. If it stalls this spring, however, the climate and the rest of the world can't wait. A different approach is needed. Here are some components.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency has the mandate to move under the Clean Air Act. It could impose a timetable of emissions standards for electric utilities and for vehicles, which together account for around three fourths of carbon emissions. There is also broad support for needed R&D funds and important scope for energy efficiency through weatherproofing and green building codes.

Second, if cap-and-trade stalls, the administration and Congress should rethink their opposition to the much simpler option of a carbon tax. A predictable carbon tax would be much more effective than the cumbersome and nontransparent cap-and-trade system and might win broader assent as part of a package of deficit reduction.

Third, the public needs to hear a plan. The administration has embraced a goal of 17 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, but it hasn't told us how that would be achieved. The public is scared that even this modest goal would slam jobs and living standards. It's time to spell out the changes in power generation, automobile technology and energy efficiency that can take us to our goals at modest cost and huge social benefit.

Fourth, it's time to step up the response to the climate skeptics, who have misled the public. The Wall Street Journal leads the campaign against climate science, writing editorials charging that scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy. I have made repeated invitations to the Journal editors to meet with climate scientists publicly for an open discussion or debate, but all have been rebuffed. ... (Scientific American)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:35 AM

Yes, Bruce. As is your little "blame Amos that we are assholes" shtick. There's a point where you have to own your own bullshit, dude, and using me as an excuse is just debilitating to your own soul.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:09 AM

Amos,

"This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man."


This from YOU???

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM

Sorry Bill My mistake.

That is why the fancy words were gone. I should have known.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 11:19 PM

The leaked emails may be scandalous in the popular hystrionic sense, but they have very little bearing on the real issues.

I don't recall pasting any claim about America's oil had been cut off, but it is for sure it is a lot harder to get than it was fifty years ago.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:00 PM

I KNOW Amos...but I am NOT Amos..... I actually use my own name when posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:21 PM

Amos: Thanks for dropping the fancy words that do not prove or disprove anything.

Read the leaked emails.

---

Logical fallacy:

argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:15 PM

"America's oil had been cut off." ???? Were gonna hafta buy Calleeforneeahh green?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:06 PM

Amos: Apparently you are not reading this thread because you keep asking questions that have been answered.

As to your objection to cut and paste, I might ask you whom cut and pasted what they claimed was the "truth" in an article that stated America's oil had been cut off.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 07:34 PM

---(from my memory, not a precise quote)......Sawz recently said he DID see some evidence that the was some global warming, and that he thought some of it 'might' be related to human acivity.

Now, I also do not quite understand the effort he is making to find ANY web reference to ANY information the can in ANY way be interpreted to be awkward or embarrassing to ANY liberal or supporter of Al Gore.

He is spending a lot of effort to 'suggest'/insinuate that there is some conspiracy to fudge data on climate change, or that various individuals involved in campaigning to combat climate change shouldn't be trusted because of some personal details.

   I can go find the pages outlining the logical fallacies that are involved, but when I do that, they are usually ignored, denied or dismissed by those making the errors.

I guess I'll just read now & then and hope for something more than long copy & paste 'information'....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 07:13 PM

Jaysus CHrist, Sawz...what IS your point, really? Are you asserting that the planet is not growing warmer as a result of human activity?

If so, can you tell us what you really believe in simple terms?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:52 PM

"Recite specifics of this dubious information"

It has already been posted here in this thread my myself and others. Do you want me to read it to you?

"The fact that his father was connected to Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum and sold his son some land is not the same thing as investing in the kind of chicanery your boy Dickhead went through, sucking the whole WHite House intot heoil game."

For instance, Occidental gave $50,000 to the Democratic Party for the 1996 campaign after a telephone solicitation by Mr. Gore from his White House office and another $100,000 after its chief executive, Ray Irani, spent two nights in the Lincoln Bedroom in 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:41 PM

Here.... never saw this in more than 40 years... it's been like this for nearly a month that is normally so cold you would need to cover your forehead to avoid a headache...

Issued: 4.00 PM AST Thursday 18 February 2010

Tonight: A few rain showers and flurries ending late this evening then cloudy with 40 percent chance of flurries. Fog patches. Low zero.

Friday: Cloudy. 40 percent chance of flurries changing to 40 percent chance of rain showers or flurries in the morning. High plus 4.

Friday night: Cloudy. 60 percent chance of rain showers or flurries in the evening. A few flurries beginning late in the evening. Fog patches. Wind becoming northwest 20 km/h overnight. Low minus 2.

Saturday: Cloudy with 40 percent chance of flurries. High zero.

Sunday: Flurries and rain showers. Low minus 2. High plus 1.

Monday: Cloudy. Low minus 5. High plus 1. Tuesday:Cloudy with 30 percent chance of flurries. Low minus 5. High zero. Wednesday:A mix of sun and cloud. Low minus 5. High plus 1.

It's just not normal.... we get warm spells, but not for weeks. It's disconcerting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:17 PM

Sigh.

Recite specifics of this dubious information, if you would be so kind. Or, alternatively, consider shutting the ^&^*&$ up-=- I don't mind which. This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:33 PM

"that helps solve the problem" that Gore promotes with questionable information.

"You really go out of your way to generate illogical stuff."

Generated by the New York Times Pop.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:18 PM

"In 1998, the US government sold the Elk Hills naval petroleum reserve to Occidental for $3.65 billion. According to the government, the reserve was no longer strategically necessary, and the reserve was sold to reduce the national debt and the size of the government. Critics cited the "no-bid" nature of the sale, together with Vice President Al Gore's involvement with the company as evidence of graft." ~ Wiki

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM

A conflict of interest? Sounds to me like a convergencew of interest. Gore detects and communicates about the problems of climate change, etc. Gore invests in a company that helps solve the problem. what's the conflict? He's trying to do well by doing good in the face of a lot of ridiculous banderloggery from slow-heads and cro-Magnons.

The fact that his father was connected to Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum and sold his son some land is not the same thing as investing in the kind of chicanery your boy Dickhead went through, sucking the whole WHite House intot heoil game. Gimme a break.

You really go out of your way to generate illogical stuff.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

"you seem to think that investing in green industries is a bad thing. Why would that be? Don't try to tell me you think making money is unethical!!!"

It is not but when the people promoting GW policy stand to benefit monetarily, it is known as a conflict of interest.

Standard #1: Bush the oil man=bad Cheney the oil man=bad

Standard #2: Gore the oil man=good

Gore Family's Ties to Oil Company Magnate Reap Big Rewards, and a Few Problems New York Times

CARTHAGE, Tenn.â€" On the third page of Vice President Al Gore's most recent financial disclosure report, after routine listings for his salary and the value of his house in Washington and his small farm here, is an unlikely entry -- $20,000 for leasing land for zinc mining.

Behind the yearly lease payment, which has earned Mr. Gore about $450,000 since 1974, is the story of a sweetheart land deal from long ago, and the ties between the vice president and his family and Armand Hammer and his oil company, Occidental Petroleum.

While the origins of that relationship lie in these rolling hills of middle Tennessee and date back half a century, it has continued to bring both benefits and scrutiny for Mr. Gore as he has moved through Congress to the White House and finally toward his party's presidential nomination.

For instance, Occidental gave $50,000 to the Democratic Party for the 1996 campaign after a telephone solicitation by Mr. Gore from his White House office and another $100,000 after its chief executive, Ray Irani, spent two nights in the Lincoln Bedroom in 1996.

More recently, Occidental stock in the estate of Mr. Gore's father has made the vice president a target for environmental groups. They have demonstrated at about 30 Gore rallies, opposing the oil company's plans to drill on land in Colombia that Indians contend is theirs.

The broad outlines of the Gore-Hammer-Occidental connection have been reported at various points in the vice president's career, with bits and pieces of it published in books and articles over the years. Mr. Gore's father, Albert Gore Sr., even described the ties in a memorandum for the Clinton campaign when aides were checking his son's background before picking him as the running mate in 1992.

Now, as the pasts and legacies of both Mr. Gore and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas come under scrutiny in a new presidential campaign, the relationship of the Gore family with Mr. Hammer is once again drawing attention.

Essentially, Mr. Hammer sold the farmland to the elder Mr. Gore, then Mr. Gore turned around and sold it to his son, who was then a newspaper reporter in Nashville.

On Tuesday, Mr. Gore said in Nashville that there had been nothing improper about his family's relationship with Occidental and that the company's mineral lease on the farmland had been the result of a free market negotiation.

Officials with Mr. Gore's campaign and his White House office do not dispute the basic elements of the land deal. They also said that there had been nothing wrong with the transaction or with Mr. Gore's subsequent dealings with Occidental and Mr. Hammer, who died in 1990. The aides said the roots of the deal and the relationship were in the friendship between Mr. Gore's father, who died in 1998, and Mr. Hammer.

The elder Mr. Gore was a member of the House and Mr. Hammer was a wealthy businessman when they met in the 1940's at a livestock auction near the Gore family farm here, about 50 miles east of Nashville. Eventually the two men entered into a partnership raising and selling cattle, but that was only the start of a connection that lasted until Mr. Hammer's death.

Over the years, Mr. Hammer would become a legendary tycoon, courting politicians and leaders worldwide and operating many businesses. His close ties with the Soviet Union, where he had run a family company for nine years as a young man, and his freewheeling ethics brought him brushes with the law. In 1976, he was convicted of illegally contributing $54,000 to President Richard M. Nixon's 1972 campaign, though he was later pardoned. Along the way, Mr. Hammer helped make the elder Mr. Gore a wealthy man, and the politician became one of the oilman's most valued allies in Washington.

When J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the F.B.I., wanted to prosecute Mr. Hammer on suspicion of being an agent of the Soviet Union in the early 1960's, Mr. Gore Sr. defended him on the Senate floor. Mr. Hammer was not charged.

Letters in the elder Mr. Gore's papers, which are in an archive at Middle Tennessee State University, show that he provided many other favors to Mr. Hammer. For instance, he intervened with the Defense Department when Mr. Hammer's son, Julian, was having trouble getting a security clearance because of legal problems, and he persuaded the F.B.I. to let an agent testify on behalf of Mr. Hammer's company in a civil trial, according to the letters.....

Occidental entered the chemical business with the acquisition of Hooker Chemicals in 1968, 26 years after the contamination at Love Canal

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 08:12 AM

LH,

I hate it when you are entirely correct- especially when you just restate what I said and don't get criticized for it, and I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 12:13 AM

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate August 29th, 2000

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will "destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.

Nowhere is Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental. While on the one hand talking tough about his "big oil" opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance," the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.

From California to Colombia: Native Lands Threatened

The Kitanemuk are not the only indigenous group threatened by Occidental's oil operations. The 5000-member strong U'wa of northeastern Colombia, have threatened mass suicide if Oxy proceeds with plans to begin drilling oil on their ancestral homeland. The U'wa, who retain their language and traditions, understand the introduction of oil would devastate their culture. They also understand that oil facilities would put them in the midst of Colombia's fierce civil war.

"To the U'wa, oil equals violence," explains Danny Kennedy, director of the Berkeley, California-based Project Underground, which has helped wage an international campaign of support for the U'wa. Oil installations are a favorite target of leftist guerillas at war with the Colombian government. After guerillas bomb the installations, the army occupies the area. "Then comes the paramilitary, who are basically soldiers with hoods on at night. Then comes the terror campaign" says Kennedy. The U'wa, who have little contact with either the government or the guerillas, would end up becoming targets.

The U'wa have attracted international sympathy, but their efforts to enlist the support of Occidental's most famous shareholder -- Al Gore -- have come to naught. Gore publicly met the outcry over the U'wa with silence. The Vice President even refused a request by a Democratic member of Congress that he meet with an U'wa representative who had traveled to Washington to see him.

Meanwhile, Occidental pressed for the massive military aide package for Colombia the administration recently pushed through Congress. Occidental Vice President Lawrence Mirage testified before Congress in favor of the military aide package during the February deliberations, throwing in that those opposed to Occidental's drilling were a bunch of "extremists."

Two things set the U'wa struggle and the Elk Hills sale apart from the corporate welfare so typical of the New Democrats: Al Gore's direct financial interest and his close relationship with Occidental Petroleum that dates back to his father.

A Family Affair

Gore senior first met long-time Occidental CEO Armand Hammer at a cattle auction in the 1940s. When zinc ore was discovered on some of Gore's land, Hammer and Oxy bought it for twice the amount of the only other bid. Hammer then sold the land back to Gore while retaining the mineral rights. The elder Gore then sold the land to his son, Al Jr., who has received $20,000 yearly in mineral royalties from Occidental ever since. Two years after Gore Sr. was defeated in a bid for re-election to the Senate, he joined Occidental as a member of its board of directors and was rewarded with a $500,000 a year job working for an Oxy subsidiary.

Throughout his political life, Al Gore Jr. has received the favor the patronage of Occidental and Hammer's successor, CEO Ray Irani. And for every campaign finance violation Gore has committed, Irani seems to be lurking in the background. He was one of the contributors who slept in the Lincoln bedroom (a couple days later Irani wrote a $100,000 check to the DNC). When Al Gore made illegal fundraising calls from the White House, Irani was one of the recipients (he ponied up $50,000, according to a Harold Ickes memo unearthed during the investigation). In the Elk Hills sell-off , Irani and Oxy finally got the payoff worthy of their long patronage. It is a payoff crooked businessmen have dreamed of ever since the land was stripped from the Kitanemuks during the Gold Rush. Indeed, the history of Elk Hills and corruption is an old one. And it is a story most Americans have heard.

Gore's Teapot Dome Scandal?

In 1922, executives of the Pan-American Petroleum and Transport Company (now known as ARCO) bribed Albert Fall, President Warren Harding's interior secretary, to give them leases to two oil fields reserved for a military emergency. One was on field in Wyoming called the "Teapot Dome," the name by which we would forever remember the biggest bribery scandal in modern American history.

The other field in the scandal was the navy's 47,000-acre reserve in the Elk Hills, near Bakersfield in Central California. These were traditional lands of the Kitanemuk people, better known by the name the Spanish gave them, the Tejon. They were forced off the Elk Hills by treaties signed with the federal government in 1851 during the midst of the gold rush and have since lived on the nearby Fort Tejon reservation, now called "Tejon Ranch."

While the scandal scuttled ARCO's plans, Occidental succeeded in acquiring Elk Hills seventy five years later. In 1997, after Gore's recommendation the land be sold, Oxy bought the region from the federal government for $3.7 billion. The sale represented a tripling of the company's U.S. oil reserves. Mired for years by declining reserves, Occidental's revenues for the first quarter of this year showed a dramatic 87 percent increase from the same period in 1999, before it began operations in the Elk Hills.

To complete the environmental assessment, the Energy Department hired a private company to complete the environmental impact statement necessary for the sale. The company was ICF Kaiser International, and on its board of directors sat none-other than Democratic super-fundraiser Tony Cohelo. Cohelo would later become Gore's campaign manager before being dumped after the Democrat's early stumbles. He is currently the subject of investigations by former employers in the State Department and by the Census Monitoring Board, seeking to determine if he misused his positions (both were administration appointments) for personal gain. The Securities and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, is investigating Cohelo's myriad financial empire.

The Elk Hills sale, not surprisingly, was quickly approved. "I can't say that I've ever seen an environmental assessment prepared so quickly," says Peter Eisner, director of the Washington-D.C. public advocacy group Center for Public Integrity.

Meanwhile, as it became clear that Oxy was looking to undertake massive drilling operations in the Elk Hills, the 500 remaining Kitanemuk sought assurances from Oxy that their native sites and burial grounds would not be destroyed. Company officials said they would protect their heritage. But it soon it became apparent that the last of the 100 archaeological sites identified by the tribe would be destroyed by February 2001. Occidental agreed to first allow the State Native American Heritage Commission to retrieve what it feels is most valuable for a future display at a Museum at the California State University in Bakersfield.

"They are going to take the last memories of our people, the last evidence that we once inhabited this land and put it in a box and ship it off to a museum," laments tribal member Dee Dominguez. "All the material culture of the Kitanemuk would be destroyed forever. (But) the oil they are extracting will be completely drained in twenty years."

Dominguez calls Occidental executives "cold" and "insensitive," unwilling even to consider slant drilling that would save pieces of the tribe's history for future generations. "We've never denied them taking oil," she says. "We are not asking for land. We are not asking for royalties. We are just asking them to leave something to show that we were here."

As for Al Gore's role in the whole affair, Dominguez says she has thought about writing him. But she doesn't think it will help. "[Clinton and Gore] sold us down the river," she says. "It turns my stomach every time I hear them talk about family."

Bill Mesler is a Washington-based reporter. His work has appeared in the Nation, Mother Jones and the Progressive, among other publications.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:41 PM

Sawz:

Your confusions are myriad, and legend.

FIrst: The Earth in its place in the universe is a SYSTEM. It takes in heat, it gives off heat. The system works between tolerable limits--it only gets so far below freezing and only goes so close to boiling, on its surface. The normal cycle adds energy and ALSO lets off energy. Sheesh.

Second, you seem to think that investing in green industries is a bad thing. Why would that be?

Don't try to tell me you think making money is unethical!!! All your truest bluest heros are rolling in it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:26 PM

Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is a London-based investment management firm with an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on sustainability factors, including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is chairman of Generation, and David Blood â€" previously chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management â€" is CEO. The pair has given the company its nickname, "Blood and Gore."

Generation Investment Management LLP is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the UK.

Generation has built a global research platform to integrate sustainability research into fundamental equity analysis. The firm focuses on the economic, environmental, social, and governance risks and opportunities that can materially affect a company's ability to sustain profitability and deliver returns.

The November 2004 press release announcing the launch of the firm included the following quote from Gore:

    I'm delighted to join David Blood in founding this firm. The issue of sustainability has always been a passion of mine. Helping to establish the competitive business advantages of sustainability in an investment context with this exceptional team is a very exciting challenge.

    Transparency, innovation, eco-efficiency, investing in the community, nurturing and motivating employees, managing long-term risks, and embracing long-term opportunities are integral parts of a company's enduring capability to create value. Business leaders who align their business strategy and technical development with sustainability and social accountability will deliver superior long-term results to shareholders.

Generation began investing client money in April 2005, and has offices in London, New York and Sydney. The firm currently employs 36 people. Generation's Advisory Board, convened by Gore, helps set Generation's long-term thematic research agenda into global sustainability and renewable energy issues. Past areas of focus have included climate change, poverty and development, ecosystem services and biodiversity, water scarcity, pandemics, demographics and migration, and urbanization.

In November 2007, Generation and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) announced a global collaboration to "find, fund and accelerate green business, technology and policy solutions with the greatest potential to help solve the current climate crisis." As part of the collaboration, prominent KPCB Partner John Doerr joined Generation's Advisory Board.

Online commentators and think-tank policy analysts have suggested that Al Gore has created a conflict of interest by working with GIM and simultaneously being the spokesperson for action on global warming. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes that the government policies Gore advocated to the U.S. Senate in January 2009 "will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers." Such criticism over this alleged conflict of interest has been made as early as March 2007.

GIM also owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), CCX in turn owns half of European Climate Exchange. This gives Al Gore a financial bias towards promoting global warming control through the issuing of carbon credits.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:23 PM

"There is NO source of energy that does not ( eventually) end in heat pollution."

I agree. The bad pollution I was referring to is the toxic kind.

See where I said "The world is going to heat up anyway due to heat pollution. Energy=heat."

Unless you can capture heat and turn it into electricity at 100% efficiency there is going to be a net gain of heat.

KP: your math is beyond me so I will bow to your authority on that.

No matter where the heat ends up it is still heat. How much warming have we seen so far per year?

We had better be looking far ahead at the overarching problem of the ultimate heating of the earth from any sort of energy use.

LH: "I would like to see some honesty in our media" I would like to see some honesty from the UN, IPCC and politicians instead of scare tactics."

Amos: You need to get deprogrammed Pop. Here is a start

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 07:38 PM

It's no use explaining it, Amos...Phil Jones has 'admitted' that he overstated his case. ☺

Nothing counts if Bruce can find one vague counterexample.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

Here's an analysis of warming versus solar activity for those who buy the "variable sun" pucky.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:19 PM

From the Journal of Geophysical Research:

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950

D. M. Murphy
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

S. Solomon
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

R. W. Portmann
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

K. H. Rosenlof
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

P. M. Forster
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

T. Wong
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

We examine the Earth's energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions.

We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols.

After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as -1.1 ± 0.4 W m-2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects. Further, the data imply an increase from the 1950s to the 1980s followed by constant or slightly declining aerosol forcing into the 1990s, consistent with estimates of trends in global sulfate emissions. An apparent increase in residual forcing in the late 1990s is discussed.

And here's a bit more on global patterns.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:15 PM

Start with this graph.

Here's one hockey stick for you

Here's another although it is graphed in colors instead of shapes.

Here's another.

You need to smarten up on this.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:08 PM

I submit that you are a partner in fatuousness, LH, and for all the apparent reasonableness of your screed you do not know the facts about planetary climate change and are ignoring the hockey-stick curve in the temperature graphs.

Do a little more research and cite your sources.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:54 PM

"If you believe the problem has been misanalyzed or misdiagnosed or a wrong remedy suggested, what are YOU doing about it?"

Say what, Amos? What exactly would you expect him to do about it? He's just a person expressing an opinion, one which differs from yours in some respect. Like anyone, he is continuing to defend his own opinion (a natural tendency in all humsns), just as are you continuing to defend yours. That's all there is to it.

I hardly think either you or he are in a position to do anything significant about global warming, Amos. ;-) You're talking about it, period. People like to talk. It strengthens their sense of identity, specially when they are defending an opinion they hold, and it is the source of most of the really long threads on this forum. If we were all to cease doing it, think of the energy we'd save! ;-) On the other hand, think of the bottled-up frustration of not expressing ourselves.

It's a trade-off.

Now, I find it quite interesting that there was a lengthy historical warming period on planeet Earth from the later 1800s into the early 20th century...until 1940 or '41 (don't remember year which it was, but it was one of those 2). Then a lenthy cooling period set in. And it lasted until 1975.

Yet our industrial civilization was unquestionably increasing its output of activity (and CO2 emissions) throughout that period...1940-1975.

Yet the Earth was in a cooling phase for those 35 years...during a steady and exponential increase of industrial activity on this planet.

So why didn't global warming continue during those 35 years, and why did it become global cooling instead...to an extent that there were scare stories in the media in the mid-70s about the danger of "a new ice age" due to several decades of global cooling? Why was there global cooling during those 35 years of steady industrial expansion?

I'll tell you why. Because the Sun was in a lower period of solar activity and was sending less energy our way, that's why.

The Sun's output of solar energy began increasing after the mid-70's and has done so until quite recently. The clear result of that has been about 35 years of global warming, driven by the Sun.

To deny this is bad science. It's very bad science to deny it. To pretend that it is carbon emissions which have driven the recent decades of global warming is very bad science which is not supported by the existing scientific evidence over a longer period of time, but by a very vociferous political lobby that is pretty much controlling the world mainstream media at present and is suppressing those opinions in the science community which do not support the sanctioned view of CO2-driven global warming.

Why are they doing it? Why are they promoting a theory based on clearly faulty science? I'm not sure why they're doing it, but I suspect they have both financial and political reasons for doing so, and very substantial ones.

Have we been experiencing global warming since 1975? Yes! But not for the reasons that are being touted in our media. Do we need to make adjustments to deal with this global warming? Yes!

Is it a good idea to reduce our industrial emissions? Yes, obviously it is...but not in order to reduce global warming. We should reduce our industrial emissions, because it is better for us and the planet to have CLEAN AIR rather than polluted air!

I would like to see some honesty in our media about the real reasons for what is going on and why, when it comes to global warming. We are being told lies and half-truths, and I'd really like to know why? Who stands to gain from doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:44 PM

Bruce
My 'back of a spreadsheet' (who uses envelopes these days?) says that 0.023 degrees is the most you'd ever get if all the energy went into the atmosphere. And clearly some goes into the sea - think of all that cooling water that gets pumped out. So I don't think a 2.3 degree rise a century is anywhere near a real case - just a theoretical top limit. The other thing, (and its late here and I'd need to think this through clearly when I'm awake) is that using renewables such as solar/tidal you are just capturing and concentrating energy that was coming to the earth anyway from solar radiation. So I'm not sure you'd get a net warming from those sources that you do from a fossil fuel plant. I'm not sure about nuclear - I think a nuclear plant just concentrates the decay that's already going on?!

There really are some fascinating discussions on this 'music forum'!
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM

It is inaccurate because it is a calumny against an indefinite generalization; in fact, Gore has repeatedly made suggestions as to remedies to global warming using the best data available to him.

If you believe the problem has been misanalyzed or misdiagnosed or a wrong remedy suggested, what are YOU doing about it?

Sheesh.

Aside from carping at me, that is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:15 PM

"THis is a fatuuous, uncharitable and inaccurate remark"

How is it inaccurate?

What has been proposed DOES NOT DEAL with global warming- it merely reduces the effect of ONE greenhouse gas ( CO2), often at the cost of increasing others to a higher level ( water vapor and methane, for example). It does NOT even look at helping those affected by clkimate change, or even reduction of other pollutants.

and I take YOUR treatment of those you oppose as a guide, so "fatuuous," and "uncharitable" are not valid criticsm.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:11 PM

0.023 degrees ( present rate of energy production- and you expect it to NOT increase??) a year times 100 years is 2.3 degrees- and ALL the CO2 reduction would not stop it. Look at the numbers the Goreistas have put forward- a single degree speels the death of all civilization ( to them)

A pity that the sun is a variable star, and will ( often, from past records (ie, the dinosaurs et al) )warm things up MOPRE than the greenhouse effect, without any help from man.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 01:20 PM

Permafrost line recedes 130 km in 50 years
February 17, 2010 Permafrost line recedes 130 km in 50 years

The southern limit of permanently frozen ground, or permafrost, is now 130 kilometers further north than it was 50 years ago in the James Bay region, according to two researchers from the Department of Biology at Université Laval. In a recent issue of the scientific journal Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, Serge Payette and Simon Thibault suggest that, if the trend continues, permafrost in the region will completely disappear in the near future.

The researchers measured the retreat of the permafrost border by observing hummocks known as "palsas," which form naturally over ice contained in the soil of northern peat bogs. Conditions in these mounds are conducive to the development of distinct vegetation -- lichen, shrubs, and black spruce -- that make them easy to spot in the field.

In an initial survey in 2004, the researchers examined seven bogs located between the 51st and 53rd parallels. They noted at that time that only two of the bogs contained palsas, whereas aerial photos taken in 1957 showed palsas present in all of the bogs. A second assessment in 2005 revealed that the number of palsas present in these two bogs had decreased over the course of one year by 86% and 90% respectively.

Helicopter flyovers between the 51st and 55th parallels also revealed that the palsas are in an advanced state of deterioration over the entire James Bay area.

While climate change is the most probable explanation for this phenomenon, the lack of long term climatic data for the area makes it impossible for the researchers to officially confirm this. Professor Payette notes, however, that the average annual temperature of the northern sites he has studied for over 20 years has increased by 2 degrees Celsius. "If this trend keeps up, what is left of the palsas in the James Bay bogs will disappear altogether in the near future, and it is likely that the permafrost will suffer the same fate," concludes the researcher affiliated to the Centre d'études nordiques.

Provided by Universite Laval

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 01:15 PM

the present bunch of Goreistas is NOT looking at solving any problem, just gaining control and ( political) power.

THis is a fatuuous, uncharitable and inaccurate remark.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM

Bruce, Sawzaw

I was intrigued by the idea that the direct heat from all our power stations will eventually warm the atmosphere even without worrying about C02. As a chemistry/physics guy I like these little puzzles!

So I dug out a few numbers to see.

The total power output of all the world's power stations is 4000GW. (1GW is a billion watts, or 1 billion joules per second)

So if all that power was converted to heat and it all went into the atmosphere, then in a year the heat output would be

1 billion X 365 X 24 X 3600 or 1.26 E^20 joules (thats 1.26 followed by 18 zero's!)

But the energy needed to raise 1g of air by 1 degree C is 1.012 Joules, and there are about 5.36 E^15 tonnes of air in the atmosphere. So the heat needed to raise the whole atmosphere by 1 degree (its heat capacity) is about 5.42 E^21 Joules (1.012 X 1 million to get from grams to tonnes, and multiply by the weight in tonnes).

So I reckon the heat from all the world's power stations in a year would raise the temperature of the atmosphere by at most 0.023 degrees - thats at least 10 times less than the predicted carbon dioxide related warming. You can double it by 2030 if you can believe the various projections for the increased energy demands by then. And in practice the warming would be less than my quick calculation as much of the residual heat from power stations goes into the sea not the air, and the sea has a much higher heat capacity than the atmosphere.

Sawzaw, your comment at 6.24pm above that you are in favour of 'solar, wing, hydro, nuclear energy, anything that does not pollute' I think is still valid. I think I agree with Bruce about the need for sensible adaptive measures as well - there are quite sensible people who buy/build houses on flood-plains and then complain when they get wet every winter!

hope this is clear and not too 'lecturing' :)

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM

Sawz,

"I am skeptical that mankind can reverse whatever global warming there is. Even if it could be reversed, we are doomed anyway because the problem is more and more people using more and more energy which is creating more and more heat, regardless of the efficiency and cleanliness of the energy source. The world is going to heat up anyway due to heat pollution. Energy=heat."

ABSOLUTELY! which, upon consideration, reflects upon
"I am all for solar, wing, hydro, nuclear energy, anything that does not pollute."

There is NO source of energy that does not ( eventually) end in heat pollution. See the laws of thermodynamics.




"There are actually people trying to figure out how to make a giant solar shade in space to shield us from the Sun. Who is going to have control over that?"

The question that the proponants do not want you to consider- after all, if I control that, are you going to argue with me about what I want to do ( at the risk of having sunlight cut off from your country) ?


There may well be climactic shifts in progress- but the present bunch of Goreistas is NOT looking at solving any problem, just gaining control and ( political) power.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 09:57 AM

The certainty that it is man-made warming that can be prevented, and thus the ignoring of ANY steps to accomadate what I believe is real but not preventable climate changes is my major gripe with most of the Goreistas.



------------------------------------------------------
'Warming' meltdown


Climate 'consensus' cracks up
Last Updated: 5:50 AM, February 16, 2010

Posted: 12:58 AM, February 16, 2010

    Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers" -- a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.
                    
All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.              

A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though: Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.
                 
For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it's a giant leap backward. The rush to "save the planet" can't accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.
                 
Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key "consensus" institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mind-set of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry.
                 
Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."
                 
Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make.
                 
Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."
                    
Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either.
                    
All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.
                    
The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia.
                    
It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters -- all nonsense.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one."

The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.
                 
In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.

Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers" -- a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.


Jones: Key climatologist softening claims.

A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though: Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.

For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it's a giant leap backward. The rush to "save the planet" can't accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key "consensus" institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mind-set of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry.

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make.

Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia.

It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters -- all nonsense.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one."

The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.




Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK#ixzz0fi7Vk24m

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:46 AM

When I say I am sort of neutral, I mean I don't see what all of the fuss is about.

I don't see why be should spend spend spend while the world economy is so shaky to fix a problem that may not even be a problem or a problem that we may not be able to fix anyway.

What has the United Nations ever fixed anyway?

Someone is going to profit from the spending. Who?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:24 PM

BB: My opinion.

I don't want to sound like I am flip flopping but I believe there is a degree or so of global warming and it "may" have been be caused by man.

However it has been over hyped to the point that people are polarized over the issue.

One group is the saviors that feel they are justified in fudging the numbers to bring action before it is too late:
"Dr Murari Lal, the scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

Another group has profit as their motive. Al Gore, Pachauri and some others stand to make billions off of the efforts to reverse global warming. They may actually believe in it.

Others are on the bandwagon with them. They believe they are the vanguard of humankind and must save the non believers from themselves.

Some countries want reparations from the industrial countries for causing global warming that they claim threaten them.

Then there are the actual non believers who are enraged and feel they must push back against what they believe to be a scam. Some of them might have a profit motive by gathering anti-warming followers and telling them what they want to hear.

I am sort of neutral but I believe people need to know the truth, not some PR campaign.

I am skeptical that mankind can reverse whatever global warming there is. Even if it could be reversed, we are doomed anyway because the problem is more and more people using more and more energy which is creating more and more heat, regardless of the efficiency and cleanliness of the energy source. The world is going to heat up anyway due to heat pollution. Energy=heat.

I attempt to point out and make people aware of the inconsistencies in the alarmist's evidence. I could probably poke some holes in the skeptics evidence but it is the alarmist's "evidence" that is constantly thrust in my face.

There are actually people trying to figure out how to make a giant solar shade in space to shield us from the Sun. Who is going to have control over that?

I am all for solar, wing, hydro, nuclear energy, anything that does not pollute. pollution is bad. I am not sure that carbon capture is workable like gasohol. Gasohol was a feel good idea that consumes more fossil fuel that it produces. A net loss. A boon doggle. They are destroying the rain forest in Brazil to make room for more soybean production for biodiesel to save the atmosphere.

I believe oil and natural gas should be used as a bridge to green power sources.

I am not calling anybody stupid or mean. People are entitled to their own opinion just as I am entitled to my opinion.

Just examine all the information from both sides in order to form an opinion.

Seems to me it is about money and power more than anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:47 AM

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT



A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995

Monday February 15,2010

By Ed Price

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.


Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the "Climategate" affair, conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.

The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.

Last month we revealed how the UN's International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was "speculation" lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.


The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.

Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble "keeping track" of the information.

Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.

   SEARCH UK NEWS for:      

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.

But Professor Jones said: "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

"For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions.

"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data.

Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a "blip" in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth's temperature.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: "The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC's last report said: "We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias."

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:45 AM

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat

Last updated at 11:16 PM on 13th February 2010
Add to My Stories
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
Untold billions of pounds have been spent on turning the world green and also on financing the dubious trade in carbon credits.

Countless gallons of aviation fuel have been consumed carrying experts, lobbyists and politicians to apocalyptic conferences on global warming.
Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt.
You might have thought that all this was based upon well-founded, highly competent research and that those involved had good reason for their blazing, hot-eyed certainty and their fierce intolerance of dissent.
But, thanks to the row over leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, we now learn that this body's director, Phil Jones, works in a disorganised fashion amid chaos and mess.
Interviewed by the highly sympathetic BBC, which still insists on describing the leaked emails as 'stolen', Professor Jones has conceded that he 'did not do a thorough job' of keeping track of his own records.

His colleagues recall that his office was 'often surrounded by jumbled piles of papers'.
Even more strikingly, he also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming.
He also leaves open the possibility, long resisted by climate change activists, that the 'Medieval Warm Period' from 800 to 1300 AD, and thought by many experts to be warmer than the present period, could have encompassed the entire globe.

This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement's argument that our current position is 'unprecedented' would collapse.
It is quite reasonable to suggest that human activity may have had some effect on climate.

There is no doubt that careless and greedy exploitation has done much damage to the planet.

But in the light of the 'Climategate' revelations, it is time for governments, academics and their media cheerleaders to be more modest in their claims and to treat sceptics with far more courtesy.
The question is not settled.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html#ixzz0fblT0uG0

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:44 AM

From The Sunday Times February 14, 2010

World may not be warming, say scientistsJonathan Leake
273 Comments
Recommend? (276)
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal".

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

Related Links
Member of climate inquiry panel resigns
Science chief demands climate change honesty
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias," he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM

mailonline:

ANOTHER climate change blunder: First it's melting glaciers, now natural disaster claim is debunked

25th January 2010

....Experts appointed by the United Nations said rising temperatures were to blame for an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

But it has emerged that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the statement, made in 2007, on an unpublished report that had not been properly reviewed by other scientists.

The report's author has since withdrawn the claim, saying there is not enough evidence to link climate change to worsening natural disasters, and criticised the use of his data as 'completely misleading'.

The latest revelation means more embarrassment for the climate change lobby because worsening natural disasters were a central plank of arguments at the recent UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Barack Obama used the claims when he said last autumn: 'More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.

Climate change minister Ed Miliband has claimed that floods such as those which devastated parts of Cumbria last year could be widespread if global warming goes unchecked.

He said last month: 'Events in Cumbria give a foretaste of the kind of weather runaway climate change could bring. Abroad, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of south Asia could put millions of people at risk of drought.'

The IPCC's 2007 report said the world had 'suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s', suggesting global warming was to blame.

But the claim was taken from a then unpublished report by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at London-based consultancy Risk Management Solutions.

When Dr Muir-Wood released the report he added the caveat: 'We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses [damage caused by natural disasters].'

The IPCC said it would investigate the false claim and could withdraw it.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, said: 'We are re-assessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings.'

Dr Muir-Wood attacked the way his evidence was used. He said: 'The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading. We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. 'Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished.'

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:56 AM

Express.co.uk Saturday February 6,2010:


MET OFFICE BLASTED FOR 'BIASED SUPPORT OF CLIMATE THEORY'

THE Met Office was last night accused of being too heavily biased in support of arguments suggesting global warming is man-made.

Critics said the taxpayer funded body had no right to enter such a politically charged arena in the wake of an on-going row embroiling climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia.

A leaked email scandal at the university, which suggested that data which did not support theories of man-made global warming had deliberately been withheld, prompted the Met Office to issue a statement in support of the global warming camp.

It also called on scientists to sign up to a petition in support of the climate change science.

Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed the Met Office was rattled. Dr Peiser said: "They have come out on one side and are paying the price. They have been far too heavily biased and have not been objective."

Earlier this week Professor Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, urged the public to believe the science supporting the theory that man is behind global warming.

She stressed that carbon dioxide levels were rising and that the gas's impact on temperature had been known about since the 19th century.

The United Nations' climate change chief yesterday vowed not to quit, despite a high-profile error in an international report on man-made global warming.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said there remained a "huge volume" of science backing the theory that human activity is to blame for changes in global temperatures.

The IPCC was last month forced to apologise for an incorrect claim in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

A journalist for Science magazine has claimed that Dr Pachauri was told of the issue last year but took no action ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming.

Greenpeace UK director John Sauven yesterday said that the error put Pachauri's position in question.

There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested.

It showed that 25 per cent of those questioned did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10 per cent since November.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM

The Dutch environment minister, Jaqueline Cramer, on Wednesday demanded a thorough investigation into the 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change after a Dutch magazine uncovered it incorrectly states 55 percent of the country lies below sea level. The the Dutch national bureau for environmental analysis has taken responsibility for the incorrect figure cited by the IPCC. Only 26 percent of the Netherlands is really below sea level.

When Cramer heard of that blunder she wrote a letter to the IPCC, saying she was "not amused" there were mistakes in the scientific report she bases the Dutch environmental policies on. Now she is confronted with errors in the data about her own country. "This can't happen again," the minister told reporters in The Hague on Wednesday. "The public trust in science and politics has been badly damaged."

So peer review is worth what?

Recently, one mistake after the other has surfaced in the IPCC reports. De Telegraaf reported yesterday that temperature measurements have turned out to be no longer comparable with earlier ones because thousands of weather stations in open, colder areas have been removed. Dates for disappearing glaciers were also changed - 2035 became 2350 - and anecdotes in a mountain-climbers magazine were promoted to scientific sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:58 PM

...Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.

It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. 'We as authors followed them to the letter,' he said. 'Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.'

However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.>

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were 'unable to get hold of the suggested references', but would 'consider' this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was 'very high'. 'What is the confidence level?' it asked.

The authors' response said 'appropriate revisions and editing made'. But the final version was identical to their draft.

Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. 'He didn't contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,' he said.

The damage to the IPCC's reputation, already tarnished by last year's 'Warmergate' leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.

Benny Peiser, the GWPF's director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was 'skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments'.

Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel's credibility had been damaged. 'They've done sloppy work,' he said. 'We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.'

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:15 PM

Mailonline

24th January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action..........

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 10:03 PM

The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change skeptics.

MAILONLINE 28th January 2010

...The revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes for climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are too secretive and too arrogant.

It will pile pressure on the director of the university's climate change unit, Professor Phil Jones, who has stood aside while an investigation is carried out, and make it harder for him to return.

The ruling followed a complaint from retired engineer David Holland-66, whose Freedom of Information-requests were ignored.

Last night Mr Holland welcomed the watchdog's decision but said it was disappointing the researchers would not be prosecuted.

'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.'

Scientists at the University of East Anglia were encouraged to delete emails concerning claims that man-made emissions were causing global warming....

9:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them.

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are.

Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away.

It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed.

Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.

Cheers
Phil

May 29, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann, with the subject heading "IPCC & FOI":

    Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:15 PM

"didn't do any research", they just "took a look at papers", that they got 12 "people around the table" and "just kind of winged it."

...Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a peer review process, their peer review process does not comply with the OMB and EPA policies for highly influential scientific assessments in many important respects, including, without limitation, non-compliance in the provision of data to reviewers and transparency. Had the EPA actually carried out the examination of IPCC peer review policy that is required prior to EPA use, it would undoubtedly have identified these and other shortcomings.

Further, the peer review process of the TSD itself failed to comply with relevant OMB Guidelines....

....Shortly after the NRC 2006 report, I asked Gerald North, Chairman of the NRC2006 panel in an online colloquy whether they had carried out any due diligence to determine whether these proxies had been used as follows:

The NRC Panel stated that strip-bark tree forms, such as found in bristlecones and foxtails, should be avoided in temperature reconstructions and that these proxies were used by Mann et al. Did the Panel carry out any due diligence to determine whether these proxies were used in any of the other studies illustrated in the NRC spaghetti graph?

North in effect admitted that no such due diligence was carried out, stating that they did not "dissect" the studies illustrated in this graphic to determine whether they had used the strip bark proxies whose avoidance had been recommended, while inconsistently confirming that strip bark forms should not be used as follows:

There was much discussion of this matter during our deliberations. We did not dissect each and every study in the report to see which trees were used... The strip-bark forms in the bristlecones do seem to be influenced by the recent rise in CO2 and are therefore not suitable for use in the reconstructions over the last 150 years.

In an seminar at Texas A&M University shortly thereafter that was placed online1, North described operating procedures of the NRC 2006 panel by saying that they "didn't do any research", that they just "took a look at papers", that they got 12 "people around the table" and "just kind of winged it." He said that's "what you do in these sorts of expert panels"..[Read more here]

A clip of North’s remarks is online here

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:55 PM

Ask Amos a question and he takes off like a big ass bird.

In August, the Met Office had forecast a mild winter. Last summer, the BBC had again been embarrassed: Thanks to the forecasts it had received from the UK Met, the BBC had warned its audience of an "odds-on barbecue summer" that instead was cool and rainy.

Nationalpost.com January 17, 2010:

The British Broadcasting Corporation has put its weather forecasting contract out to tender â€" the first time since its radio broadcasts began in 1923 â€" after taking heat from the public for a string of embarrassingly inaccurate long-range weather forecasts. The UK Met Office, the government-owned meteorological department that has had the BBC contract for almost 90 years, is a partner with the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University of Climategate fame. CRU and the UK Met Office jointly provide the climate change data that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on.

The BBC’s decision comes amid one of the fiercest winters in decades that has left the country unprepared for the snow-related chaos it has seen. In August, the Met Office had forecast a mild winter. Last summer, the BBC had again been embarrassed: Thanks to the forecasts it had received from the UK Met, the BBC had warned its audience of an "odds-on barbecue summer" that instead was cool and rainy. In both cases, the BBC has faced outrage from a public that had been misled by the information the BBBC had provided it.

Many blame the UK Met Office’s abysmal forecasts record on a climate change bias. The BBC’s own climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, who for a decade had been a UK Met forecaster, believes the UK Met’s problem could stem from flawed computer models at its Hadley Centre, which provides data to the IPCC.   

“Could it be that the Hadley supercomputer had developed a warm bias?â€쳌 he wrote for the BBC yesterday, elaborating on a troubling possibility that has implications for the climate change debate. Last week, on the same subject, he wrote: “Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre's predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?â€쳌

The UK Met has also lost contracts to private sector firms in the UK that depend on accurate long-range forecasts, among them Marks & Spencer and Tesco.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:29 PM

CNSNEWS January 26, 2010

Ben Pile, co-author of Climate Resistance, noted that an assertion in the same IPCC report that climate change could contribute to reducing rain-based crop yield in Africa by 50 percent by 2020 had originated from a report by another advocacy organization, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

The IPCC report in the spotlight was one of four released in a series of high-profile events during 2007, and together known as the Fourth Assessment Report. It was six years in the making, and the IPCC said in publicity material at the time that it was the work of more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries.

The Fourth Assessment Report has been used to guide governments in determining climate policies affecting hundreds of millions of people, and by advocacy groups in pressing governments to do more. The IPCC is currently working on its Fifth Assessment Report, and on Jan. 15 opened nominations for authors and reviewers. It is due to be finalized in 2014.

The reliance of peer-reviewed material – material that has been scrutinized by other experts in the same scientific field – is aimed at minimizing the likelihood that unsound assertions can make their way into IPCC reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:07 PM

National Geographic News
June 20, 2008

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:41 PM

HI all,
Glad to see everyone is still going at this thread...

Here is a most unusual thing, an article that actually takes a balanced look at the various arguments around AGW, from a reasonably authoritative source - Chemical Engineering News published by the American Chemical Society.

Global Warming And Climate Change - Believers, Deniers and Doubters

Interesting comment near the end about how the impact of methane may have been underestimated. Methane stopped increasing in 1998 just as (as some would say) temperatures seemed to level off. hmm...

cheers KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:57 PM

The Sunday Times January 24, 2010
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny â€" and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods â€" such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 â€" could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the financial agreement at Copenhagen "must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm".

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts â€" but were ignored.

The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chair of the IPCC, said: "We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific."

The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing author to the section of the IPCC's 2007 report dealing with climate change impacts. He is widely respected as an expert on disaster impacts. Read more

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:05 PM

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science – An Illustration Of A Broken Scientific Method

This weblog lists three research findings that are in the peer reviewed literature, but have been completely ignored by the IPCC and CCSP climate assessment communities, nor have been refuted in the literature. These are just three examples of the level to which the scientific method has sunk to in climate science.

    * Observations of the spatial distribution of aerosols in the atmosphere in the lower latitudes, shows that the aerosol effect on atmospheric circulations, as a result of their alteration in the heating of regions of the atmosphere, is 60 times greater than due to the heating effect of the human addition of well-mixed greenhouse gases [from Matsui and Pielke, 2006];
    * A conservative estimate of the warm bias in the construction of a global average surface temperature trend resulting from measuring the air temperature near the ground is around 0.21°C per decade (with the nighttime minimum temperature contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth's surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14°C per decade; still a warming, but not as large as indicated [based on Lin et al 2007];
    * The radiative temperature of the Earth is used by the IPCC and CCSP to represent the portion of the radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere which originates at the Earth's surface. However, the outgoing long wave radiation is proportional to the fourth power of T [T4], from Stefan-Boltzman's Law, not temperature by itself. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of long wave emission than a 1C increase in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, but this important distinction has been ignored. A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface changes would be to evaluate the change of the global average of T4 with time. [Pielke et al 2007].

Until, and unless the climate science community returns to the proper scientific method of examining the climate system, policymakers will continue to be fed erroneous information. Only poor policy decisions can result due to this failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:56 PM

Table of Contents 2
  
  Examples of [IPCC} Errors:
  
  A 10-fold exaggeration in the effect of Melting ice-sheets on sea-level rise..3
  
  A 20-fold exaggeration of the climatic effects of rising CO2 concentrations...5
  
  The Attribution Question......................................................6
  
  References....................................................................6
  
  Some of the Errors in Al Gore's Movie.........................................7

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:51 PM

Bill: You ask for an opinion and you make an ad hominem attack on the opinion.

I am sorry if I have violated any of your rules about posting things here.

Where is your analysis of what was posted as opposed to whom posted it and how it was posted?

If you would read my postings a little further you would see that I am not denying global warming exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:35 PM

And Amos, since you are so well ventillated now, here is the info on a weather station 75 miles from the first one. Quite an anomaly here.

Hostile remarks? You the king of hostility accusing others of being hostile? BTW where and why did those 4500 stations go and why?

Site Curator/Contact, Phone number: Orland Water Users Association [phone]
Date and time of survey: 5/12/2007 11:30AM PST
Name of person doing the site survey: Anthony Watts
Surveyor contact email or phone number: 530-899-8434 [e-mail]
Reported Coordinates and Elevation of site: 39.8 N 122.2 W
Measured GPS Coordinates of site: 39.74529N 122.20027W
Measured Elevation 247 feet

Google Earth Link:

Site description and known history: Traditional Stevenson Screen with wooden legs. Mercury max/min thermometers. Site in operation over 100 years, at present location since 1951, possibly longer.
Curator notes: curator says they just received 100 year service award from NWS Sacramento

Site surveyor notes: Well placed site except for small orange tree about 18-20 feet NE of shelter which will grow and possibly influence shelter.

Closest bias is concrete water flume about 4 feet wide about 10 feet W of shelter and is very old concrete structure, curator says possibly turn of century. Station shelter has been repainted with semi-gloss latex paint several times. Note pictures of paint chips. Other bias is to NW, heavy equipment lot and building about 200 feet away.

Shelter and instruments in good condition, shelter clean and functional.

GISS Plot

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM

"Now you object"..." I don't object to hearing your opinion. I dispute some of its content!

As to: "The IPCC produces key scientific material...."etc... Yes, they DO produce such material. YOU keep posting stuff claiming to show that certain members **OF** the IPCC are overzealous and may have fudged 'some' data...etc.

You didn't bother to cite your source for "The IPCC produces key scientific material ...", but it wasn't hard to find. It is from a talk by Dr. Pachauri, in 2007 at the Nobel award to Gore. You have said that you do not trust Dr. Pachauri's conclusions or his use of data. I wouldn't imagine you would agree with such a wide-sweeping statement which, out of context, feels like a pretty self-serving statement about his own group. I'm not going to believe everything self-serving Bill Gates says about Microsoft, but they do do a lot of high quality stuff! The IPCC **IS** more than Pachauri....

You continue to try to discredit an entire scientific hypothesis by making references to claimed problems with some of its adherents. There are classic logical fallacies associated with that type of reasoning.
Several of us who have debated you here have posted data and links to data that support the overall idea that global climate change, including incremental warming, is happening, and that human activity is partially responsible, and that we should take measures to combat it.

If you wish to directly dispute this, I'll listen...but ad hominem remarks about individuals don't accomplish this.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:00 PM

Sawz:

OK--go ahead and subtract the Marysville survey data. Recompute the curve based on the data from the hundreds of other stations.

You sound a tad desperate; your main stock in trade keeps coming up as destructive commentary, hostile remarks, and nullification.

Sigh.

What constructive remarks can you offer?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:42 PM

Amos: Why did GISS / NOAA reduce the number of weather stations from 6,000 to 1500? Did they drop the ones reading higher tempertures or was it the lower reading stations?

Weather Station Survey:

Weather Station/Climate Station Site Survey Form
Site Name: Marysville
NASA GISS Site Numerical ID: 425745000030
Site Address: Near 9th and B streets, 1 block east next to RR tracks, 107 9th St, Marysville, CA
Site Curator/Contact, Phone number: Marysville Fire Station, [phone]
Date and time of survey: 5/25/07 1:20PM PST
Name of person doing the site survey: Anthony Watts
Surveyor contact email or phone number: 530-899-8434
Reported Coordinates and Elevation of site: 39.1 N 121.6 W
Measured GPS Coordinates of site: 39.14577N 121.58585W
Measured Elevation 68 feet
Google Earth Link:

Site description and known history: The site uses an MMTS sensor installed by Sacramento NWS office. The sensor IR shield is placed in a small patch of soil in a planter box on the rear patio. The placement is within 6 feet of a parking space (see pictures) and within 6 feet of an electronics container housing cell phone transmission equipment. The electronics container/portabuilding was placed about 2 years ago along with the cell phone tower whose base is galvanized steel and about 8 feet away.

Curator notes: The entire rear area used to be grass field but was converted to parking lot about 20-25 years ago, the sensor IR shield was moved to its current location when the cell tower was erected. Their used to be a Stevenson Screen shelter at this location but was switched to MMTS.

Site surveyor notes: This is probably the worst temperature measuring location ever seen by this observer in his 30 year history as a meteorologist. The sensor is essentially in the corner of a large parking lot, vehicles with hot radiators can park within 6 feet of the sensor, the sensor itself is with 6 feet of the building housing cell phone electronics, and the cell phone tower base about 8 feet away is of galvanized steel and could be felt reflecting the heat of the sun.

Worse, the sensor is located within 10 feet of the exhaust fan of the air conditioning units for the cell phone porta-building, and hot air from these units could be felt in the vicinity of the sensor. The sensor is within 25 feet of the main building where firefighters quarters are, and they indicate they use a propane fueled barbeque grill on the patio within about 10 feet of the sensor once or twice a week.

It is the opinion of the site surveyor that the data produced by this station is biased in so many ways that it is essentially useless and should be removed from the USHCN list.

GISS Plot

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 02:56 PM

The Times of India 27 January 2010

The hits to IPCC and R K Pachauri just don't seem to stop. In the latest embarrassment to the Nobel-winning body, British daily 'Telegraph' has published details on IPCC's dire prediction regarding the huge depletion of Amazon forests, which was based on unverified reports.

The daily said the IPCC forecast about the loss of Amazon forests because of "even a slight reduction in precipitation" came from a journal that was not peer-reviewed. Coming after the disclosure, and acknowledgement, that its warning of 'meltdown' of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was based on speculation, the latest expose will further undercut IPCC's credibility.

According to the article, Pachauri is under fire for setting a death-date for the Amazon forests. With this, Pachauri's "robust and solid" monitoring system for preparing the IPCC assessment report has been completely shorn of respectability.

In its report, the Telegraph suggests that IPCC did not independently research the claims. It says the claims were lifted off a report done by the WWF, an advocacy group.

According to the British paper, the two 'expert' authors of the WWF cited in the IPCC report are, in fact, not Amazon specialists. One, Dr P F Moore, is a policy analyst while the other, Andy Rowell, is a freelance journalist and a green activist.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM

Sawz:

The LiveScience.com site had the graph up under the heading "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index" and linked to an article entitled "Past Decade the Warmest Since 1880". The link worked when I first posted it.

The graph is here: http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=environment&c=news&l=on&pic=warmest-decade-100123-02.jpg∩=Except+for+a+leveling+off+between+the+1940s+and+1970s%2C+Earth%27s+surface+temperatures+have+increased+since+1880.+The+last+decade+has+brought+the+temperatures+to+the+highest+levels+ever+recorded.+The+graph+shows+global+annual+surface+temperatures+relative+to+1951-1980+mean+temperatures.+As+shown+by+the+red+line%2C+long-term+trends+are+more+apparent+when+temperatures+are+averaged+over+a+five+year+period.+Credit%3A+NASA%2FGISS&title=

THe article is here: http://www.livescience.com/environment/warmest-decade-100123.html

Or, if you prefer, here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:37 PM

Bill: I posted it with no comments but you asked for a comment.

Now you object. Evidently your goal is to be nasty with your whoever said rebuttals and feign indignation with whomever disagrees with you.

"The IPCC produces key scientific material that is of the highest relevance to policymaking, and is agreed word-by-word by all governments, from the most skeptical to the most confident. This difficult process is made possible by the tremendous strength of the underlying scientific and technical material included in the IPCC reports."

Where is the tremendous strength?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:25 AM

...for Ed T, et al, on the origin of the myth of Global Warming:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. ~ Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM

"...form my own opinion without someone else's spin."

If you are having an ongoing debate, however, it is useful to know what the other guy's opinion is.

and... *sigh*

"...the IPCC's world renowned, universally agreed to, absolutely unquestionable, Nobel prize winning, no longer open to debate, bulletproof report."

I don't detect a wee bit of sarcasm there, do I? Who suggested that ANY report has ANY such status? The question is not whether you can find 'some' discrepancies , or whether some spokesman has a bad attitude (even if his agency is on the right track). The question is whether the overall situation being touted IS real!
The IPCC is not the only group saying that the problem is real, and the evidence that there is a problem does not depend on one graph or one over-zealous spokeman's say-so.
I do not have the time to personally evaluate every compilation of data and the computer software programs that produce it...but there are those who do, and it is STILL the case that most of the capable scientists who do the research and ARE capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff' in the complex data and reports OF the data, say that there is, indeed, a problem.

Wolfgang's remark is relevant about one researcher thinking that... "...IPCC is controlled by scientists who step out of their roles as advisers and become politicians themselves overselling basically sound data.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:14 PM

Amos: I don't see a danged thing at the page you linked to.

If you want to see something really interesting, here is a time lapse image of CO2 in the atmosphere for the entire year of 2008.

I found it at NOAA. It was a slow loading 22mb file so I shrunk it down to 7mb.

you can actually see all the CO2 concentrations worldwide and where they come from, then swirling all around the world and changing from season to season.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:34 PM

Sorry Bill. I didn't mean to overwhelm you but I sort of like to read things and form my own opinion without someone else's spin.

All that being said, I believe it to be another glaring discrepancy in the IPCC's world renowned, universally agreed to, absolutely unquestionable, Nobel prize winning, no longer open to debate, bulletproof report.

But you can decide for yourself. Please do.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:15 PM

Hey AMos, Ed jus called you stupid    he he ;<}

OH I get it now. nevermind.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:10 PM

*big smile*...I had forgotten that classic of Russell. Thanks, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 08:48 PM

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM

The Global Land-Sea Temperature index from 1880-present from NASA and GIS:

"Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period. Credit: NASA/GISS"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM

Meanwhile the tundra continues to thaw for whatever reason it is doing so and releasing methane in historic proportions.

The way life is, there is a good chance (actually a tenth of 1 percent) that a gamma ray burst will make all this talk seem trivial.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:51 PM

Keep your eyes open for a story that seems to have been hidden by science, from you and me, and from the media.

It involves the first man to walk on the Sun (but, it could have been a woman) ....no kidding....it happened in a naturally-occuring 10,000 low heat sun cycle. Records of this cycle was kept from the public, mainstream science, and media by vested scientific interests. But, it was too hot to hide forever...and one of the scientists broke ranks...and blew th e whistle.   The World Weekly News is about to break this news story...but, you read it first here:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM

?? That's a lot to digest quickly.... Do you have a personal summation of what it is supposed to mean in relation to other ideas? I'd like to re-read it with some sort of notion of what I am expected to see. (like the abstract of a scientific paper.)

Long copy & paste posts are far too easy to ignore without a reason to immerse one's self.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 03:58 PM

Hockey Stick Gate:

The Telegraph UK:

Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". [YAD061] On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" â€" the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia â€" is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see.

To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith [Fudge Factor] Briffa, the US computer modeler Dr Michael [under investigation] Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars.

It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to unprecedented levels.

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted â€" without explanation â€" with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all.

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM

I'm not a chemist/climatologist, Sawzaw. I think I have seen the explanations of why CO2 is not a 1-1 mapping against temp. rise, but can't remember. (CO2 seems to react in several different ways, and interacts with other causes.) I'll see what I can find, if someone doesn't post the answer faster.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:39 PM

"This NOAA chart that the snail found shows it more clearly. It shows about 0.7 degrees C of global warming in the last 115 years.

Repeat as often as needed until people listen.

1 degree F or 0.7 degree C rise over 100 years is trivial. This is not Global Warming, it is Global Normalness, but that does not call for trillions of dollars to flow from those evil "develped countries" to "third world" countries fix the problem because there ain't no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:19 PM

That's important, Wolfgang...'overselling basically sound data' can lead to embarrassment and awkwardness when trying to make a point.

Still, if we see a problem and no one seems to be listening, certain types of 'overselling' are always tempting. It too many years to 'sell' the dangers of smoking because 1)the tobacco companies lied and UNDER reported the dangers, and 2) because those who were addicted didn't WANT to hear anything except solid proof. ("Why, I've smoked for 40 years, and I'm still here!")(My own mother smoked for 50 years).

Global climate change just doesn't 'feel' like an emergency to most average people....like the frog in the kettle of water where the heat is increased g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y. And because there are a number of interlocking causes/factors in climate 'change', it easy to pick one or two and find counter examples to the claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM

Bill:

I am beginning to understand now. The purple line is the base line, like to 50 yard line. It is always flat.

This NOAA chart that the snail found shows it more clearly. It shows about .7 degrees C. of global warming in the last 115 years.

But CO2 has shot up. Why didn't the temperature follow?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM

Save the Panel on Climate Change!

it seems obvious that the IPCC would need a new chairperson. The IPCC needs to adhere to its own standards for appointing experts and reviewing material that it reports. It needs to make its procedures for appointments more transparent. The IPCC peer-review should be made more robust, with quality assurance overriding deadlines. A formal mechanism should be put in place to correct errors after publication. Such reform will be a large and difficult task. But the credibility of climate science depends upon it.

An opinion article. I don't know about two of the three authors, but the German von Storch is a researcher who is convinced that the temperatures are increasing in the long run, who is also convinced that by far most of this increase is man-made, but who thinks that the time window for what he thinks necessary action is much larger than those of his colleagues he considers to be alarmists. He thinks the IPCC is controlled by scientists who step out of their roles as advisers and become politicians themselves overselling basically sound data.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:50 PM

Thanks Snail, that's a better chart. I 'can' find 'em, but I have not taken the extra time.

Yes, it is important to be sure you are charting the mean, the median, the average over the years: and for what months, what specific areas, daytime vs. nighttime, etc. With enough charts, it is easy to misconstrue the overall trend.

Sawzaw...if I read correctly, there was one polar bear image that was used as an 'iconic image' to get attention, while the actual bears pictured were not specifically in danger. That's unfortunate, but it is a very common technique to get attention in many fields or campaigns.
'Proving' that a particular image was used does not invalidate the claim that a problem exists. The polar bears primary food source is seals. They catch seals by finding breathing holes in the ice and waiting. If the seal don't need specific places to come up for air, the bears have no easy way to locate them. Bears 'can' swim, but not as fast as seals.
Now, it IS a fact that the sea-ice has been breaking up earlier and freezing later in recent years, limiting the bears hunting season and making feeding new cubs harder. Some bears have taken to more raids on hunters camps or villages out of hunger.
Yes, the polar bear population did rise for a number of years after hunting was restricted, but that has changed.

look here for experts' explanation

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM

It is a little unclear exactly what the NOAA chart is describing but it is one of a series. Try this one.

It would appear that purple line is the mean of all the data so of course it is flat. It simply shows the centre that the temperature is varying around.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:48 PM

Bill: I think I am getting your point. It says December at the top but why would all the averages of all the Decembers for 110 years in the lower 48 states show flat line with global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:15 PM

The Telegraph UK 23 Jan 2010: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal

...What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim â€" now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC â€" has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
     At the same time, Dr Pachauri has personally been drawn into a major row with the Indian government, previously among his leading supporters, after he described as "voodoo science" an official report by the country's leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain's claims as baseless. Now that the IPCC has disowned the prediction made by his employee, Dr Pachauri has been castigated by India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, and called on by Dr Raina to apologise for his "voodoo science" charge. At a stormy Delhi press conference on Thursday, Dr Pachauri was asked whether he intended to resign as chairman of the IPCC â€" on whose behalf he collected a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago, alongside Al Gore â€" but he refused to answer questions on this fast-escalating row.
     To understand why the future of Himalayan glaciers should arouse such peculiar passion, one must recall why they have long been a central icon in global warming campaigners' propaganda. Everything that polar bears have been to the West, the ice of the Himalayas has been â€" and more â€" to the East. This is because, as Mr Gore emphasised in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, the vast Himalayan ice sheet feeds seven of the world's major river systems, thus helping to provide water to 40 per cent of the world's population. The IPCC's shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown.
     Since this first came to light, many journalists have tried to track down how such an embarrassing error came to be included in the IPCC report, which is still widely touted as the most authoritative single document on global warming. The only researcher who has dug out the full story, however, is my colleague Dr Richard North, who on successive days last week featured prominently on India's leading English-language TV news channel discussing the issue with the two scientists at the heart of the row, Dr Hasnain and Dr Raina.
     Until now it has been generally reported that the IPCC based its offending paragraph on an interview Dr Hasnain gave to the New Scientist in June 1999. This was a time when global warming researchers were busy making ever more extravagant claims in the run-up to the IPCC's 2001 report. It was in that year that Dr Michael Mann in America launched on the world his famous "hockey stick" graph, purporting to show that temperatures had risen faster in the late 20th century than ever before in the Earth's history. The graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, though it has since been comprehensively discredited.
     In fact Dr Hasnain had first made his own controversial claim two months earlier, in a much longer interview with an Indian environmental magazine, Down to Earth, in April 1999. It was the wording of this interview which the IPCC was to quote almost exactly in its 2007 report.
     Clearly the IPCC was aware that to cite a little Indian magazine as the reference for such a startling prediction would hardly seem sound scientific practice. But it discovered that Dr Hasnain's slightly later interview with New Scientist had been quoted in a 2005 report by the environmental campaigning group WWF. So it was this, rather oddly, which the IPCC cited as its authority â€" even though the words it quoted were taken directly from the earlier interview.
     But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain's prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing".
     The year after the IPCC report was published, however, Dr Hasnain was recruited by Dr Pachauri to head a new glaciology unit at TERI. In a matter of months, TERI was given a share in a $500,000 dollar study of melting Himalayan glaciers funded by a US charity, the Carnegie Corporation. It is clear from Carnegie's database that a key part in winning this contract was played by Dr Hasnain's claim that most glaciers in the region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".
     In May 2009 TERI was also given a share in a three million euro project funded by the EU. Citing the WWF's 2005 report, the EU set up its "High Noon" project to study the impact of melting Himalayan glaciers. It was particularly keen to foster alarm over the Himalayas as a means to win Indian support for action on climate change at last year's Copenhagen conference.
     Last November, however, Dr Raina, the country's most senior glaciologist, published a report for the Indian government showing that the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers had not increased in the past 50 years and that the IPCC's predictions were recklessly alarmist. This provoked the furious reaction from Dr Pachauri that tarred Dr Raina's report as "arrogant" and "voodoo science". Only weeks later came the devastating revelation that the IPCC's own prediction had no scientific foundation.
     Dr Pachauri's first response to these revelations was to claim that he had "absolutely no responsibility" for the blunder, that it was "the work of independent authors â€" they're responsible". But the IPCC's error was so blatant that last week Pachauri and other senior officials had to put out their remarkable statement, admitting that it had been due to a serious system failure.
     Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI â€" and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
     This is by no means the first time that the procedures used by the IPCC to compile its 2007 report â€" the most alarmist so far â€" have been subjected to trenchant questioning. But no one, it seems, is more embarrassed by "Glaciergate" than Dr Pachauri himself, whose expanding worldwide business connections since he became chairman of the IPCC have recently been the subject of articles in these pages by Dr North and myself.
     In view of the IPCC's statement last week, the very evident anger of the Indian government at his dismissal of its expert's report and now the revelation of the part played in this fiasco by a senior member of his own TERI staff, it appears that what we may soon be looking at here is not just "Glaciergate" but "Pachaurigate".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM

Bill: I did respond. I agreed with you. I said "So if you average Jan Feb and MAR and compare them to and average going back to 1963 you are right. The last three winters have been warmer than average."

Still the NOAA chart shows no global warming for the lower 48 for 110 years, None, zero, nada, zip, zilch. 0. The purple long term mean line is flat.

You can talk about Arizona, Pocatello and crime rates all you want but where is the global warming in that chart?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:07 PM

That chart, Sawzaw, is nothing but an average of the lower 48 for **one month**, and says nothing about overall global conditions, which is the concern.

You want to claim next that the crime rate in July for Pocatello, Idaho can be used to dispute prolems in Arizona?

Geez... I can read charts, and I can FIND charts. You never did answer my post about charts showing Maryland temps ^rising for the last century.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:05 PM

The Telegraph:

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration â€" a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents â€" was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 â€" as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues â€" but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction â€" until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration â€" a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents â€" was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:56 PM

Anyone got theories on why there are no wild cows?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:56 PM

Where is the warmists' response to This NOAA chart? No global warming shown here for the last 110 years even with the CO2 climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM

First it was the glaciers....then it was the banks and markets, now its Cadbury. Today, it's V K Raina. Enough with the melting, I say!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:46 PM

Did Sir Edmund Hillary mention melting or non melting Himalayan glaciers in the accounts of his mountain exploits....I think not. Thus, my case is proven:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM

According to TIA "The errors were first pointed out by a leading glaciologist who supports the overall IPCC picture"

Nope.

There was no significant questioning of this claim until late last year, when the Indian government published a discussion paper that pointed out that there was in fact no sign of any "abnormal" retreat in the Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh accused the IPCC of being "alarmist."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:34 PM

Glaciologist demands apology from Pachauri for 'voodoo' remark
The Times of India 19 January 2010,

NEW DELHI: India's senior-most glaciologist V K Raina today said the chief of the UN climate body should apologise to the scientist fraternity for dubbing their work on melting of Himalayan glaciers as "voodoo science".

Raina's demand comes even as the UN body, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) headed by R K Pachauri, deliberates on retracting its statement on Himalayan glaciers melting.

"The IPCC had dumped our report that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. Now, with the truth out in open, the IPCC should dump its own report which was based on mere speculation," Raina told PTI.

He was reacting to the revelations that the UN panel's predictions that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 stemmed from a 1999 article in a scientific journal which relied on an estimate made by a glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain and not based on a peer review.

IPCC must be answerable to all the scientists and experts associated who stand vindicated that glaciers melting is not being happening at the abnormal pace as declared by it, Raina noted.

"It only shows that IPCC has based its arguments on speculations and did not verify it before making it public," the former deputy director general of the Geological Survey of India said.

Raina, in his report, had maintained that glaciers have "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years and the reports of the glaciers demise are a bit premature."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 06:08 PM

Oops, more(inconvienent) ice can be found in this account of Amudsopn's three year voyage....that set a record, but was through such shallow waters that it was deemed to be of no commercial value as a route.

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/amundsen.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 06:03 PM

[Amundsen, Vol. 2, pp. 138, 139, 143, 145.]

About an hour later our look-out reported from the crow's nest that a boat was approaching us from land. At first we thought it was an Eskimo boat, but soon discovered it was manned by two white men and one Eskimo. We took them on board, and, curiously enough, the first of the men addressed us in Norwegian. He was a Norwegian, named Christian Sten, who had been second mate on board the schooner "Bonanza," of San Francisco. The schooner left home simultaneously with us, and, like ourselves, had passed the winter in these regions. The vessel had, however, been damaged by ice and by standing, and a few days ago they were compelled to run her ashore at King Point to save her from sinking. . . . We arrived at noon, and found the state of the ice as described by Sten. We approached a large sheet of solid ice lying outside the wreck, and made fast to it. Little did we dream then that King Point was to be our residence for the next ten months. . . . We were not the only ones waiting for a change in the condition of the ice. A large number of Eskimo, who had left Herschel Island in boats for the Mackenzie River, were held up by the ice about four miles west of us. . . . New ice, several inches thick, was now forming every night, and our fate was soon sealed for another winter. On Saturday, September 9th, we were able to walk on the ice, and we must therefore regard this as the opening chapter of our third winter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM

Amudson saw no ice? What a hoot. That's why it took his journey three years to complete - he and his crew had to wait while the frozen sea around them thawed enough to allow for navigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:38 PM

Thank you, pdq.... and from that site, this link telling some more details.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM

Here are some maps of the...


                                                 Northwest Passage

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:23 PM

Ringer: You might DO the research before stating factual absurdities about well-documented history.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:07 PM

"Roald Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903 and saw no ice..."

Nonsense! He spent 3 years getting thru the passage.

" After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen was able to navigate a passage into the Beaufort Sea after which he cleared into the Bering Strait, thus having successfully navigated the Northwest Passage."

" Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:57 PM

NASA's Prophet Will Give You NightmaresIgnore James Hansen's climate predictions at your peril.
By Johann HariPosted Sunday, Jan. 24, 2010, at 6:33 AM ET

I started reading James Hansen's new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, at the edge of a vanishing Arctic. I sat on a bare brown Greenland hillside listening to the ferocious crack and crash of the dying glaciers in the distance. As I watched the corpse of the ice sheet float by, broken into a thousand icebergs, it seemed the right place to begin the leading NASA scientist's explanation for what I was seeing. Since the year I was born, 1979, 40 percent of the Arctic sea ice has vanished. If we don't change our behavior fast, Hansen says I will live to see the day when it is all gone, and the North Pole is a point in the open ocean, reachable by boat. He stresses these are only the starting symptoms of a planetary fever that will remake the map of the world—and the capacity of human beings to survive on it. I finished reading the book at the Copenhagen climate summit, where the world's leaders gathered to offer a giant shrug.

Professor Hansen has been driven into a strange situation, and produced a strange book. For one-third of a century now, this cantankerous scientist has been more accurate in his predictions about global warming than anyone else alive. He saw these disastrous changes coming long before others did, and the U.S. government has tried to censor or sack him for his prescience. Now he has written a whistle-blower's account while still at the top: a story of how our political system is so wilfully, deliberately blind to environmental realities that we have no choice now but for American citizens to take direct physical action against the polluters. It's hardly what you expect to hear from the upper echelons of NASA: not a call to the stars, but a call to the streets. Toss a thousand scientific papers into a blender along with All the President's Men and Mahatma Gandhi, and you've got this riveting, disorienting book.

How did such an implausible American story come to pass? Hansen was born into a dirt-poor family in Iowa, to a farmer who left school in the eighth grade. But he was whip-smart and rose through university science departments, where he spent a decade studying the atmosphere of Venus. But then he noticed a more interesting story was happening right in front of him: "The composition of the atmosphere of our home planet was changing before our eyes, and it was changing more and more rapidly." Yes, we had known for more than a century that human beings were releasing warming gases into the atmosphere. Every time we burn a lump of coal or a barrel of oil, we unleash in one sudden burst greenhouse gases that took millennia to accumulate. But Hansen believed the effects were now becoming plain—and could be dangerous.
Watch BetterYou Weight Loss Videos from HealthiNation
Quantcast

After studying the evidence, in 1981 he made a number of predictions for what a warmer world would look like by the early 21st century. He said that the Arctic ice would be retreating dramatically and the fabled "North-West Passage" would open up, making it possible to sail through the Arctic. It has happened. I have seen it. Yet he was derided at the time as "alarmist" by the political class, and the Reagan Energy Department responded by slashing his research budget.

This set the pattern for his career: Hansen makes scientific warnings that are correct and need to be known by the public, and he is punished for it. In 1988, he famously testified before a Senate committee, offering the first major statements to capture the public imagination on the climate crisis. His written testimony was immediately altered by the White House to make his conclusions appear uncertain, and the first President Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, tried to get him fired. There was no improvement under Bill Clinton. Hansen received "the most political interference" then, when the administration tried to block an entire scientific paper.

Then, notoriously, the second Bush administration started to appoint former employees of Big Coal to run NASA's communications. They blocked press releases warning about global warming and tried to stop Hansen from giving interviews. One of the appointees explained his job was to "make the President look good." When Hansen argued back, they cut his research budget by 20 percent. Hansen said he had a duty to speak out because the first line of NASA's mission statement is a pledge "to understand and protect our home planet"—so the Bush appointees deleted the commitment. Yes: They erased the commitment to protect planet Earth. (An independent investigation by the Inspector General later confirmed all this.)

Most scientists would have backed down or given up. Hansen didn't—and from his prickly prose, you can tell why. He is irritable and aggressive, in part because he knows the stakes are so high. Unlike many scientists, he is not afraid to talk the language of morality. He knows it would be immoral—deeply immoral—to discover that we are trashing our climate, and stay in the lab, mumbling to yourself. This genius from an Iowa farm ain't going to be bossed around by any oil-stained prep-boys who want to bury his hard facts.

The global-warming deniers have claimed for years that the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue exists only because climate scientists are rewarded for making "alarmist" or "hysterical" claims. Hansen's story shows this is the opposite of the truth. The pressure is, in reality, to make scientists play down their claims. Think of it as the real Climategate.

What are the politicians trying to hide when they try to silence Hansen? He explains—drawing on deep pools of scientific evidence—that the burning of oil and coal is emitting so many warming gases into the atmosphere that we are now very close to triggering a series of catastrophes we won't be able to stop. The most striking to me, as I looked out over one of the world's greatest ice sheets, is the danger of their disintegration—triggering a massive sea level rise. It used to be agreed that it would take millennia for ice sheets to go, but the evidence now shows this is wrong. ...

Full story here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:26 PM

Al Gore's FRONT yard?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:14 PM

Inconvenient science is no science at all, to a teabagger.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 01:24 PM

Ye gods. Another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM

Re the Northwest Passage: Roald Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903 and saw no ice. Therefore the ice would have been the same area as today's, or less.

The current melting is due to a slight change in warm ocean currents, not climate change.

Why does no one pay attention to the Antarctic, where ice is at a 30-year maximum? Oh, of course, because it doesn't fit with the global-warming zeitgeist, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:57 AM

January 24, 2010

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize winning scientific body tasked with assessing the risk of climate change caused by human activity, has come under fire in re...
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize winning scientific body tasked with assessing the risk of climate change caused by human activity, has come under fire in recent days for an error in its 2007 report.

The panel, which is considered the world's most reliable source of information on climate change, had falsely predicted that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of IPCC, has now admitted to a mistake being in arriving at the 2035 prediction, but also defended the fact that the melting is a serious concern.

He has accused US lobbying groups for being behind the exaggerated criticism.

< a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBrf2kTMrmw">From New Delhi, Al Jazeera's Prerna Suri reports on the controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM

Ice in the Arctic....from international ice scientists....http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164011.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:26 PM

catsheesh That article, if you should deign to read it is NOT about polar bears, et al. It illustrates in a clear way that the waters have warmed enough in the Arctic to lay cable through the Northwest Passage, something that has not been true in recorded history.

What is your problem? If you are still alive you will be as affected as anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM

Over the last several years, I have posted many articleas about our success in saving the Polar Bear, Whooping Crane and Bald Eagle.

With the Endangered Species Act of 1972, Richrd Nixon focused public attention on the plight of these (and other) species and made it a national priority to save them.

There were just a few thousand Polar Bear in the mid 1950s. Now there are 25000 and the population growth continues. Their numbers have exceeded the habitat carrying capacity in some places.

Taking pictures of "poor lonely polar bear floating away on ice fragment" may work for grade school propaganda, but it does not work on people in the science community. Just the facts m'am.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM

Nah. It ain't happenin'


"ANCHORAGE - Global warming has melted so much Arctic ice that a telecommunication group is moving forward with a project that was unthinkable just a few years ago: laying underwater fiber optic cable between Tokyo and London by way of the Northwest Passage.
The proposed system would nearly cut in half the time it takes to send messages from the United Kingdom to Asia, said Walt Ebell, CEO of Kodiak-Kenai Cable Co. The route is the shortest underwater path between Tokyo and London.

The quicker transmission time is important in the financial world where milliseconds can count in executing profitable trades and transactions. "Speed is the crux," Ebell said. "You're cutting the delay from 140 milliseconds to 88 milliseconds."

"The project, while still facing many significant obstacles, also serves as an example of how warming has altered the Arctic landscape in profound ways.

"The loss of summer sea ice prompted the U.S. to list polar bears as a threatened species in May 2008. Walrus in two of the last three years gathered by the thousands on Alaska's northwest shore rather than ride pack ice to unproductive waters beyond the outer continental shelf.

"Summer sea ice melted to its lowest recorded level ever in late 2007, and most climate modelers predict a continued downward spiral. The result is a path through the Northwest Passage, the Arctic route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific that has fascinated explorers for centuries."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM

"Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations.

The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.""

Yes, the Earth's lower atmosphere is warming slightly, but it can hardly be called Global Warming while one keep a straight face.

The change in the last 150 years is unusually small. Look at the change in the previous 450 years.

The slight rise is overall benificial to plant and animal health and abundance.

Select members of NASA say that there is a 0.36^o F rise in the last 30 years, but Department of Defense data shows no such thing.

A more correct conversion of 0.8^o C change (since 1880) is 1.26^o F, not 1.5^o F.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:06 AM

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Climate-Change-Deniers.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:20 AM

"WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.


The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.

James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. "When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability," said Dr. Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists, "we find global warming is continuing unabated."

A separate preliminary analysis from another NASA office, the National Climatic Data Center, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. The new temperature figures provide evidence in the scientific discussion of global warming but are not likely to be the last word on whether the planet's temperature is on a consistent upward path.

Dr. Hansen, who has been an outspoken figure in the climate debate for years, has often been attacked by skeptics of global warming for what they charge is selective use of temperature data. The question of whether the planet is heating and how quickly was at the heart of the so-called "climategate" controversy that arose last fall when hundreds of e-mail messages from the climate study unit at the University of East Anglia in England were released without authorization.

Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations.

The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.""

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM

BillD - "refresh in ten years"

Yup.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:55 PM

Guardian Nov 9:

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

"My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added.

The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.

Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."

Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM

"No attempt to whitewash or cover up":

The railroad engineer in charge first tried to claim it was voodoo science and arrogance by climate change deniers. How dare anyone to question this settled, undeniable, peer reviewed science.

There was no significant questioning of this claim until late last year, when the Indian government published a discussion paper that pointed out that there was in fact no sign of any "abnormal" retreat in the Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh accused the IPCC of being "alarmist."

Doing what he has traditionally done in such circumstances, Mr. Pachauri proceeded to smear the messengers and pontificate about the IPCC’s high "peer-reviewed" scientific standards. He denounced the research paper as "voodoo science." He accused Minister Ramesh of "arrogance." He said that such skeptical claims were reminiscent of "climate change deniers."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:05 AM

.........they've had a spokesperson on telly this am saying the glaciers defrosting by the year 2035 is in fact a typo which has been promulgated all over.

The year at issue should've read 2350!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:30 AM

NB

The errors were first pointed out by a leading glaciologist who supports the overall IPCC picture.

No attempt to whitewash or cover up. Real science is self-correcting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:18 PM

"My facts are facts and your facts are not facts." That pretty much sums up your argumentation, too. That and "Climate changes in this little corner of the world necessarily map worldwide climate change taken as a whole."

I can't see any more reason to engage with you. Heels. Dust. Bye.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:08 PM

Bill:

I did not say you said anything about Chantilly. Dulles airport is in Chantilly so I assume the data you posted and the data I posted are the same except your data had the seasons added in the columns. And I agreed with you about the last three winters being warmer than average but your are intent on being nasty.

Where is your response to This NOAA chart? Maybe you don't really want to find a pattern that disagrees with you.

I have lived here for 65 years and I have to pay people to plow snow. I have had to plow for the last three years but for 5 years before that there was not enough snow to plow.

Mouse thief: do you think WGMS is monitoring all the glaciers?

238 Glaciers is a pittance when the Himalayas have 1500 alone and none of them are being monitored by WGMS. SO where does that leave your assertion that "all the glaciers taken together" must be considered.

"No, not the tiny, well chosen contingent of shrinking glaciers, but all the glaciers taken together."

TIA:

That is admittedly flawed because they were so anxious to prove global warming that they grabbed facts that were not facts and published them as facts.

From the railroad engineer now proclaimed to be a leading world climate scientist:

"The IPCC produces key scientific material that is of the highest relevance to policymaking, and is agreed word-by-word by all governments, from the most skeptical to the most confident. This difficult process is made possible by the tremendous strength of the underlying scientific and technical material included in the IPCC reports."

Such a pompous ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:18 PM

On the Himalayan Glacier issue, please read the following. If you are a partisan butt-head, make all the hay you want. If you are truly interested in science, stop and think.

From Skepticalscience.com...

---snip---

The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains a mistake. This is not the first inaccuracy to be found in the AR4 - there have been several papers demonstrating where IPCC predictions have underestimated the climate response to CO2 emissions. However, this time the climate response has been overestimated. Specifically, the IPCC AR4 predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 which is decidedly not the case. What's the significance of this error? To determine this, let's look at how it happened and the broader context.

The error occurs in Section 10.6.2: The Himalayan glaciers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."
The source for this information was "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China", a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF report was not peer reviewed. On Page 25, we find:

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the pres ent rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by t! he year 2035 is very high". Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years. The prediction that "glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming" and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will "eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages" (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing."
The WWF sourced their information from a 1999 news item in New Scientist. Again this was not peer reviewed (New Scientist is a popular science magazine). The article was based on an interview with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain, chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035. This speculation was not supported by any formal research.

Unfortunately, the error was not spotted in the review process. This may be because it was buried deep in the Working Group II section (which focuses on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with a regional emphasis). It was not one of the key features included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The 2035 prediction was not included in the Working Group I section (focusing on the Physical Science with more of a global emphasis) which was solidly based on peer reviewed research.

The moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field.

This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).

On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Him alaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).

While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).

The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:05 PM

??? Sawzaw...where did I say anything about Chantilly? Did you look at the pages I posted?

The 2nd one shows very clearly that average area (DC area) has been getting generally WARMER. I have lived here for 32 years, and I see in those charts a confirmation of what my own senses told me...less Wintery weather. There have been fluctuations, and yearly fluctuation are normal.

And mousethief asks rightly if you comprehend that the concern is with GLOBAL conditions, not some local data which may not show the trends...yet. ALL the major studies show significant GLOBAL rise in temps. Sailors know it, scientists know it, polar bears know it, residents of Alaska know it.....but you dig up little charts for specific areas and wave them as if YOU know better.

refresh this thread in 10 years and tell me how it's going...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:13 AM

So, no answer then. As expected.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:00 AM

Bill:

I see in this data from NOAA Chantily which I assume is Dulles:

         JAN    FEB    MAR    AVG   ANN
  2007   39.1   28.6   46.4   38.0   56.8
  2008   35.5   37.3   45.9   39.6   55.7
  2009   29.6   38.0   43.7   37.1

So if you average Jan Feb and MAR and compare them to and average going back to 1963 you are right. The last three winters have been warmer than average.

My point is they have been getting progressively colder except for a bump in 2008. Also the yearly average has been getting progressively colder each year since 2006.

If you look at this NOAA chart the overall average temperature has been flat since the 1880s.

How can this be when The CO2 has been climbing all the time? How can the temperature be linked to CO2? I would like to see this chart with CO2 superimposed on it.

If you look at the last three years on the chart, the average temperature has plunged 7 degrees F / 3 degrees C.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:31 AM

What part of how many of the 15000 Himalayan glaciers glaciers did they include in the 228 that they monitor do you fail to understand?

"No, not the tiny, well chosen contingent of shrinking glaciers, but all the glaciers taken together."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:36 AM

What part of "local conditions do not necessarily follow planet-wide trends" do you fail to understand?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:22 AM

Mouse: How many of those 15000 Himalayan glaciers do they include in that "planet-wide trends"?

Zero. Therefore it is not planet wide and not accurate. The same way that GISS weeded out 4500 weather stations that reported lower temperatures.

GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM

Yep DougR, that proves it's all eggs in moonshine. Might as well close the thread now.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM

"Where's the Global Warming"? Why in Al Gore's back yard! Everybody should know that!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:43 PM

"Then don't make them about others. "

You used MY name to argue with mousethief.

You want to argue with me, do it directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:24 PM

Amos,

YOUR comments using the word "conservative" have always been so slanted that my comments about "liberals" are complimentary in comparision.


Should I endeavor to equal your vitriol in regards to what **I** find unreasonable and offensive?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:01 PM

"And I will not be a pawn in others smart-ass remarks. Relevant posters take note."

Then don't make them about others.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:48 AM

"Are you all hot air or do you have any numbers to back up your subjective assertion that "The last few years have been quite warm Winters."?

Yeah... right here
This is the records from Dulles airport since 1963. (25 miles to the southwest of me)If you go to the lower right corner, you'll see the 4 seasons listed, and above them the average temps. If you look up the columns, you'll see several degrees more per year on average, with the usual fluctuations.

2000-2004 were colder than 2005-2009, and if you go back to 1977-1999, you'll see overall RISE in average of several degrees.

You want records since 1871 at what is now Reagan National?

DCA

same basic general rise in average annual temps.

I have lived in the area since 1977, so I guess MY "hot air" must be to blame for a lot of it, huh?

Your problem, Sawzaw, is that you don't really want to find a pattern that disagrees with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 08:55 AM

Cogley, BTW, is a coauthor of the IPCC report with the wrong information.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 08:40 AM

AN IPCC WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

That prediction was based on a rough estimate of a Russian glacier scientist, Vladimir Kotlyakov, who in 1996 had written in a paper that the Himalaya glaciers might shrink to a fifth of their present volume by

2350.

Graham Cogley is the one who has found out about this hard to believe blunder because he just couldn't believe the 2035 datum knowing how thick the Himalaya ice is now.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 03:54 AM

BB:

Your use of the word liberal is a little bit slanted. Have you been studying acting out with Ms Coulter?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:20 AM

What part of "local conditions do not necessarily follow planet-wide trends" do you fail to understand?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 11:38 PM

Bill D:

Are you all hot air or do you have any numbers to back up your subjective assertion that "The last few years have been quite warm Winters."?

"WGMS have monitored 228 glaciers"

Did they monitor the 230 Himalayan glaciers?

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing
In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend.

According to a new study. Among legendary peaks of Mt. Everest like K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are growing, and have been for almost three decades.

"These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha said. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing."

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers

AN IPCC WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Related Internet Links

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 10:31 PM

The fact that I don't live near Hagerstown is relevant only to Hagerstown being further North and West!! Of course weather patterns are slightly different there. Get some stats on St. Mary's county!

And I will not be a pawn in others smart-ass remarks. Relevant posters take note.

(Who, me? Getting testy? naawwwww...)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM

So if you're just shooting from the hip, and not actually countering liberal lies, you're off the clock?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:02 PM

Yeah. My hobby is to expose the lies being put out by liberals- since there are enough here covering conservatives that there is no need for any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:12 PM

Don't you have a hobby or something? Aside from raising dust?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM

mouse,

So the precious yaers were even colder??? You are calling BillD a liar, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:12 PM

As opposed to the Repuglicans in Congress who produce the icy blasts of hate.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM

Sawz,

You have to remember that BillD lives nearer DC than Hagerstown- He gets the benefit of the additional hot air produced by the Democrats in Congress over the years you mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM

From here

Over the period 1946–2005, the WGMS have monitored 228 glaciers. In the early years, just several glaciers were monitored. Over time, observations from more glaciers across the globe were added to the database, giving us a broader picture of global glacier mass balance. The highest quality glacier observations are ongoing, continuous and long term. There are 30 glaciers in 9 different mountain ranges that have been continuously measured since 1976 (11 of them reaching back to 1960 and earlier). These are considered 'reference glaciers'.

(see page for charts)

What do these glacier observations reveal? The following table shows the mass balance of individual glaciers over 2002 and 2003. Negative values indicate shrinkage. We see that there are isolated glaciers that are growing. However, focusing solely on these few glaciers to indicate global glacier growth paints a very misleading picture. The vast majority of glaciers are receding. And importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003).

-------

So, my answer to your question: No, not the tiny, well chosen contingent of shrinking glaciers, but all the glaciers taken together. Nice try, though.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:56 PM

"Plus glaciers, Sawzaw. I notice you didn't address that."

The glaciers that are growing?

I would like to point out that Bill D is not the only person in Maryland that makes observations.

Stats for Hagerstown Average temperatues for January 2006 to 2009
38.9 35.4   33.7   27.0
Yearly averages 2006 to 2008
54.8    53.8   53.4


Hence the statement "The last few years have been quite warm Winters." Is hyperbole unless some supporting data can be produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM

"(BB...aren't you ever gonna quit gnawing that "plan how to move everyone North" bone? We can't DO that.) "

Not if Gore has his way.

Look at the potential crop capacity of the Russian Steppes and the Canadian plain. Given a longer growing season, there would be more than enough to feed the present populations- Can you say that about the present croplands? We have ( before the warmists destroy the capability) the means and industry to build new housing that would support the world's population in greater comfort than presently.


But as long as "king" Al will stop the rising tide with his command, we will NOT do any of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:47 PM

Plus glaciers, Sawzaw. I notice you didn't address that.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:13 PM

"Where is your direct response to the NOAA stats that show the last 3 winters in Maryland have been getting colder.."

Right here... I LIVE in Maryland, and the last 3 Winters were not colder, and I saw no 'stats' that showed 'Maryland' as a whole getting colder. THIS Winter has been 'slightly' colder...so far. The last couple of Summers here were slightly cooler. Fine...helped my electric bill. Should I draw any long-term conclusions from these 'facts'? No...I will wait and see. I don't think I'll toss out my AC yet. (In West Virgina, skiing has been a problem in several of the last few Winters, and ski lodges were looking for alternate income.)

It is not relevant that we can note temporary regional fluctuations! Globally, the trend has been warmer, and perusal of ALL the data, plus the overall **visible** manifestations, (such as the opening of a true "Northwest Passage"), show that concerns are justified!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 11:08 AM

Hey Bill D Where is your direct response to the NOAA stats that show the last 3 winters in Maryland have been getting colder when you said "in Maryland just had a record Dec. snowfall.... now it is well above freezing again, and the snow will soon be gone. The last few years have been quite warm Winters."? Do you use the "fudge factor" in your calculations? I did see something about Alaska.

Gore: The "entire north polar ice cap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade."

The north polar ice cap is melting at rates that are certainly cause for concern. But it’s not going quite as fast as Gore says. Gore’s 40 percent figure is outdated. Arctic ice levels, as measured by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, were 40 percent lower at the end of the summer of 2007 than the average observed from 1979 to 2000. But the totals have actually increased for two consecutive years since. According to a release from the group, the average ice cover was 5.36 million square kilometers for the month of September 2009, compared with the 1979 to 2000 September average of 7.04 million square kilometers. That’s a difference of about 24 percent, nearly half what Gore said.

And Gore was wildly off the mark when he predicted that all Arctic ice would "go completely within the next decade."

We should point out that ice levels in the Arctic region change seasonally. During the summer months some ice melts, and then waters freeze again in winter as the temperature goes down. The levels of summer melting have been going up for a number of years, and this could eventually lead to very minimal ice coverage during the summer.

One researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Post-Graduate School, made a projection in 2007 that a nearly ice-free arctic summer might occur as early as 2013, though he recently moved that back to 2020. But saying the north polar ice cap will be entirely gone is hyperbole. Even the most dramatic projections, such as Maslowski’s, do not say the ice would be gone during the winter months.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM

Gee, it was cold around here for most of the last 2-3 weeks. Sawzaw posted stuff to suggest that the cold snap was relevant, and that we could relax.
It's back up to 50°F now and the snow has melted. I assume he is with us now and worried?

---------------------------------------------------------

(BB...aren't you ever gonna quit gnawing that "plan how to move everyone North" bone? We can't DO that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 03:56 PM

the(y) ASSUME that the efforts will STOP what may or may not be a natural process.

Not so. The reasonable assumption is that failure to make these efforts will make things worse than might otherwise be the case.

Even if natural processes were a more significant element in climate change than most scientists believe, this would in no way remove the need to avoid acting in ways that are anticipated to contribute significantly to undesired climate change.

This is a point that has repeatedly been made by a number of people posting to this thread. I note that it is consistently ignored by the "sceptics".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM

"Global warming scientists are reducing the resources we need to deal with the real effects of climate change"

WTF? go ahead ahead and name 3.

By resources I assume you mean money fat cats make from destroying the enoviorment free of charge. Man you guys aren't happy unless you can pinch a buck at someone else's expence.
'Someone else' in this case is a generation of people you will never get to see due to your aged but wealthy demise.


Most important of all is to listen to your BS and think it through. I mean really think it through. Is being a short term winner all that damn important? If so, your lack of humanity jeopardizes life itself.

If not, you are at the beggining of a beautiful realtionship with Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM

No.

I am more familiar with the actual data and with the proper mathematical treatment of such data than you can begin to believe. and no, you do not get to see my CV. I have not read any of Al Gore's books, and place no stock in his pronouncements because he does not understand the science.

I have spent a lot of time on this thread, and it was clearly wasted.
Next week, classes begin, and I have 13 weeks in which to explain these things to 40 students who have had math through calculus (inlcuding probability and statistics), and at least two Earth Science prerequisites, so we can actually explore the data, and not spend our time with worthless, easily refuted arguments that are based on a nonsensical understanding of math and earth processes.
So, my attention goes there, not to this steaming pile.

Carry on...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 11:20 PM

You repeat slogans from the bumper stickers on AL Gore's CO2 belching limousine.

...The following two graphs show NASA's adjustment to the Santa Rosa, CA, station (which happens to be at the headquarters of NOAA)....

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/12/08/climate-data-fact-or-fiction/

---

Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Michael Mann: "Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH [northern hemisphere] records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a time frame of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back."

Computer code by Keith Briffa to "process" temperature data at CRU:

<'yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

'valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

May 2008 email from Phil Jones head of CRU to Michael Mann:

Subject: IPCC & FOI [Freedom of Information request]

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 05:03 PM

"You do not study the data"

What do I do Sawzaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM

It states that "if the science is not completely settled, it is better to act anyhow to prevent possible bad outcomes".


So where is all the attention to dealing with the CONSEQUENCES of Global Warming, in case they ARE natural and inevitable???

The present actions to reduce carbon emmissions DO NOT ADDRESS the problem of adjusting to a changing climate- the ASSUME that the efforts will STOP what may or may nott be a natural process. It is the present PC crowd that wants to reduce carbon emmissions, and NOT deal with ANY of the effects of Climate Change that are NOT following the Precautionary Principle.


The sun is known to be a slightly variable star: Output has changed in the past, and WILL change in the future. By ignoring this, warmists are sticking their heads in the sand, and insisting on expensive fixes that will not solve the problem, but reduce the resources need to deal with the real effects of climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 12:53 PM

"But please take a few moments to see where the money behind the various theories comes from."

Well, that argument is truly a two-edged sword. There are enormous quantities of money at stake in the AGW scam: the value of traded carbon credits is forecast to be $10 trillion within this decade (I quote that value from memory: it might not be quite correct but it's a vast sum). People like Pachauri place themselves so as to be able to stoke the fire in the expectation that some of those trillions of dollars stick to their fingers.

"...the 10 warmest years on record ... have all been in the last 12 years, so which decade of non-warming are you referring to?"

I simply dispute your fact.

"...getting things generally right over a very long time period is much less difficult than getting a specific thing right at a specific spot at a specific time."

You evidently know little of chaos theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:33 AM

TIA - I am not saying that ""nobody really knows, and it doesn't matter anyhow". Don't put such words in my mouth, please.

I am saying that I don't know! And I am saying that most (if not all) people who are yakking about it here on this forum don't know. Yet they are rabid in their chosen opinion, whatever that may be, and arrogant in their utter intolerance for others who hold a differing opinion. I find that self-centered and inappropriate on their part...since they really DON'T know for 100% sure what they are talking about.

I was NEVER at any time saying that "it doesn't matter anyhow". It does matter, in the sense that we all have to deal with various global changes that are occuring in the climate and weather conditions. We need to make suitable preparations for rising water, changing temperatures, etc.

I don't think there is one solitary thing that I, personally, can do about the Global Warming situation on Planet Earth, because I think it's probably being caused by changing natural cycles in the sun's activity, not by us. I don't deny that there IS Global Warming occuring, I just have doubts about one very popular conventional theory of WHY it is occurring. I talk about it because it's an interesting subject. This doesn't mean I think I'm "above it all", for God's sake! That's your notion, because you seem to have some need to try to make me feel guilty or something for not seeing it your way. How could I possibly be "above it all"? I might better say I'm "below it all"...because I can't do fuck-all about it, and I know it. If the Sun is what's doing it, nobody can do fuck-all about it. I'll be dead and gone, and people will still be arguing about shit like this and insulting each other over their differences of opinion, and I know it. It's pretty sad behaviour when they do that, and I think they all ought to grow up and learn a little humility and mutual respect for one another.

If you think you can do something about Global Warming....you go right ahead. I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. Everyone should, by golly, get out there and make a difference if they think they see a viable way to do it. I do not see ANY way that I can make a difference to Global Warming, because I don't think present human activity is what's causing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:06 AM

Tia:

You do not study the data. You are obviously incapable so you have to rely on railroad engineers and politicians that are seriously invested in the carbon trade calling them selves scientists to do your thinking.

That youtube thing is the perfect example. More of the nation is shown blue than orange. Then when one actually pays attention to the numbers, a nono for people on the bandwagon, it shows the US a net 4.5 degrees below normal while the announcer drones on saying idiots think the US is colder etc. etc.

After highlighting the blue areas which include most of Texas and saying the east is colder [Texas is in the eastern US?] the left side is turned orange including the areas that were not colored at all and that were normal. and claims the western US is warmer that normal, a distortion of the facts.

He says the east shows temperature ten to 20 degrees colder in the east. There are 13 temperatures below 20 degrees and 5 above 10 degrees. In the west there is one temperature above 20 degrees and 19 above 10 degrees.

In fact there are two negative numbers in below average areas in the west that magically turn orange and are claimed to be above normal. -4 is normal? Is this a distortion of the facts or not?

That video was made for you because it tells you what to think, in lieu of your lack of ability to think and interpret facts for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 11:31 PM

LH,
You are willing to accept your inconsequence and lack of power.
I am not.
That means two things. I do not accept your inconsequence, nor do I accept mine.
You and your actions do matter. As do mine.
Stay above it all if you wish. But I will still see that as an abdication of power that I think you have - whether you believe it or not.
I know enough about this issue to know that whether we are simply yacking about it on a folkie forum or wielding giant flaming swords in the halls of power, this shit matters. By saying "nobody really knows, and it doesn't matter anyhow" (which is pretty much what you are saying), you are abdicating a societal, and human, and global responsibility. Sorry to get so deep on a simple folkie forum, but there it is.
I have kids. I will be dead. They will deal with the consequences of what we do today.
We had a gig last night, and another on Saturday, and the daughter that I taught to play the bass clearly now kicks my ass at it. She deserves the best planet that we can leave her. And if Exxon execs and stockholders lose some money to give it to her, I am not too broken up about that.
Why the hell did TIA bring Exxon into it?
Damn good question.
Go ahead and read and be bemused and semi-interested in all the climate theories you want. But please take a few moments to see where the money behind the various theories comes from.
Be careful.
I see you dangerously close to joining the E$$on big money team. And your posting history over the last umpteen years suggests to me that you are not happy on that team.
Be informed.
In your desire to be an iconoclastic freethinker (which I fancy myself as well) there lies a cleverly laid trap - made just for folks like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 10:21 PM

The glaciers are retreating. As far as I can remember, all of them. Everywhere. Nepal. Alaska. Antarctica. South America. Mudcattia. What might cause that if not a general overall rise in average temperatures? Answers on a postcard.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM

I agree with the Precautionary Principle exactly as you have stated it, TIA. I agree enthusiastically with it.

I am not saying that anyone in a position to actually DO something significant about the situation should "stay above it all and just observe and wait, and see if we wreck the planet or not."

Good Lord, no! Quite the contrary.

But you have to remember who I am. I'm a folk musician! I am NOT someone in a position to actually do a darned thing about the Global Warming situation, and I DON'T know for sure which Global Warming theory is correct anyway...if any of them are...but the key factor here is that I, personally, can't do anything about it. I'm not a politician. I'm not a legislator. I don't own a major industry. And I don't know for sure what really needs to be done. I'm just some schmuck who is yakking on an internet forum, for Christ's sakes, and so are the other people here (I would assume).

So when I say I will have to wait and see what happens, I'm not saying that everyone in the world who could actually DO something significant about Global Warming should wait and see what happens, I'm saying that in my personal case...that's the only real choice I've got....because I am just some unimportant schmuck who is yakking about something on the Internet.

See?

I don't take myself too goddamn seriously when it comes to matters like this. I don't take the rest of you too goddamn seriously either. All we are is we're a bunch of talkative folkies with some time on our hands who get caught up in talking about a ton of stuff here, because it gives our minds something to chew on for a bit...and that's better than having nothing for one's mind to chew on, perhaps?

I'm saying that we yak here because we LIKE to. And we disagree on many things...and that provokes further discussion...but do you think any of it is going to make a rat's ass of difference to what happens with humanity's response to Global Warming? I sure as hell don't.

I just talk about it because I find it kind of interesting...but do I think it'll change anything? Or change anyone else here? NO! I am fully aware of how tiny my influence is on events in this world and on other people's opinions. I am like a flea on the back of a dog the size of Alaska. And so are you.

Now...everyone loves an authoritative source, right? If that source says something they like...

Okay, check this one out. You'll love it. ;-)

John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel speaks on Global Warming.

John Coleman on the Global Warming Theory

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 04:46 PM

LH

Sorry, one more thing...

The Precautionary Principle is EXACTLY about uncertainty (not shouting - can't underline). It states that "if the science is not completely settled, it is better to act anyhow to prevent possible bad outcomes".

It almost seems above as if you are saying that because you are not certain, you choose to stay above it all and just observe and wait, and see if we wreck the planet or not. So, of course you are completely free to bemusedly watch and scold, but for me, the "someone else" who may find out might be my daughter. (If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized you - apologies).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 04:35 PM

LH

"One thing most people are very loath to ever admit to is how little they really know"

The list of topics about which I know almost nothing, or enough to be dangerous, is quite alarmingly long. Not loath to admit that at all. However, this topic (as you might guess from my inability to stop posting) is one that I know a great deal about, and have been involved in since the (gulp, my age is about to show) late 1970s.

Ringer

"Global Climate Change" is not a ducking tactic. People studying it have been insisting for years that the popular phrase (popularized partly by Al Gore of course) is inaccurate.

Now to answer what you have specifically asked (my answers between stars):
"I live in the UK, whose Met Office (well known warmistas, so much so that their web-site now lists them as "weather and climate change") has predicted that the last two summers would be "barbecue summers" (both were washouts) and that the last two winters would be milder than usual (both were - this one is so far - colder than usual). Their forecasts for six months into the future are laughably inaccurate - but they purport to tell us what the climate will be like in a hundred years and we believe them?
**it is more difficult to predict specific weather at a specific spot than to forecast long-term global trends**
How absolutely cretinous is that?
**not at all...getting things generally right over a very long time period is much less difficult than getting a specific thing right at a specific spot at a specific time**
If you answer one thing on this post, please answer me this: why should we trust the decadal forecasts of these incompetents when we can't trust their mensal forecasts?
**see above...please do not confuse "weathermen" with "climate scientists"...weathermen are those popular goofy guys on TV, climate scientists are the goofy guys in cluttered offices with no social life**
If their models didn't predict this decade of non-warming, why should we trust their models?"
**In case you missed it, the 10 warmest years on record (going back to the late 1800's) have all been in the last 12 years, so which decade of non-warming are you referring to?**

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 12:45 PM

OK, so I should have googled the phrase before I put it in the comment...
Great article here:

The Conservative Case for Conservation

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 12:39 PM

Sadly, this debate seems to have got to the point of people posting individual articles which support/reinforce their previously held positions. I'm not seeing anyone trying to move from the arguments to sensibly discuss what we might all agree to actually do.

I know its fun to deride Sarah Palin/Al Gore (delete as appropriate..) but can't we be a bit more constructive here?

For example, even if one is a conservative and thinks that the IPCC are a bunch of commie/liberals etc, isn't there still a case for investing in renewable energies, and not driving the largest gas-guzzling SUV you can find? (btw I'm not trying to stereotype or suggest that all Conservatives are NASCAR loving V8 drivers, just trying to find consensus).

Hasn't America's high demand for gasoline from crude oil helped to make people like Chavez, Bin Laden, and Putin rich and/or powerful? (I know the US gets much of its oil from Canada, but high demand from America helps to put up the world price for M.East and other crude). Wouldn't driving electric or fuel cell vehicles powered from Solar thermal plants in Texas/Nevada be a patriotic thing to do? Perhaps someone could articulate the 'Conservative Case for Conservation' ?

For those who firmly believe in AGW, wouldn't it be a better tactic to push for investment (possibly funded by carbon taxes or cap n' trade) rather than just keeping on telling the sceptics that 'they're wrong' (whether they are or not)?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 11:06 AM

"Sawzaw's link above is to a piece by well-known climate change skeptic Zbigniew Jaworowski" (GUEST,TIA, 30 Dec 09 - 02:29 PM)

Is that meant to be an argument? I seem to remember you responsing similarly when I cited Prof Morner to you. I could equally respond that TIA is a "well known warmista" and thereby discount anything you say.

"Global Warming could more accurately be called Global Climate Change." (GUEST,TIA, 11 Jan 10 - 05:28 PM)

That's right: when even the least observant can see that things ain't warming, change the subject of the debate: "Well, ectually, 'Global Warming' is more correctly called climate change, and individual weather events are becoming more extreme." Climate has always changed and always will. Some of it may even be anthropogenic - but not as much as you think.

I live in the UK, whose Met Office (well known warmistas, so much so that their web-site now lists them as "weather and climate change") has predicted that the last two summers would be "barbecue summers" (both were washouts) and that the last two winters would be milder than usual (both were - this one is so far - colder than usual). Their forecasts for six months into the future are laughably inaccurate - but they purport to tell us what the climate will be like in a hundred years and we believe them? How absolutely cretinous is that? If you answer one thing on this post, please answer me this: why should we trust the decadal forecasts of these incompetents when we can't trust their mensal forecasts? If their models didn't predict this decade of non-warming, why should we trust their models?

"Google the 'precautionary principle'" (GUEST,TIA, 13 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM)

But the implications of the "precautions" you warmistas advocate in your patronising manner are beggary. You just love to tell other people what to do. Like Pachauri, jetting round the globe at others' expense, to tell others not to jet round the globe. When the science is settled (and anyone with half an eye can see it's not, even the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit - "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.") then you may encourage us to take precautions; until then we'll continue to hold you in derision.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 08:12 AM

More Antarctic information, from a credible source:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 10:06 PM

Will it give me the answer to the question: "How many chimps does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

My point was, TIA, I bet everyone here is partly off the beam in their firm suppositions about Global Warming, whatever the heck their suppositions are. One thing most people are very loath to ever admit to is how little they really know. (It would scare them to look at that in a realistic manner.)

I KNOW that I don't know for sure about Global Warming, and I don't know for sure what's going on with it. I'm interested in many theories and possibilities. I consider some more likely than others. But I DON'T know. And I don't expect to. I expect I will have to wait and see...if I live long enough...because time has a way of settling all such debates eventually.

And if I don't live long enough? Well, someone else will find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM

Google the "precautionary principle"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:52 PM

But....what if you were ALL wrong???????????   ;-)

That would just be deliciously funny to look back on in some future decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:42 PM

Sawzaw-

I presume you are on this forum because you are musical in some fashion.

Try this analogy:
Weather is to climate as measure is to score.
Of course they are related. And of course the score will affect what happens in each measure. But, do you think you reconstruct or even understand the score from looking at one measure? Or even ten?

Now stop being a silly political contrarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM

Good information on tempuratures in the Western Antarctic here (The Palmer Station annual average winter temperature has increased 6 degrees):


http://www.lternet.edu/vignettes/pal.html

http://pal.lternet.edu/sci-research/si_wap/

http://pal.lternet.edu/outreach/projects/picture_of_day/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM

Major Antarctic glacier is 'past its tipping point'

   

A major Antarctic glacier has passed its tipping point, according to a new modelling study. After losing increasing amounts of ice over the past decades, it is poised to collapse in a catastrophe that could raise global sea levels by 24 centimetres.

Pine Island glacier (PIG) is one of many at the fringes of the West Antarctic ice sheet. In 2004, satellite observations showed that it had started to thin, and that ice was flowing into the Amundsen Sea 25 per cent faster than it had 30 years before.

Now, the first study to model changes in the ice sheet in three dimensions shows that PIG has probably passed a critical "tipping point" and is irreversibly on track to lose 50 per cent of its ice in as little as 100 years, significantly raising global sea levels.

The team that carried out the study admits their model can represent only a simplified version of the physics that govern changes in glaciers, but say that if anything, the model is optimistic and PIG will disappear faster than it projects.

Richard Katz of the University of Oxford and colleagues developed the model to explore whether the retreat of the "grounding line" – the undersea junction at which a floating ice shelf becomes an ice sheet grounded on the sea bed – could cause ice sheets to collapse.
Warm seas

Climate change is warming the Amundsen Sea, which is at the southern margin of the Pacific Ocean. As rising sea levels push the warm water beneath the ice shelves, it melts them from below, pushing the grounding line higher up the continental shelf.

By raising sea levels, and therefore the grounding line, in their model, Katz's team were able to find the point of no return beyond which the glacier would be unable to recover. That's because the Antarctic sea bed has a small lip in it: it rises slowly up the continental shelf, then makes a slight dip before rising again to the shoreline. The researchers found that as long as the grounding line is on the outer rise of the sea bed, before the lip, small changes in climate lead to correspondingly small changes in the glacier's ice volume.

But as soon as the grounding line moves over the lip and starts to move down into the dip in the sea bed, the situation changes critically. "Once the grounding line passes the crest, a small change in the climate causes a rapid and irreversible loss of ice," says Katz.
Past the point of no return

According to Katz's model, the grounding line probably passed over the crest in 1996 and is now poised to enter a period of accelerated shrinking.

The model suggests that within 100 years, PIG's grounding line could have retreated over 200 kilometres. "Before the retreating grounding line comes to a rest at some unknown point on the inner slope, PIG will have lost 50 per cent of its ice, contributing 24 centimetres to global sea levels," says Richard Hindmarsh of the British Antarctic Survey, who did not participate in the study.

This assumes that the grounding line does eventually stabilise, after much of PIG is gone. In reality, PIG could disappear entirely, says Hindmarsh. "If Thwaite's glacier, which sits alongside PIG, also retreats, PIG's grounding line could retreat even further back to a second crest, causing sea levels to rise by 52 centimetres." The model suggests Thwaite's glacier has also passed its tipping point.

Observations already show that the model severely underestimates the rate at which PIG's grounding line is retreating, says Katz. "Ours is a simple model of an ice sheet that neglects some important physics," says Katz. "The take-home message is that we should be concerned about tipping points in West Antarctica and we should do a lot more work to investigate," he says.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2009.0434

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 10:07 AM

"If you add all 79 temperature readings in that map they average out to -4.5 degrees which proves my point."

That is the stupidest mis-use of statistics I have seen in months.

You are uneducable on this issue.
Politics dictates your position, and you will find a semi-clever but silly answer to anything.
You (and I) will probably be dead by the time we get to say I told you so, and there will be no joy anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:08 AM

Gee, This shows below normal temperatures below the equator for some strange reason.

I thought it was hotter than normal in the southern hemisphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 11:57 PM

Dear Tia:

That Video shows a larger cold area with a larger departure from the norms in the east compared to the west. It says 10 to 20 degrees when the numbers are far from that. If you believe that is proves your point, you need an enema.

If you add all 79 temperature readings in that map they average out to -4.5 degrees which proves my point.

And Siiiiiigggghhhhh, The weather does reflect the climate. Quit being a denier.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 06:50 PM

Maybe its's GWIMBY syndrom....Global Warming's in my back yerd.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rumncoke
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 06:11 PM

My daughter reported that her flight to Chicago from Heathrow last week landed one hour ahead of schedule, due to the weakness of the jet stream.

Apparently the alteration in the atmosphere has allowed cold air to move down to lower latitudes in some parts of the world, but in other places the temperatures are unseasonally high.

Whilst most of the UK is under snow, we have had very little around my house, on the South coast close to the Isle of Wight, it was too cold to snow.

The temperature has risen today though, so we might get some coming in fron the south west, rather than the north east, which is where most of the snow had blown in from over the last few weeks.

I have quite enjoyed the bright sunshine and icy temperatures, not having to travel in them, but feel a bit deprived having seen the rest of the country playing in the snow.

I think that we would do well to remember that the global climate is a series of currents, streams and flows performing an intricate dance around eachother and the planet - and just because they have been performing one set of figures for some time, once changes are made the old figures might never be danced again.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 03:48 PM

And for the last three years my backyard has been getting colder.

Global back yard?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM

This is especially for you Sawz...

youtube

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 05:28 PM

Sigggghhhh again.

Global Warming could more accurately be called Global Climate Change.
Along with the overall, globally-averaged warming come more extremes in weather.

Come on. You know this stuff. You have adopted a politically-motivated contrarian position, and are just enjoying being a pain.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 03:51 PM

You are getting special treatment, Sawz, as a result of your earnest diligence in defending us all against liberal bleeding-heart socialist welath-stealers. I thank you as well.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 03:35 PM

So global warming only affects the climate and not the weather?

"Would you accept as evidence of global warming a parade of links talking about how hot it is in various places today?"

Yes if they were record breakers.

And for the last three years my backyard has been getting colder. The summers have been getting cooler with more rain.

"the worst snowstorm on record in Tibet" I'd say that must cover more than a 10-15-20 year trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:57 PM

Yes, some unusual weather around the world currently. Keep an eye on it for us, Sawzaw, and do let us know about the warming trends also.

It's been cool right here in my back yard the last couple of weeks, but for 10 years, it's been NOT so cold. I pay attention to those 10-15-20 years trends, not so much to several weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:56 PM

Siggghhhhh.
For the umpteenth time, "climate" is not the same thing as "weather".
Would you accept as evidence of global warming a parade of links talking about how hot it is in various places today?
Of course not, as well you shouldn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:38 PM

Pachauri in a spot as climategate hits TERI

Ajmer Singh
New Delhi, January 10, 2010

Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of UN's Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had advocated emission reductions at the recently concluded Copenhagen Climate Summit.

But back home in India, he seems to be failing to uphold standards of propriety in his professional dealings.

During his tenure, first as director from 1982, and then as director-general of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since 2001, Pachauri was a member of the boards of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), three of India's biggest public sector energy companies, all of whom by the very nature of their business contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions, according to the IPCC, are adding to the country's growing carbon footprint and hastening climate change.

TERI, in fact, entered into business dealings with these companies and allegedly benefitted from Pachauri's association with them. Pachauri's dealings have also been noticed by the international media. Recently, the Sunday Telegraph of London had accused him of amassing a fortune using his links with carbon trading companies. Pachauri dismisses the report as "a pack of lies".

The climate change hero was an independent director on ONGC's board for three years between June 2006 and June 2009, during which he was entitled to first-class air travel when he attended meetings, five-star hotel stays and an allowance of Rs 25,000 for each meeting attended. This was in addition to having a say in the PSU's decision-making process. It was during this period that TERI had secured business contracts from ONGC.

This practice is against ONGC's official code of conduct which says: "The directors and management shall act within the authority conferred upon them in the best interests of the company and will use their prudent judgment to avoid all situations, decisions or relationships which give or could give rise to conflict of interest or appear to conflict with their responsibilities within the company."

Pachauri says he is now not on the board of any public sector undertaking. "What is stated applies only for short periods in the past," he replied to a questionnaire sent by Mail Today. "TERI is a not-for-profit organisation working for the welfare of society and its revenues cover costs and provide no private benefit to any party."

Pachauri's position is untenable, as ONGC and TERI launched a joint business venture in March 2008 called ONGC-TERI Biotech Ltd (OTBL); this was while the TERI director-general was on its board. This entity's objective was the "large-scale application of microbial product oil zapper for clean-up of oil spills in farmers' fields and around oil installations and treatment of oily sludge hazardous hydrocarbon waste".

TERI had a 47 per cent share in OTBL; ONGC held 49 per cent and the rest was picked up by financial institutions. The OTBL official website says ONGC and TERI reserve the rights of patents and the use of technology and patents exclusively. When asked about this, Pachauri said: "The joint venture (OTBL) was established largely at the insistence of ONGC. A decision to set up OTBL was taken only on October 31, 2006, at a board meeting that I did not even attend." Does that mean he wasn't even aware of the decision to set up OTBL? OTBL was set up in 2008, and ONGC insiders told this correspondent all the work awarded to TERI was done on a nomination basis and not through tenders, as is the accepted practice.

Pachauri for his part claims that "TERI has not even charged OTBL any royalty for the technology provided to ONGC and other oil companies in India, as is the case with most IITs and CSIR labs. Any funds provided to TERI are purely to cover costs of activities carried out and performed successfully." Another senior ONGC official confirmed to Mail Today that close to Rs 30 crore was paid directly and indirectly to TERI over a period of time for the execution of projects, which included bio-remediation, pipeline corrosion inhibitors and microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR).

OTBL was also involved in these transactions, he said. Pachauri denied this as well......

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/78466/India/Pachauri+in+a+spot+as+climategate+hits+TERI.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:20 PM

According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, last month had the second greatest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover since records were started in 1966. Snow extent was measured at 45.86 million sq. km, topped only by 1985 at 45.99 million sq. km. North America set a record December extent at 15.98 million sq. km, and the US also set a December record at 4.16 million sq. km.

---

Plymouth, MA Patriot-Ledger: Until this year, the last report of a fully mature ivory gull in Massachusetts was in the 1800s.

PLYMOUTH â€" Jan 28th, 2009

The temperatures were in the single digits, but not low enough to keep the gawkers away. A celebrity was in town, behind the East Bay Grille, a visitor not seen in these parts in decades, if not longer.

But these weren’t paparazzi, and this wasn’t a Hollywood star. Rather, they were avid birdwatchers â€" about 20 in all â€" braving the frigid air as they scanned the bay and the edges of the breakwater with binoculars and spotting scopes.

And they would be rewarded, catching a glimpse of a glimpse of a rare, fully mature ivory gull. A birdwatcher reported seeing one in Plymouth last week, and another was spotted at Eastern Point Lighthouse in Gloucester. From Sunday through Tuesday, the avian visitor was a regular in Plymouth, much to the delight of birdwatchers, who came from near and far in hopes of adding the extremely rare bird to their life list.

Ivory gulls normally stay well above Newfoundland, living on Arctic ice where they follow whales and polar bears to feed on the scraps and carcasses they leave behind after making a kill.

Until this year, the last report of a fully mature ivory gull in Massachusetts was in the 1800s. Three immature birds were seen in the 1940s. In 1976, another immature bird had been spotted in Rockport.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:14 PM

LHASA, Oct. 30 (Xinhua) â€" The death toll has risen to seven, and one person remains missing, as a result of the worst snowstorm on record in Tibet, local authorities said Thursday.

The seven people killed either frozen to death or were crushed by collapsing buildings. About 144,400 heads of livestock died in the storm, which also knocked out telecommunications and traffic in parts of Shannan prefecture.

In Lhunze County, 1,348 people stranded by damaged buildings or blocked roads had been rescued, the county government said. Rescue operation for the remaining 289 trapped was still underway.

The worst-hit county had 36 consecutive hours of snowfall from Sunday, with an average snow coverage of 1.5 meters. Four people died and one remained missing in the snowstorm.

The rescued people have been moved to other villages, sleeping in schools or government buildings.

A road linking Lhunze to Cuona County reopened on Thursday after 63 hours of snow clearing efforts of armed policemen and transportation staff.

Cuona had been isolated from the outside for three days due to the road blockage.

The Tibet regional civil affairs department has allocated relief materials such as clothes and tents to the affected areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:56 AM

Don't quite know where to put this....but this thread seems somewhat related: It links to an underwater video of an exploding deep sea volcano.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091217_volcano2.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 11:51 PM

See - scientists *aren't* stupid!   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 07:26 PM

"you'll get nothing, and like it"

Ha! ;-D   Perfect answer, TIA. That's what I always wanted to tell Ron Davies when he would start demanding proof, documentation, etc for whatever I have an opinion about....he apparently expects me to devote hours and hours of my time to documenting everything I say in such a way as to make him happy... Heh! I know better than to consume vast amounts of my own time at someone else's behest in a completely futile effort to meet their expectations that would yield no useful results for me OR them. I'm glad to see that you know better too.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 02:29 PM

Sawzaw's link above is to a piece by well-known climate change skeptic Zbigniew Jaworowski (actually, he is not a climate change skeptic - more of a global warming skeptic since he has predicted a new ice age on the way).

His complaint about the CO2 record is that inclusions in the Siple (Antarctica) ice cores (and ice cores in general) are not valid indicators of past atmospheric chemistry because depth-of-burial effects the chemistry of the air in the inclusions.

However, there are many, many ice cores from far-flung locations that are in very good agreement. This is important because the cores have different lengths (depths) representing the same (or significantly overlapping) time periods. For instance, the EPICA core goes back 800,000 years, but is relatively short, while the Vostok core represents only about half that time, but is much deeper. For the period of overlap, they show nearly identical variations in atmospheric chemistry across four glacial-interglacial cycles - so depth cannot be introducing a very strong signature.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM

LH - you'll get nothing, and like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 01:37 PM

"scientists are not stupid"

Well, then you could say...

"lawyers are not stupid"

...even though lawyers have done more to screw-up this country than all other people combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 10:53 AM

Anyone here read this book? It seems interesting:

http://www.rorotoko.com/index.php/article/ann_keller_book_interview_science_environment_policymaking_politics_advice/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM

"scientists are not stupid"

What? How can you be sure? How can you make such a sweeping statement? I bet some scientists ARE stupid. ;-) Or at least they are dogmatic and pigheaded. Prove your highly questionable proposition that scientists are not stupid. I want facts, statistical analyses, documentation, and approved studies from authoritative sources that fully back up your statement "scientists are not stupid".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM

Yes, Mauna Loa is a volcano, and yes, volcanos do outgas – including CO2. But scientists are not stupid. They know this. The records for Mauna Loa show a clear annual cycle superimposed on an overall rise with time. There are no random spikes of the type that would indicate contamination from outgassing. And, okay, let's throw out Mauna Loa. A station in the Antarctic far from volcanos, SUVs and coal-fired power plants shows the same pattern (albeit with a slight lag because most of the anthropogenic sources are in the northern hemisphere). In fact, there are dozens of stations around the globe that all show the same trend. Mauna Loa gets the attention because its record is the longest. But, where the other stations overlap in time, they show the same trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 10:04 AM

In the ocean, over half the carbonate rock is created as coral reef. Coral reefs are definitely not a net carbon sink. Even though they do remove carbon from the ocean, their growth actually releases carbon to the atmosphere. The chemistry of this is well known to carbonate petrologists, but it is a source of a persistent popular myth.

The ocean is a pH buffered system. Conservation of electrical charge dictates that for every molecule of bicarbonate in seawater that is converted to carbonate upon conversion to reef rock, another molecule of bicarbonate decomposes to carbonic acid (ocean acidification!), but then must be released to the atmosphere as CO2 to balance the charge of the reaction. The balanced equation says that for every atom of carbon that is sequestered in carbonate rock, one is released to the atmosphere, and the ocean is incrementally acidified.

Note that this natural source of atmospheric carbon is fifty times smaller than fossil fuel inputs for a unit time in the modern era.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 01:12 AM

I was thinking about the fact that "they" measure the CO2 at Mauna Loa. an active volcano.

What does an active volcano emit???

Do I see any hands up?

Then I found this:

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

....In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials. The disease, seems to be persistent.

Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM

You got a point there chaz brewer . Thanks for speaking up for lone Cryil's plight.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM

Sadly, Cyril's brothers Cedric, Cuthbert and Chad were not so lucky. Instead of falling on nice friendly silicate rocks, they fell in the ocean which is, after all 70% of the planets surface, and stayed being carbonic acid leading to acidification of the sea.

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/acid-oceans-the-evil-twin-of-climate-change/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,chaz brewer
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM

Now here is the story of one little carbon atom (trying to keep it simple here, let's not get into chickens and eggs please!!!!) He got ingested by Spock. Later Spock did a poo and then somewhere midst the biological confusion the little carbon atom (lets call him Cyril) got himself combined with some oxygen (Orville). Cyril and Orville and Oswald (now CO2) slowly escaped through the window and drifted haplessly towards the clouds. Just then it started to rain and Cyril, Oswald and Orville got a bit wet. Both Cyril, Oswald and Orville started to feel ill and very acidic because Henry and Olivia (H2O) had come along and changed them into carbonic acid! Bored with that now…. Anyway the carbonic acid fell as rain in the droplets and reacted with some silicate rocks in the mountains. The resulting chemical reaction caused the same little carbon atom to be drawn from the atmosphere into the dripping water from the rocks. This water ran into the stream, which ran into the river, which ran into the sea, that got buried in the estuary, which sank slowly into the abyss and there it stayed for 100 million years! That is the last we saw of Cyril.

This is a prime example of carbon drawdown. It is a negative feedback balancing a positive one. It is happening now. Especially on the Tibetan Plateau.... See More... See More

Cyril's demise is never mentioned again by emotive "global warmists". They forgot all about him. Poor Cyril!
Deep sea carbon atoms need love too

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM

Thank you, Donuel, I needed this insight....Seems like even the girls, and remants of the unreal are part of the old boys club....a first for a world that tends to be sexually isolated.....(except in times of need, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

Ed if you really tried to break on through to the ol boys threads like Mother of of all Mudcat, don't feel bad.

#1 to see the real thread you have to pay extra
#2 you need to know the 12 passwords, secret handshakes and be able to repeat from memory the entire history of Jacques Loussier.
#3 their codicom alone is enough to baffle a math genius.
#4 their claims of knowing the secrets of the multiverse are highly exagerrated. Its just a bunch of verse.
#5 I have to admit that the reports of their initiation ceremony are one full goose bonkers drunken sexual blowout of a lifetime. But who needs that?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 12:02 PM

LH...as to BS

There are those heated posts, that I do not venture into....I agree, mostly opinions with little opportunity for knowledge transfer.

There are the zero heated fun posts....like ccaptions, odd collestions of knowledge to be shared that I enjoy. and visit frequently. (I like the wacky, which are hard to come by)

There are a few longer running old boy's posts, that seem like the one directly abvive, but is mostly for the long timers that I once tried and could never seem to break through in.

There are posts like this one that seems to be less heated, at times somewhat opinionated, but mostly a good opportunity to share (give and receive) knowledge about something important....While opinions are just that, to me sharing knowledge and perspectives is what makes a society work.

Anyway, back to the hot air....so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 11:44 AM

Say...I just got the 700th post! Wow. And I wasn't even trying.

I may be verging upon an epiphany of some sort.

On the other hand, maybe it was just dumb luck. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 11:43 AM

Oh! Telling points, guys. ;-) You may be getting to know me too well.

I look at it this way. Why should I spend my day fighting verbal battles with people and getting all aggravated and raising my blood pressure, when after all that it changes no one's opinion anyway?

I mean, just think....I could go today and get involved in some of the vicious infighting that's now occuring on some thread about an execution in China...get all caught up in some really nasty accusations flying back and forth...insult a few people...rage and fume...ruin a couple of old online friendships fighting about whether or not the Chinese judges have committed murder or not....

Naw...I think I'll find something else to do instead. Like drumming up support for Chongo's 2012 campaign.

Bill, your comment "You might as well ask why an alcoholic drinks..." simply could not BE more apt. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 11:00 AM

Bill D
Sorry, my real purpose comment was for Little Hawk, (known as LH to some).

Little Hawk, your last posted purpose sounds more like "just saying stuff for effect sometimes" then my posts....ummmm? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 10:50 AM

"What is my real purpose? ;-)"

You might as well ask why an alcoholic drinks... ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 10:37 AM

What is my real purpose? ;-) I dare not reveal that, Ed. It could cause severe social disruptions. It might even lead to the end of this world "as we know it".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 10:21 AM

Bill D.

But, a check of your post....does indicate you went much farther than you say "(He (Gore) is about a close to being a 'scientist' as one can be without actually getting degrees in something". To me this is disrespectful to the thousands of highly educated, skilled and dedicated scientists who contribute much CC knowledge to all of us. I know some of these scientists that contribute knowledge....and can vouch for the honesty professioinalism and committment of those folks directly.

I accept that what you seem to have meant (and did not say so well) is Gore is a smart, committed man for the CC cause. I certainl;y accept that....I suspect he has to be smart to be VP and almost USA President. That also puts him in an influential position.

Gore's contribution to public awareness of CC is significant.... He has been a strong public advocate and took complex information and got it out to the public. He possibly made a difference in climate change politics (it's too soon to tell). He influenced change in behaviour in many peoples lives....moving many towards greener living...all great accomplishments.

That in the past, it's back to logical discussion.

But, the essence of my point is Gore is also a good target for Climate Change doubters....some attack Gore, since they see him representing the weakest point in CC science (until the recent email case) to the public. Discrediting Gore works (with some) since many see Gore as the first person who raised CC in a documentary movie on the topic...one that represented CC science at the time. I suspect some of these folks actually believe Gore is a working scientist.

Dis credit Gore, his documentary (which is entertainment...based on science at the time...his politics and business interests and you shoot down CC science.   To me, this is illogical....but works with many who are on the fence... cerebral or less so. So, it is best to put Gore to the side....since that is actually where he is when it comes to discussing the merits of CC science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 09:36 AM

Oh...I forgot the :) in my last post:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 09:35 AM

What's your real purpose in posting in this thread LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 09:32 AM

:)

Good try LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 11:24 PM

I also think, Bill, tbat you're much more cerebral than the average person is.

On the downside, Shane says you need to go for "a cooler look", but I wouldn't take that to heart. He tends to just say stuff for effect sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 10:47 PM

?? I'm not SAYING he is a scientist! I was simply saying he is a VERY well-read and knowledgeable individual about environmental issues.

"Gore sat on the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the United States House Committee on Science and Technology, chairing that committee for four years."

"He wrote Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (ISBN 0-452-26935-0, paperback ISBN 1-85383-743-1) is a 1992 book written by Al Gore, published in June 1992, shortly before he was elected Vice President in the 1992 presidential election. Known by the short title Earth in the Balance, the book explains the world's ecological predicament and describes a range of policies to deal with the most pressing problems. It includes a proposed "Global Marshall Plan" to address current ecological issues.

Written while his son was recovering from a serious accident, Earth in the Balance became the first book written by a sitting U.S. Senator to make the New York Times bestseller list since John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I listened to that book on audio tape during a drive to Florida in 1995 and was amazed that ANY senator knew & understood that much about the issues. (The book was loaned to me by a friend who was a high-ranking official at EPA. He was also amazed at Gore's accuracy & clarity.) At the time, I barely knew who Al Gore was.


Now...once again, Al Gore is not a 'scientist' in the sense that he can DO all the physics and meteorology to conduct the necessary studies, but he has the ability to understand what 'scientists' have done....which is WAY more than most politicians who try to bluster and posture and dismiss 'scientific' studies which they have NOT read & understood!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 09:30 PM

"He (Gore) is about a close to being a 'scientist' as one can be without actually getting degrees in something"

His bio:
Gore began Harvard with English as his major and switched to Government, graduating with a BA in June of 1969. He later took some courses at a Divinity school.

Comment:
That education maybe gives Gore a couple of Arts credits towards a Bachelor of Science. If he took many more courses, and got his BS he then could be called a science technician...but,it would take quite a few years , hard work, courses and papers for him to get a Masters, and a PHD....before he could be called a Scientist.

If writing about, reporting on , being an advocate for any specialized field... lets say medicine, then there are very many such Doctors and Scientists in the media, in politics and in the film industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 08:57 PM

"He has read & studied & written on environmental issues for a long time"

Still does not make him a scientist....It takes a lot more than that, years of complex science studies...No doubt he read alot....about politics, entertainment (somewhat connected) and business.

My point is....don't shoot down, or short-change science, or scientists (climate or otherwise) just because you don't like Gore, his politics, business or entertainement messages or interests....because he clearly is not a scientist.

Some folks seem to shoot down climate change science by picking out what they see as Gores weaknesses....that's illogical.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 07:15 PM

"A Noble prize does not make Gore any more of a scientist nor a science spokesperson..."

No...he WAS a "science spokesperson" for 15-20 years before getting an award.
He has read & studied & written on environmental issues for a long time. He is about a close to being a 'scientist' as one can be without actually getting degrees in something. We NEED people in political and advocacy positions who understand most of the science involved, and who can then use their 'bully pulpit' to get across some awkward truths in ways many 'scientists' don't have available. He is, if you will, a 'correlator' and PR guy...which doesn't make what he finds any less important.

Dismissing data that makes you uncomfortable and makes certain economic issues scary is simply 'hiding your head in the sand'. Some want to suggest that because Al Gore is making part of his living doing this work, his message is therfore suspect. *I* suggest that they read a LOT more about the man and his history before they cast aspersions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 05:41 PM

Kind of reminds me of a Star Trek opening....Maybe Shatner could play Gore?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 05:40 PM

That is truly funny, Gnu:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 05:39 PM

"and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Have fun.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 05:34 PM

So, Nobel can make a non-scientist a scientist....without even a smidgen of a PHD....amazing powers that the Nobel folks have:)

BTW, I am not a climate change doubter....(even though annual or local weather over a few days or weeks don't prove much). But, I do not put much weight, or Faith in politicians, business folks or entertainers (Gore is all three) to give us much scientific insight...or leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM

Ed... apparently, "Nobel" disagrees.

+5 here... on Dec 28!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM

Nobelprize.org: "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Is that a joke:
A Noble prize does not make Gore any more of a scientist nor a science spokesperson....anymore than it makes Obama a peacemaker for his recent Nobleconquest. Again, he is a polititian and a business guy...and few logical thinkers should be surprised by what motivates those folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 04:19 PM

"I can readily believe, Bill, that you are more objective than a good many people are. ;-) How's that?"

Damning with faint praise? ;>)) "She ain't TOO ugly, iffn you squint."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 03:52 PM

I can readily believe, Bill, that you are more objective than a good many people are. ;-) How's that?

I just make my philosophical observations, because it interests me how people think and how their thinking affects their actions and their view of reality. It interests me more than almost anything else, because it is the key to understanding both self and others.

To put it another way, I find human nature ultimately more fascinating than either politics or the Global Warming debate. And of politics, I will always say this: it's the Great Divider.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 03:14 PM

"hardly a scientist nor a science endorsed spokesperson for anything."

Nobelprize.org: "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 03:01 PM

"They find charts that agree with their own chosen opinion, and THOSE are the charts they trust!

That's not the way *I* decide. You can believe it or not.
(Read my dozens of posts about the fallacy of "placing the dart, then drawing the bullseye around it".)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM

And others are to stoned and/or lazy to do any searching at all. Their subjective minds are made up.

The assertion was that in Maryland "The last few years have been quite warm Winters."

The first chart I posted was the first chart I found without bias. It shows the average maryland temps dropping in the "the last few years"

The second chart I posted was the second one I found close to Maryland, from NOAA and close to an airport I might add. It too shows the average temps dropping "the last few years"

Bills charts also show a downward trend in "the last few years"

Bloomberg:

Gore donated his proceeds from the global-warming book and movie to his Alliance for Climate Protection, Kreider added.

John Jonson, chief operating officer at Capricorn, also had no comment.

Gore's investment, disclosed in a private-placement filing at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was made through Carthage LP. The partnership, formed in December, has the same name as the ex-vice president's home town in Tennessee.

Skoll, 43, founded Capricorn after deciding in late 2001 that he wanted to diversify his wealth, at the time comprised primarily of EBay stock. The firm began taking on a few outside clients last year, according to SEC filings.

Father's Estate

In the last personal finance report he filed as vice president, Gore disclosed on May 22, 2000, that the value of his assets totaled between $780,000 and $1.9 million. In addition, Gore listed an interest in his father's estate that included Occidental Petroleum Corp. stock worth as much as $1 million.

He and Tipper Gore released tax returns for 1998 showing they earned $224,376 that year, less than half the income of President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, news reports at the time said.

Now Gore charges a $175,000 speaking fee and has a net worth ``well in excess" of $100 million, including pre-public offering Google stock options, according to an article in Fastcompany.com last year. Kreider said the speaking fees vary and Gore doesn't disclose them.

Gore has served as a senior adviser to Mountain View, California-based Google since February 2001, shortly after leaving public office. Google spokesman Jon Murchinson said in an e-mail: "We have not provided comment on if or how we compensate Mr. Gore in his role as an advisor to Google."

Metropolitan West

The former vice president also served as vice chairman of Metropolitan West Financial Inc., a money manager run in part by former Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. executives, starting in 2001.

He co-founded Current Media Inc., a cable television and Internet company, in 2002 and is listed as its executive chairman in a January SEC filing for the company's initial public offering. It said he earned $1 million in salary and bonus last year, and owned 3.7 million shares of company stock.

Gore joined Apple's board in 2003 and co-founded London- based Generation Investment Management in 2004. Last November, he became a partner with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm.

Capricorn, in managing Skoll's fortune -- estimated at $4.2 billion by Forbes magazine last March -- primarily allocates money to different private partnerships, including hedge funds and energy and real-estate funds.

Skoll Foundation

One of Capricorn's clients, the Skoll Foundation, had almost $264 million, or 78 percent of its assets, invested in more than 75 partnerships at June 30, 2006, according to its most recently available tax filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

The funds included Eric Mindich's Eton Park Capital Management LP, Ralph Whitworth's Relational Investors LLC, and Arthur Samberg's Pequot Capital Management Inc.

"They don't put all their eggs in one basket," said Homi Vazifdar, a managing director at the Canyon Group, of Larkspur, California, who is familiar with Capricorn's investment style.

Stephen George, Capricorn's chief investment officer, previously worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. specializing in helping technology clients develop expertise in e-commerce. New York-based Goldman underwrote San Jose, California-based EBay's initial public offering.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 02:42 PM

A little bit of reading form scientists around the world, such as Germany, Holland , other European countries and North America (Canada and the USA) will show a slightly different picture of climate changes than some try and paint through internet science....Rather than bore you with endless posts....just brouse around the Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/

BTW, Al Gore is a USA politician and businessman....and is hardly a scientist nor a science endorsed spokesperson for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 02:34 PM

By the way, Bill, you said, "Charts? Everybody can find charts. The ones I trust are...etc...etc..."

Yesssss. (smiling) Well, I know exactly how that works, and everyone does it the same way.   They find charts that agree with their own chosen opinion, and THOSE are the charts they trust! ;-) They may indeed come across other charts that don't seem to agree with their opinion....and those they quickly dismiss as valueless or deliberately misleading, hardly worth a moment's glance, and they resume their cheerful search for charts they can TRUST! Yessirree. That's how it's done. ;-)

Note: I don't say the above to single you out, Bill. I say that everyone operates that way, myself included. It is the way people sort through information when they have an argument they are engaged in, and I believe it's a universal weakness of those who have an opinion. Once they have one, it prejudices their viewpoint of the matter from that moment on, with predictable results. They lose objectivity. It's sort of like what happens to inter-country relations during a war. People lose objectivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 02:23 PM

Gore the Capitalist:

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures…

As a private citizen, Mr. Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee.

Since then, his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000, although he often speaks at no charge.

He is a founder of Generation Investment Management, based in London and run by David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (the firm was quickly dubbed Blood and Gore). Mr. Gore earns a partner’s salary at Kleiner Perkins. He has substantial personal finances invested at both firms, officials of the companies said…

Mr. Gore’s spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of eBay…

He has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market and in an array of companies in bio-fuels, sustainable fish farming, electric vehicles and solar power.

Capricorn holds a major stake in Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the world’s leading maker of waterless urinals. Generation has holdings in Ausra, a solar energy company based in California, and Camco, a British firm that develops carbon dioxide emissions reduction projects. Kleiner Perkins has a green ventures fund with nearly $1 billion invested in renewable energy and efficiency concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM

I'll tell you where the Blobal Gwarming is. It's right here under my desk. Mmmm...toasty. ;-) I have a small heater going and it's keeping my feet warm.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 01:18 PM

Some graphs illustrating land and ocean temperatures from 1880 to present: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 01:18 PM

U.S. Percentage Area Very Warm or Very Cold

Jan-Dec 2008 Alaska Temperature Time series

Charts? Everybody can find charts. The ones I trust, from places like NOAA, show a warming trend....with 2008 being a slightly cooler year. You can't set a record every year. We can wait and do nothing and see if cooler continues...or we can err or the side of caution. I get one vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 01:10 PM

NOAA Chantilly VA:

  Year   JAN    FEB    MAR     APR    MAY   JUN    JUL    AUG     SEP    OCT    NOV    DEC    ANN
  1963   28.4   29.3   46.1   53.4   60.1   70.3   76.4   74.3   65.4   59.3   48.6   29.4   53.4
  1964   33.4   30.9   43.1   50.6   64.6   73.3   76.3   72.2   66.7   51.9   47.5   38.9   54.1
  1965   30.7   35.3   39.2   51.3   66.9   70.1   74.9   75.0   70.4   54.0   45.2   39.4   54.4
  1966   28.4   31.7   43.3   48.6   60.8   71.5   76.5   74.0   63.6   51.8   44.9   33.0   52.3
  1967   36.6   29.1   42.8   54.8   55.9   71.4   74.5   72.8   63.6   53.7   40.6   36.5   52.7
  1968   28.2   30.8   46.2   53.1   58.6   70.0   75.6   75.6   66.8   56.4   46.1   31.9   53.3
  1969   29.4   32.2   38.7   55.3   64.3   73.6   77.8   71.9   65.3   52.8   41.9   31.0   52.9
  1970   23.9   32.7   37.8   52.5   63.5   68.9   74.0   72.2   69.1   56.3   45.7   36.3   52.8
  1971   28.5   36.7   39.7   51.4   60.1   72.6   74.9   72.9   69.7   61.4   44.4   42.2   54.5
  1972   35.8   32.6   42.8   51.3   61.8   67.4   75.9   73.3   68.0   51.5   42.0   39.3   53.5
  1973   33.6   33.1   48.6   53.1   59.8   74.2   75.9   76.4   69.6   56.9   46.0   35.2   55.2
  1974   37.8   32.5   44.6   54.3   61.1   67.1   73.5   74.4   66.3   53.3   46.1   36.6   54.0
  1975   34.0   35.0   40.3   49.1   65.2   70.9   74.4   75.5   64.4   57.0   47.2   33.2   53.9
  1976   27.5   41.1   44.6   52.9   58.1   70.5   72.2   71.5   64.8   50.5   38.3   31.2   51.9
  1977   21.0   34.8   48.9   55.4   64.5   68.3   76.4   76.3   69.9   53.9   47.9   33.0   54.2
  1978   27.3   26.7   40.6   54.2   63.4   71.6   74.4   77.2   68.9   53.5   46.8   38.2   53.6
  1979   31.2   23.3   46.4   52.2   63.3   68.2   74.2   74.4   66.9   54.6   49.7   40.1   53.7
  1980   32.7   31.0   41.9   55.6   65.8   69.2   77.3   77.1   70.8   54.1   42.7   34.9   54.4
  1981   27.8   38.5   41.4   57.0   60.9   73.5   75.1   71.9   66.7   52.5   45.9   34.1   53.8
  1982   26.2   36.5   43.7   51.3   66.8   70.8   77.0   72.3   66.9   57.3   48.4   42.6   55.0
  1983   34.7   35.0   46.0   50.2   59.4   70.0   74.6   75.3   66.2   54.7   44.7   30.4   53.4
  1984   25.8   38.9   37.5   50.9   59.8   71.2   72.0   74.2   63.0   61.8   42.6   44.1   54.9
  1985   28.1   35.8   45.0   57.1   63.8   69.7   75.9   73.4   67.7   58.4   52.6   33.2   55.1
  1986   32.5   32.1   44.3   53.6   64.2   73.4   79.0   72.5   68.2   56.8   43.2   36.8   54.7
  1987   31.2   33.1   43.5   51.7   64.3   73.7   79.1   75.4   68.7   49.9   47.8   38.6   54.8
  1988   27.6   34.5   43.9   52.2   63.5   70.9   78.7   78.4   66.4   49.2   46.0   35.8   53.9
  1989   36.3   35.2   43.7   51.7   61.4   73.8   76.0   74.4   68.6   57.3   43.7   23.1   53.8
  1990   40.8   42.2   48.1   54.3   61.6   72.0   76.9   73.8   66.1   58.7   48.6   41.3   57.0
  1991   34.0   39.5   46.1   56.0   69.3   72.3   77.9   77.0   67.6   56.6   45.7   38.5   56.7
  1992   35.0   38.0   41.9   53.1   59.7   68.6   75.9   70.4   66.0   52.2   45.7   36.8   53.6
  1993   36.8   31.7   39.3   52.6   64.5   72.0   79.7   78.0   68.7   54.2   45.3   34.0   54.7
  1994   26.1   33.3   42.7   60.1   59.9   76.1   79.5   73.8   66.7   53.9   49.1   40.3   55.1
  1995   37.2   31.3   46.1   52.6   62.7   71.5   78.2   77.6   67.1   58.3   39.7   33.0   54.6
  1996   30.0   34.7   39.7   54.6   59.7   72.8   72.9   72.7   67.1   55.7   39.3   38.3   53.1
  1997   32.5   40.5   44.6   50.3   58.8   69.1   75.8   73.3   65.1   53.7   43.6   37.2   53.7
  1998   40.1   41.0   45.5   54.9   65.9   70.4   75.3   76.2   72.7   56.2   45.5   40.9   57.1
  1999   35.0   37.5   41.4   53.0   62.8   70.8   78.5   75.4   67.0   53.1   50.1   38.2   55.2
  2000   32.5   39.2   47.9   53.3   64.6   72.2   71.8   72.8   65.0   57.0   42.5   27.8   53.9
  2001   32.1   38.5   40.5   55.5   62.6   72.4   72.2   76.5   65.4   55.8   50.7   41.3   55.3
  2002   39.1   38.9   45.4   56.8   61.9   72.6   77.3   78.1   69.1   55.0   44.1   33.4   56.0
  2003   28.4   30.3   44.1   53.5   59.8   69.3   75.4   76.2   67.1   53.8   50.0   36.0   53.7
  2004   28.0   34.8   46.3   54.8   69.8   70.9   75.9   73.6   68.8   55.6   48.4   37.8   55.4
  2005   34.8   37.4   40.9   55.3   59.7   73.7   77.9   77.7   71.9   58.8   47.8   33.4   55.8
  2006   41.8   36.0   45.9   57.4   62.8   72.6   78.6   78.1   65.6   54.9   48.6   41.9   57.0
  2007   39.1   28.6   46.4   52.2   66.1   74.4   77.3   78.7   71.2   63.6   46.1   38.4   56.8
  2008   35.5   37.3   45.9   56.0   61.1   74.4   76.8   73.8   69.4   55.2   44.3   38.3   55.7
  2009   29.6   38.0   43.7   55.9   65.0   73.1   74.9   78.4   68.4 




	

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 12:32 PM

Hagerstown MD temperatures

          2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005  2006    2007   2008   2009
  
  JAN     31.5   30.5   38.3   26.2   24.9   32.3  38.9    35.4   33.7   27.0
  FEB     38.1   37.2   38.7   28.3   31.0   35.2  34.0    25.4   32.7   35.6
  MAR     47.5   39.0   43.7   41.8   44.0   38.9  42.9    41.9   42.5   43.1
  APR     52.5   54.5   55.5   52.0   53.2   53.2  54.9    48.9   54.3   53.9
  MAY     65.4   62.4   60.8   59.3   68.6   57.2  60.7    64.3   59.1   63.9
  JUN     73.1   71.5   72.4   68.1   70.2   73.4  71.3    72.0   73.5   71.5
  JUL     72.1   71.9   77.2   74.3   75.5   77.6  77.3    74.9   75.2   73.8
  AUG     72.4   76.3   76.4   75.4   73.0   76.2  76.3    75.4   71.0   76.5
  SEP     64.6   64.6   68.4   66.3   67.5   70.1  63.9    68.7   67.3   66.3
  OCT     56.3   55.2   53.3   53.0   54.2   56.6  52.8    61.0   53.0
  NOV     41.9   49.3   42.9   48.7   46.8   45.5  46.4    42.6   43.0
  DEC     26.8   39.7   32.2   33.9   34.7   30.0  38.8    35.3   35.5
  ANNUAL  53.5   54.3   55.0   52.3   53.7   53.9  54.8    53.8   53.4 




	

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 11:51 AM

Bloomberg:

    Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family [tobacco] farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.

    Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM

The Telegraph:

Copenhagen accord keeps Big Carbon in business

The Copenhagen summit achieved its main aim, to maintain the carbon-trading system established by the Kyoto Protocol


The only really concrete achievement of Copenhagen was to win agreement to the perpetuating of those Kyoto rules that have created this vast industry, which has two main beneficiaries. On one hand are that small number of people in China and India who have learnt how to work this system to their huge advantage. On the other are all those Western entrepreneurs who have piled into what has become the fastest‑growing commodity market in the world.

Do you think all this green this and green that could all be about money?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 07:45 AM

Sawzaw

Snail: Notice the last three years of that Graph. It shows an increase in arctic ice and it does not include the Antarctic.

The situation in Antrctica is, indeed, complex. See for instance -

Antarctic ice sheet losing mass, says University of Colorado study
All About Sea Ice: Characteristics: Arctic vs. Antarctic
NASA - Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 02:19 PM

Do you draw any particular conclusions from those post about odd weather events in various places? Or are you just grasping at straws?

**We** in Maryland just had a record Dec. snowfall.... now it is well above freezing again, and the snow will soon be gone. The last few years have been quite warm Winters.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 02:02 PM

European Commission President Barroso today urged the head of the IPCC, Rajenda Pachouri, to sue UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall for raising questions over Pachouri's financial links to Tata Steel of India.

Tata, the owners of Corus, stand to benefit from the Carbon Credits scheme which has been pushed by the IPCC. It is expected that the closure of the Corus plant on Teeside will bring windfall benefits of almost $1bn by selling the defunct plant's carbon credits.

Mr Nuttall had simply asked "qui bono?" when raising wider questions about the use of British taxpayers money to export British jobs in the steel industry.

In his speech, he said, "The real gain to Corus/Tata from stopping production on Teeside is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU and worth up to £600m over the next 3 years. Surprise, surprise, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachouri, is the head of the Tata Foundation, so one must ask 'qui bono', as Tata of India owns Corus."

In response, President Barroso urged Mr Pachouri to take Mr Nuttall to court, before admitting that the closure of the Corus plant was a direct consequence of EU legislation.

Full text of Paul Nuttall's speech:

Mr. Barroso,

Recently we have heard that there is to be a closure of the Corus Steel Works in Teeside, in North East England. This is due to the EU target of a reduction of 20% of Carbon emissions. Thanks to "Carbon Credits", Corus can no longer afford to employ over 5,000 Steel workers including suppliers. We also have the spectacle of the British government admitting that its hands are tied on this issue by punitive EU Competition Law.

The real gain to Corus from stopping production on Teeside is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme which will be worth up to £600 million over the next three years. As the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachouri, is the head of the Tata foundation, one must ask "qui bono?" Needless to say, Tata of India owns Corus.

Is it now official EU policy to offer incentives to companies to close plants, such as Teeside, so that they can out-source their business to countries such as India, or is there a more personal interest at stake here?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 01:09 PM

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that hundreds of IPCC scientists are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years .

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the Greenhouse gas forcing … statement above, Professor McKitrick explained A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed."

Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as Typical IPCC doubletalk asserting "The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model".

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers' comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

"The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don't," says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr Timothy Ball. "Otherwise, their credibility, and the public's trust of science in general, will be even further eroded."
Advertisement

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely.

Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM

The Guardian: Severe weather kills dozens in Europe

Fifteen homeless people killed in Warsaw alone as temperatures dip to as low as -33C in Europe and snow leads to travel chaos

Dozens of people are thought to have frozen to death as extreme conditions continued to affect many parts of Europe today.

Polish news channel TVN24 said 47 people, mainly homeless, had been found frozen to death since the start of December as temperatures dropped as low as -18C. Police in Warsaw said 15 people died on Saturday night.

Freezing temperatures and snow were causing travel chaos in many countries, including France, where 40% of flights from Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports in Paris were cancelled. In Spain, runways were closed at Madrid's Barajas airport after temperatures fell to -8C and high-speed AVE trains were suspended between the capital and Barcelona, Malagá and Seville.

Temperatures dropped to as low as -33C in southern parts of Germany where hundreds of road accidents have been blamed on the weather.

Düsseldorf International airport, Germany third busiest, was also forced to close. Airports in the Netherlands and Belgium were also affected.

"There is still heavy snowfall and every time we clear a runway to permit a flight, we have to shut it down again because of the heavy snowfall," said Jan Van der Cruysse, spokesman for Brussels National Airport.

Meanwhile, a clean-up operation was under way along the US eastern seaboard following record snowfalls in some areas at the weekend which combined with high winds to produce blizzard conditions. An entire winter's snowfall fell in Washington DC, making it the snowiest December on record, while more than half a metre of snow fell in parts of Virginia, New York, New Jersey and other eastern states.

The conditions at US airports led to flight delays to the UK with some aircraft arriving at Heathrow three hours late this morning, while at Manchester airport some passengers were still waiting to get on flights scheduled to have taken off yesterday afternoon.

Motorists were urged to stay off treacherous roads and several main arteries were closed. In Washington, drivers who ventured out often had to abandon their cars due to deep snow on the streets.

In eastern Europe, more than 220 villages and towns in Bulgaria were left without electricity, and toppled trees cut power in several mountainous suburbs in the capital Sofia.

An overflowing dam in the town of Zlatograd, south-east of the capital, Sofia, flooded the basements of several apartment buildings, the town's mayor told news agency Focus.

Some 50 passengers were injured early today when a train failed to stop and hit a buffer at the main Zagreb station, in the Croatian capital, police said. The accident involved a train travelling from the central town of Sisak to Zagreb. One person suffered a life-threatening injury, while some 40 people required medical assistance, hospital sources said.

Police said it was still unclear what caused the accident. Train travel in Croatia has been disrupted in recent days due to heavy snow and very low temperatures.

Four Serie-A soccer matches were postponed in Italy over the weekend due to the weather.

In France, the heavy snowfall was not expected to end until tonight at the earliest, according to weather bureau Meteo France. Minimum temperatures hovered close to record lows in some areas overnight, with the minimum reading in the Jura department of eastern France reaching -23C.

In Moscow, where temperatures fell to -26C last week, relatively warmer temperatures of -13C brought heavy snow falls in the Russian capital, blanketing Red Square and the Kremlin. Up to 9,000 snow ploughs were said to have been sent out to clear the capital city's streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

AP:

MILWAUKEE – Residents in the nation's heartland were digging out after a blustery storm as meteorologists warned that blizzard conditions could continue across the northern Plains on Saturday.

The National Weather Service issued blizzard warnings for parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin through Saturday. The storm had already dumped significant snow across the region, including a record 14 inches in Oklahoma City and 11 inches in Duluth, Minn., on Thursday.

Slippery roads have been blamed for at least 21 deaths this week as the storm lumbered across the country from the Southwest.

Paul Mews, who drove from Faribault, Minn., to a relative's home in Plum City, Wis., on Friday morning, said the first 15 minutes of the 80-mile trip were clear, but a surge of heavy snowfall produced a stretch of near-whiteout conditions.

"It was snow-pocalypse. It was wicked," said Mews, 25. "We thought about turning around and going back."

Army Sgt. Mark Matthey was spending Friday night at the Flying J Travel Plaza in Sioux Falls, S.D., after Interstate 90 closed. Matthey, 26, left Fort Bragg, N.C., on Wednesday for his hometown of Spokane, Wash., in hopes of making it by late Friday or early Saturday.

Instead, he spent Friday afternoon drinking coffee, watching TV and making friends at the truck stop. Matthey said he and the other travelers were in decent spirits.

"Everybody has the attitude that you have to play the cards you were dealt," he said. "No use in getting upset about something you can't control."

Interstates also were closed in North Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming. Meteorologists warned that massive snow drifts and blustery winds could cause whiteouts across the northern Plains. Officials urged travelers to stay home and pack emergency kits if they had to set out.

In Texas, volunteer firefighters and sheriff's deputies rescued hundreds of people stranded along Interstate 44 and Texas State Highway 287 near Wichita Falls. The area recorded up to 13 inches of snow, said Doug Speheger, a National Weather Service meteorologist.

"It's really been horrible," Wichita County Sheriff David Duke said. "Although we live in north Texas and get a lot of cold weather, we weren't prepared for the significant amount of snow that we've received."

Only two of the sheriff department's vehicles have four-wheel drive, so rescuers used their own pickups and the heavy 5-ton brush trucks normally used to fight fires to get to motorists, many of whom ran out of gas while they were stuck in traffic stalled by the storm.

"It was exciting at first to wake up and go, 'Oh, this will be great. We'll have a white Christmas,'" Wichita Falls Mayor Lanham Lyne said. "Then it kept snowing. As the roads became impassable, then we started to worry."

The storm grounded flights at South Dakota's biggest airports. Sioux Falls Regional Airport was closed until Saturday morning at the earliest, manager Dan Letellier told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Flights also were canceled at Rapid City Regional Airport and Pierre Regional Airport.

Mark Kranenburg, director of the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City predicted it would be two or three days before all three runways were open and flights resumed as scheduled at Oklahoma's largest airport.

The 14 inches of snow in Oklahoma City broke a record of 2.5 inches set back in 1914.

The previous record for Christmas Eve in Duluth, which has gotten more than 22 inches in two days, was 3 inches in 1893, said Kevin Kraujalis, a National Weather Service meteorologist.

With heavy winds producing snow drifts as deep as 5 feet, "it's awful, it's just awful," Kraujalis said. "It's a big workout just walking outside to check my weather equipment."

Since Tuesday, icy roads have been blamed for accidents that killed at least seven people in Nebraska, five people in Oklahoma, four in Kansas, two in Minnesota and one each in North Dakota, Missouri and New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 04:05 PM

Snail: Notice the last three years of that Graph. It shows an increase in arctic ice and it does not include the Antarctic.

Dr. Leonard Weinstein worked 45 years at the NASA Langley Research Center, finishing his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. He is now a critic of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. His analysis shows that man has contributed less than 0.30C of warming and by the year 2100 may contribute less than 0.40C additional warming. This is much less than what the United Nations IPCC has predicted and of course a small fraction of what alarmists such as Al Gore and James Hansen have predicted.

Below is a summary of Dr. Weinstein's work, we highly recommend you follow the links to read the complete papers. His work is compelling and is yet one more example of a prominent scientist that disagrees with the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

    "Preparing for the possibility of an impending ice age along with the possible consequences of a reduction in Earth's magnetic field are real concerns. Concern with relatively small effects of possible anthropogenic caused global warming is a misplaced distraction, and will probably lead to the public losing confidence in scientists, and could weaken the support needed when real problems occur."

    "Decreasing availability of oil and anthropogenic pollution (not greenhouse gases) are real issues. Acid rain, smog, and dirty water sources do need to be fixed. The problems associated with high fuel prices, and dependence on sources of energy from possibly less than friendly foreign countries are critical. While we can't solve the problems with a single magic bullet, more nuclear power plants, along with wind and Solar power, could fill much of the gap. There are solutions, but first we have to identify the correct problems."

Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognition's for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 12:46 PM

"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"

Many people will remember the strident headline at the end of November blaring: "Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri". That was the version in The Guardian, but other papers carried something very similar.

How so very different might have been the reception had the newspapers carried a photograph of the house occupied by multi-millionaire businessman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, currently 160 Central Golf Links Road, New Delhi. This is situated in a delightful residential area (pictured above and below) very close to Khan Market, the most expensive market in India.

It is described as one of the most expensive places to live in India. The cheapest houses sell for millions of US dollars. It is considered one of the richest neighborhoods in India and the name is inspired by the Delhi Golf Course nearby.

Prominent individuals like Neville Tuli, Dushyant Dave (Supreme Court Senior Advocate), R. K. Pachauri, Naresh Trehan, Palaniappan Chidambaram, R.K. Dhawan , film producer Bobby Bedi and the Guptas (owners of real-estate development firm MGF, and constructors of several malls in Gurgaon) and other foreign dignitaries call Golf Links home. Vikram Bakshi, the boss of McDonald's India also has property in the locality. Peaceful with its leafy environs, it is one of the best places to live in New Delhi, and is a major status symbol.

Thanks to the then Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral's personal intervention, the Delhi Police enhanced the security to a very high level, and it currently enjoys round the clock patrolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 11:43 AM

Sawzaw

This table shows the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average.

From the same source - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 11:32 AM

"Does the fact that they publish article after article hyping supposed 'evidence' of shady dealings by anyone opposed to their basic opinions?.... and MORE articles belittling Obama and his presidency negate any basic truths about the reality of what is happening to global climate?"

Why, no indeed...(once I made it thru the diagramming of that sentence)...but I think you just agreed with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 11:16 AM

Dr Pachauri's TERI – of which he is Director General - admits to receiving over $300,000 for "services rendered by Pachauri."

This, however, only covers "some of the payments made to TERI". It includes €100,000 from the Deutsche Bank, $25,000 from Credit Suisse and $80,000 from Toyota Motors. The institute also received $48,750 from Yale University, $4,425 from the Asian Development Bank - which has given loans to Tata - and €1,200 from the French electricity giant EDF. At current conversion rates, that totals $302,746.

The periods for which the payments were made are not specified and neither are the precise "services rendered" identified. For some organisations, such as Yale University, Pachauri performs more than one service – and his current post as head of the Climate and Energy Institute has only just started.

Pachauri's institute denies that it has received any payment from the Risk Governance Council in Geneva, the Chicago Climate Exchange, or the New York Investment Fund Pegasus for which he is "strategic advisor". This is difficult to believe in respect of the latter two, but the phrasing of the "rebuttal" does not rule out the possibility of benefits in kind being offered by these companies.

No mention is made of Pachauri's other current posts. Thus, we know nothing of payments (if any) from GloriOil, Siderian ventures, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Nordic Glitnir Bank, the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, SNCF, his work as a Hindustan Times columnist, the Asian Energy Institute, FEOP (Far East Oil Price) Advisory Board, the International Solar Energy Society, the World Resources Institute or the World Energy Council.

Nor do we learn whether payments were made for Dr Pachauri's work for the Indian government, in particular the National Environmental Council, the Economic Advisory Council and the Oil Industry Restructuring Group. Nor is it specified whether he is paid for his role on the Governing Council of the India Habitat Centre. Other notable omissions are, as admitted by Pachauri, the "sometimes pretty generous honoraria, for giving talks in various places" - which themselves could amount to millions of dollars.

As to why TERI's (Indian) accounts are not published, the reason given is that TERI has tax-exempt status in every country in which it operates. "Such status is granted on the basis of proper auditing of accounts and proper scrutiny of documents." Nonetheless, accounts are published in the UK and the US relating to local operations, but not in India.

The US IRS return for the TERI-NA operation in Washington identified a total revenue of $66,701 against expenses of $121,810, leaving a loss on the trading year ending in 2009 of $55,109. The expenses included two remittances totalling $54,000 to TERI India. Also identified is a payment made to Dr Pachauri from a "related organization" – which is not identified – of $45,791.

This is the only public record of which we are aware which identifies a direct payment to Dr Pachauri. Neither Pachauri nor TERI have chosen to reveal payments made to him by TERI or his salary and other emoluments from the IPCC.

Despite that, TERI is claiming as "unfounded and false" our charge that Pachauri holds posts in a number of organisations, including Credit Suisse Bank, and is silent about the money he earns, "which must run into millions of dollars". Yet nothing so far offered by way of evidence would even begin to rebut that charge.

And neither has there been any attempt so far to explain how a UN official can work on a fee-paying basis for organisations such as the Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, without there being a potential conflict of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 10:48 AM

"railroad engineer" The perfect person to railroad the world into a global warming scam for personal gain.

Amos: Do you understand that it is summer there and there is a seasonal loss of ice?

This table shows the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. As of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

"Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding."
-- Right-wing columnist Pat Buchanan, 12/18/09

VERSUS

"[A] team of scientists from the University of Texas at Austin has found that the East Antarctic ice sheet -- home to about 90 percent of Earth's solid fresh water and previously considered stable -- may have begun to lose ice."
-- NASA, 11/24/09

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 12:30 PM

The Telegraph may be a conservative newspaper, Bill D, (I know it's conservative, I buy it each Saturday as it has a crossword I like - sorry, Guardian readers, I can't handle Araucaria - and also because its conservatism appeals to me), but it almost always, like most UK media, follows a warmista line.

The Telegraph's Pachauri story was written by Booker & North; the latter runs a blog called EuReferendum (a cause dear to my heart) with much more info on the busy railroad engineer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM

Bill:

Does the fact that they publish article after article hyping supposed 'evidence' of shady dealings by anyone opposed to their basic opinions?.... and MORE articles belittling Obama and his presidency negate any basic truths about the reality of what is happening to global climate?

The fact that Bush was into oil and that Dick Cheney ran Halliburton   was the hue and cry of the anti war crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM

Michael Mann first of climate change scientists to be investigated

The fallout from the Climategate event continues as one of its primary participants, Dr. Michael Mann, is to be investigated by his employer, Penn State University. Among the more than one thousand emails released on the Internet, Mann featured prominently in many of them oftentimes making rather controversial comments.

Mann serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and has long been one of the more controversial figures in the debate about manmade climate change. He is the author of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph which was used by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" but later was proven to be inaccurate....

...a report from Dr. Edward Wegman that provided a different opinion. Wegman's report said, "Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman's analysis concludes that Mann's work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. "...

Phil Jones:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.


NASA to Mann:
In my (perhaps too harsh)
view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 11:26 AM

Just on a hunch, I looked at other examples of stories from that link....wow, says I.

Then, still working on a hunch, I searched Google using the term "Most conservative newspapers". What did I get? Link after link describing "The Telegraph" as one of the most conservative.

Why am I not surprised that they publish article after article hyping supposed 'evidence' of shady dealings by anyone opposed to their basic opinions?.... and MORE articles belittling Obama and his presidency.

So...DID DR Pachauri make some money in his enterprises? Might he be willing to push certain policies to make his enterprises more profitable? Maybe so.... does that negate any basic truths about the reality of what is happening to global climate? Read a few NON-conservative newspapers and see what you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM

One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior officials.

As for TERI itself, Dr Pachauri's main job for nearly 30 years, it is so coy about money that it does not even publish its accounts – the financial statement amounts to two income and expenditure pie charts which contain no detailed figures.

Dr Pachauri is equally coy about TERI's links with Tata, the company which set it up in the 1970s and whose name it continued to bear until 2002, when it was changed to just The Energy Research Institute. A spokesman at the time said "we have not severed our past relationship with the Tatas, the change is only for convenience".

But the real question mark over TERI's director-general remains over the relationship between his highly lucrative commercial jobs and his role as chairman of the IPCC.

TERI have, for example, become a preferred bidder for Kuwaiti contracts to clean up the mess left by Saddam Hussein in their oilfields in 1991. The $3 billion (£1.9 billion) cost of the contracts has been provided by the UN. If successful, this would be tenth time TERI have benefited from a contract financed by the UN.

Certainly no one values the services of TERI more than the EU, which has included Dr Pachauri's institute as a partner in no fewer than 12 projects designed to assist in devising the EU's policies on mitigating the effects of the global warming predicted by the IPCC.

But whether those 1,700 Corus workers on Teesside will next month be so happy to lose their jobs to India, thanks to the workings of that international 'carbon market' about which Dr Pachauri is so enthusiastic, is quite another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:20 AM

world's leading 'climate official' can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC's recommendations.

Dr Pachauri's TERI empire has also extended worldwide, with branches in the US, the EU and several countries in Asia. TERI Europe, based in London, of which he is a trustee (along with Sir John Houghton, one of the key players in the early days of the IPCC and formerly head of the UK Met Office) is currently running a project on bio-energy, financed by the EU.

Another project, co-financed by our own Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the German insurance firm Munich Re, is studying how India's insurance industry, including Tata, can benefit from exploiting the supposed risks of exposure to climate change. Quite why Defra and UK taxpayers should fund a project to increase the profits of Indian insurance firms is not explained.

Even odder is the role of TERI's Washington-based North American offshoot, a non-profit organisation, of which Dr Pachauri is president. Conveniently sited on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol, this body unashamedly sets out its stall as a lobbying organisation, to "sensitise decision-makers in North America to developing countries' concerns about energy and the environment".

TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including four branches of the UN bureaucracy; four US government agencies; oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the world's largest GM producer; the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU) and two world leaders in the international 'carbon market', between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets.

All of this is doubtless useful to the interests of Tata back in India, which is heavily involved not just in bio-energy, renewables and insurance but also in 'carbon trading', the worldwide market in buying and selling the right to emit CO2. Much of this is administered at a profit by the UN under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the Kyoto Protocol, which the Copenhagen treaty was designed to replace with an even more lucrative successor.

Under the CDM, firms and consumers in the developed world pay for the right to exceed their 'carbon limits' by buying certificates from those firms in countries such as India and China which rack up 'carbon credits' for every renewable energy source they develop – or by showing that they have in some way reduced their own 'carbon emissions'.

It is one of these deals, reported in last week's Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential £1.2 billion in 'carbon credits' (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work).

More than three-quarters of the world 'carbon' market benefits India and China in this way. India alone has 1,455 CDM projects in operation, worth $33 billion (£20 billion), many of them facilitated by Tata – and it is perhaps unsurprising that Dr Pachauri also serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world, which was also assisted by TERI in setting up India's own carbon exchange.

But this is peanuts compared to the numerous other posts to which Dr Pachauri has been appointed in the years since the UN chose him to become the world's top 'climate-change official'.

In 2007, for instance, he was appointed to the advisory board of Siderian, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm specialising in 'sustainable technologies', where he was expected to provide the Fund with 'access, standing and industrial exposure at the highest level',

In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank, as it launched its Sustainable Future Fund, looking to raise funding of £4 billion. He became chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, whose CEO was confident it could soon raise £100 billion.

In the same year he became a director of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva, set up by EDF and E.On, two of Europe's largest electricity firms, to promote 'bio-energy'. This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a 'strategic adviser', and was made chairman of the advisory board to the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM trading, whose CEO warned that failure to agree a treaty at Copenhagen would lead to a collapse of the carbon market.

The list of posts now held by Dr Pachauri as a result of his new-found world status goes on and on. He has become head of Yale University's Climate and Energy Institute, which enjoys millions of dollars of US state and corporate funding. He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank. He is Director of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies and was until recently an adviser to Toyota Motors. Recalling his origins as a railway engineer, he is even a policy adviser to SNCF, France's state-owned railway company.

Meanwhile, back home in India, he serves on an array of influential government bodies, including the Economic Advisory Committee to the prime minister, holds various academic posts and has somehow found time in his busy life to publish 22 books.

Dr Pachauri never shrinks from giving the world frank advice on all matters relating to the menace of global warming. The latest edition of TERI News quotes him as telling the US Environmental Protection Agency that it must go ahead with regulating US carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to pass its cap and trade bill.

It reports how, in the days before Copenhagen, he called on the developing nations which had been historically responsible for the global warming crisis to make 'concrete commitments' to aiding developing countries such as India with funding and technology – while insisting that India could not agree to binding emissions targets. India, he said, must bargain for large-scale subsidies from the West for developing solar power, and Western funds must be made available for geo-engineering projects to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

As a vegetarian Hindu, Dr Pachauri repeated his call for the world to eat less meat to cut down on methane emissions (as usual he made no mention of what was to be done about India's 400 million sacred cows). He further called for a ban on serving ice in restaurants and for meters to be fitted to all hotel rooms, so that guests could be charged a carbon tax on their use of heating and air-conditioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:02 AM

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born August 20, 1940) has served as the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002. He has also been director general TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University. He has become an icon for the LGBT community in India as a result of offering internships to younger members of the LGBT community in order to promote acceptance within the country.

Telegraph UK

Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC's policy recommendations

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as "the world's top climate scientist"), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC's policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in 'carbon trading' and 'sustainable technologies', which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international 'climate industry'.

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri's links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world's leading 'climate official' can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC's recommendations.

The issue of Dr Pachauri's potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed a letter by two eminent 'climate sceptics'. One was the Stephen Fielding, the Australian Senator who sparked the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government's 'cap and trade scheme'. The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC's science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the US Senate.

Their open letter first challenged the scientific honesty of a graph prominently used in the IPCC's 2007 report, and shown again by Pachauri in his lecture, demanding that he should withdraw it. But they went on to question why the report had not declared Pachauri's personal interest in so many organisations which seemingly stood to profit from its findings.

The letter, which included information first disclosed in last week's Sunday Telegraph, was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations, calling on them to dismiss Dr Pachauri as IPCC chairman because of recent revelations of his conflicting interests.

The original power base from which Dr Pachauri has built up his worldwide network of influence over the past decade is the Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute, of which he became director in 1981 and director-general in 2001. Now renamed The Energy Research Institute, TERI was set up in 1974 by India's largest privately-owned business empire, the Tata Group, with interests ranging from steel, cars and energy to chemicals, telecommunications and insurance (and now best-known in the UK as the owner of Jaguar, Land Rover, Tetley Tea and Corus, Britain's largest steel company).

Although TERI has extended its sponsorship since the name change, the two concerns are still closely linked.

In India, Tata exercises enormous political power, shown not least in the way it has managed to displace hundreds of thousands of poor tribal villagers in the eastern states of Orissa and Jarkhand to make way for large-scale iron mining and steelmaking projects.

Initially, when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil, the country's largest commercial enterprise, and until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 09:43 AM

"Your position is clearly ideological and fixed"
You must be joking. I am looking for proof and finding none, just Ideological bullshit and logical fallacies.
There is no possibility that you could be wrong is there?

If CO2 causes global warming, I can understand how temperature could overshoot CO2. But That means rising CO2 could not overshoot the temperature.


"without twisting things"
Amos claims that looking at things from different points of view is twisting things. How inflexible, how fixed can a persons mind be?

When one lacks the ability to determine the truth by themselves they must accept the conclusion of someone else and criticize all who disagree. They must jump on the bandwagon for fear of looking stupid.

The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.

This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM

We certainly know about one major source, as we have all been sinks for it at one time or another, not to mention the image of Jimmy Swaggert on the garage wall...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 05:21 PM

The link from TIA is about 127 KB and is...

                         right here

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 05:15 PM

Actually, I find the methane situation rather more scary than the CO2 one. We know that:

Methane is at least 20 times worse as a GHG than CO2;

There are vast quantities of it locked up in clathrates and in frozen soil, so there is potential for a nasty positive feedback effect if this gets released by warming/deforestation;

Other pollution (Carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides) causes methane to persist longer in the atmosphere;

There has been at least one methane induced major climate change and mass extinction
'PETM'

Also we probably don't know enough about the sources and sinks of methane.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 04:24 PM

Yes. Methane. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But its concentration is smaller. It probably contributes only 28% of the warming that CO2 does (Dlugokencky et al., 2003).

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~houwelng/PUBLICATIONS/2003GL018126.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 03:45 PM

Methane gas? At 1.7 parts per million it can barely be detected. It is not important in the GW theory.

Here is a statement made in 1971. I can't give proper attribution because the bibliography referred to has 2000 entris, but here 'tis anyway:

"Largely out of simple curiosity about geochemical cycles involving minor carbon and hydrogen compounds, in the 1960s and 1970s, scientists cataloged a variety of sources for methane in the atmosphere. It turned out that emissions from biological sources outranked mineral sources. Especially important were bacteria, producing the methane ("swamp gas") that bubbles up in wetlands. That included humanity's countless rice paddies.

These studies, however, gave no reason to think that the gas had any significance for climate change. Thus an authoritative 1971 study of climate almost ignored methane. "To the best of our knowledge," the review concluded, "most atmospheric CH4 is produced [and destroyed] by microbiological activity in soil and swamps." The annual turnover that the experts estimated was so great that any addition from human sources added only a minor fraction. "For this reason, and because CH4 has no direct effects on the climate or the biosphere, it is considered to be of no importance for this report." The authors recommended monitoring the atmospheric levels of the gases SO2, H2S, NH3, and even oxygen, but not methane."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 02:33 PM

Actually water vapor (and methane) are many times more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2. But because of feedbacks, Earth's climate system is very sensitive. CO2 is the one that humans have been pumping inot the atmosphere, but a slight warming due to CO2 causes increased evaporation (water vapor) which makes a lot more warming. Similarly, a slight warming due to CO2 can thaw permafrost which releases huge amounts of methane and accelerates warming. CO2 is not necessarily powerful in itself, but it has giant leverage over Earth's climate system.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 02:05 PM

PDQ:

I think your math is a little one-dimensional. The issue is how much heat-retention increase occurs when CO2 is added to atmosphere, given its greater molar weight. Also your statistical probability seems to assign the same size to all molecules, which is surely oversimplification.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 01:57 PM

"My understanding (as a chemist not a physicist) is that, molecule for molecule, CO2 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water." ~ GUEST,KP

Well, if we think about a molecule's ability to retain heat, it depend upon the mass of the molecule.

Molar mass of H=1, C=12, O=16 (all approx.)

So CO₂ has a molar mass of 44 while water has a molar mass of 18.

Yes, CO₂ may be a more powerful per unit than water vapor, but at 361 parts per million (a number I got from an Israeli website that does not seem to be as politicized as US and UN-sponsored websites).

That means that for every CO₂ molecule in the lower atmosphere, there are 2770 molecules of someting else. This is actually a "CO₂-starved" condition from an historical perspective.

Yes, heat leaving the Earth has the chance of striking another type of molecule 2770 time the chances of striking the a molecule of CO₂.

The GW proponents claims just don'tmake sence. Do the math.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 12:44 PM

No, it means you cannot follow the first-order logical implications of a statement without twisting things, Sawz. That's all.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 12:09 PM

A few people, (I think Little Hawk was one) have asked the question 'how come a small amount of CO2 can have such a large impact on our climate? I've been trying to find a good reference for this that doesn't get terribly technical very quickly.
This is the best I can find so far
How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

My understanding (as a chemist not a physicist) is that, molecule for molecule, CO2 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water. That is, its infra-red absorption bands will be more intense. There is generally more water in the atmosphere so that will have more impact in total than CO2. Some people quote 98% of total contribution from water, others say its more like like 60%. If you believe the first figure, then CO2 is about as strong a greenhouse gas as water, if you believe the second figure, then its hundreds of times stronger (which is apparently what the basic physics would suggest).

So we (global humanity) are currently conducting a world-wide experiment to see what happens when you dramatically increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - you might say the ultimate 'field trial'!

Hope this is useful
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 07:39 AM

Sawzaw,
You are being intentionally obtuse.
Your position is clearly ideological and fixed.
I will spend my efforts elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 07:16 AM

Sawzaw's latest chart is of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index which, as far as I can make out, is a measure of the sea temperature along the Pacific coast of North America normalised over the period so as to separate the oscillations from any long term trends.

See Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun for more details.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 05:30 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming?

Blowing out of Gore's ass!!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 10:18 PM

Amos: So that means what? Does it mean this fact you posted is wrong?

"we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level,"

Does it mean you need ad hominem attacks to cover up for your lack of knowledge?

This chart should unleash a flurry if hostile uncivil remarks from the Illuminati.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:26 PM

The combination of your deepseated apathetic indifference and your poverty of intellect are overpowering, Sawz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM

"it answers Sawzaw's overarching question"

No it does not.

The question is about the future when and if the suspected global warming from CO2 can be stopped.

How are we going to prevent the build up of heat in the atmosphere that is produced by even 100% clean and efficient energy sources of the future?

If you look at the chart where you are fixated on the last spike. look at the bottom of the dips.

You will see temperature rising while CO2 is falling. That conflicts with the unarguable consensus.

Then look at the peaks where CO2 is still rising after Temperatures start falling. Another conflict with the unarguable consensus.

***Earth's flora, fauna and lansdcape change a lot over the 100000 years between peaks so some variation is expected****

So variations in the peaks are expected but you keep saying the last one is different. Why is it that only the difference in the last one matter?.

Are we due for a peak or not? If so why is it not caused by the same things that caused the last 4?

When a minor piece of data conflicts, you claim it is minor, unimportant and does not matter.

When a minor thing agrees with your bandwagon mindset, you claim it is very important and proves you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:40 PM

Per Amos:

"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.



So how is reducing CO2 emissions going to turn around global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 06:46 PM

"If there is baby formula with a 1% chance of causing adverse effects, we would all stop using it immediately."

Well it should be easy and should not cost anything to change baby formulas.

Then OTOH if your baby was starving and it was the only thing you have to feed them it would ensure a 99% survival.

Your analogy is not analogous.


438,000 deaths each year from smoking.

Why do people smoke?


Motor vehicle crashes = Deaths per year: 43,200

Why does anybody travel in an automobile?


In midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars.

Hmmmm. Wht does the Givernment allow manufactureres build small cars?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 06:37 PM

From Phys.Org:

"Researchers studying a period of high carbon dioxide levels and warm climate several million years ago have concluded that slow changes such as melting ice sheets amplified the initial warming caused by greenhouse gases.


The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that a relatively small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was associated with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago during the early Pliocene.
Coauthor Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than has been expected on the basis of climate models that only include rapid responses.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to increased atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures. Relatively rapid feedbacks include changes in atmospheric water vapor, clouds, and sea ice. These short-term changes probably set in motion long-term changes in other factors--such as the extent of continental ice sheets, vegetation cover on land, and deep ocean circulation--that lead to additional global warming, Ravelo said.

"The implication is that these slow components of the Earth system, once they have time to change and equilibrate, may amplify the effects of small changes in the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere," she said.

The researchers used sediment cores drilled from the seafloor at six different locations around the world to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels over the past five million years. They found that during the early and middle Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago), when average global temperatures were at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was similar to today's levels, about 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels.

"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.

Provided by University of California - Santa Cruz (news : web)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:40 PM

Here is a good example of subjective research. in this set of charts covering global temperatures over the last 1 million, 150 thousand, 16 thousand and 150 years.

Look at the third chart. Notice that for the last 8000 years or so the average temperature has been declining. During those 8000 years there are dips and peaks far more sudden and extreme that the current exaggerated one shown in the last chart.

Now look at right side of the second chart. It shows the world heating up between 16000 and 4000 years ago and then cooling down beginning 4000 years ago.

Now notice that the third chart which is supposed to be a blow up of the right side of the second chart, does not even match.

You will notice the last chart was scaled at 1 degree while the others are scaled at 5 degrees. Why? To make the most variations seem more dramatic.

Why not make the last chart a blow up of the last 2000 years? That would show a 1 degree drop but nooooo, we can't have anything like that. It goes against the mindset that the smart people are attempting to foist on the unwashed masses and damn do they get arrogant when they are unsuccessful.

It is an example of "we know the world is heating up now how do we cherry pick data to prove it".

I will say this though. If the first chart is accurate and if you take the mean of the first full swing from high to low and draw a line to the mean of the current swing, it shows an overall rise of about 1/4 of a degree C. or 1/2 degree F. over the last million years.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 06:37 AM

I dont think anybody denies that human activity is a factor, I dont like the way "denier" is often used in these discussions.....like "holocaust denier".

Whether it is a MAJOR factor(which I believe), is still very much open to question, so dont let us start waving the tar brush around right now.

To me the important point is, IF we really believe human activity is the major factor in climate change and co2 production....how far are we prepared to go to combat it?

Are we prepared to bring down the system which encourages consumerism, or are we only prepared to tinker with what is already in place?

That's a very difficult question.....but if we are not prepared to answer it, we should just turn over and go back to sleep.
Abusing those who think the cure will be worse than the disease is no answer at all.......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM

More weather=climate silliness.
Right now, it is warmer in Thule Greenland than in Washington DC, so the Arctic must surely be melting, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:08 PM

"Expect about one foot of Global Warming tomorrow in New York.
Perhaps near two feet in DC."

What we got here is "climatary anomaly" ...it has been one of the warmest years on record, and sunshine predicted for later in the week...but we'll take all the holiday wishes.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:49 PM

Thanks to TIA for laying out the details. I am not a scientist.... my degree is in Philosophy, where I studied how to recognize good & bad thinking.

I still consider it 'good thinking' to pay attention to the large **majority** of experts who see some serious data pointing to human causation as part of this situation.

I consider it 'bad thinking' to resort to wishful thinking and cherry-picking odd bits of data and presenting them out of context in order to cast doubt on what we...and those polar bears... can plainly see.

It sure is strange how those who deny the human element in climate change and those who want to defeat US health care reform and those who voted against Obama...etc... seem to have similar political stances. A pattern? Hmmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:19 PM

It is precisely the very recent deviation (since 1975) from the natural cycle that demonstrates that the current conditions are not driven by the same old astronomical cycles. These cycles are inevitable. But, climate change is occurring far more rapidly now than at any time in the past 800000 years. Note that the Vostok ice core record you linked to is at a scale that simply cannot show the industrial revolution, let alone post-1975.
What that graph shows is the 100000 year Milankovitch Cycle. Again, you need to read more carefully because I just did explicitly tell you why the peaks are different. I will do it again in more detail:
There are feedbacks between T and CO2 that make the relationship sensitive and unstable. CO2 can cause warming, which causes outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, and CO2 affects plant growth which for some plants causes them to sequester more CO2, and for others, possibly the opposite. It is way too interdependent to expect a world with a particular flora and distribution of oceans to react exactly the same way 100000 years later when there is a different flora, and different oceans.

As to the overarching question. In the long term, there is no stopping climate change. There is no stopping dramatic climate change. Rate of change is everything. I posted this on the Palin vs. Gore thread, so sorry to everyone for the repeat, but it answers Sawzaw's overarching question:

A static environment is not the goal. We realize that this is impossible. Earth processes will never allow this. Climate has changed in the past, and uniformitarianism assures that it will change in the future.

The issue is not "change" versus "no change". It is "change on a geologic timescale" versus "change on a human time scale". "Natural" climate change is typically slow, proceeding at a pace that allows flora and fauna to adapt or migrate. Yes, there have been sudden global climate changes in the past. And, every one that we know of is associated with a mass extinction event in which the contemporary dominant genera disappear (and Homo is certainly among the modern dominants).

Today, climate is changing, and at a pace never before seen in the geologic record. There is good evidence that human activities contribute to this pace. How shall the world's flora and fauna react? It is proceeding too fast for evolution to help us adapt. The world is too full of anthropogenic barriers to allow sudden mass migrations. So, the response of Earth's biota cannot be uniformitarian.

Shall we throw up our hands and admit that we are quite possibly fuct?

Or, shall we acknowledge the possibility that we are contributing to the pace of climate change, and try to slow it?

Or, you may suggest something else.

A lot of people are simply in denial because trying to slow the pace will certainly have a dramatic effect on their lifestyle. They rationalize this by saying that the science is uncertain or even flawed. But they are not exercising the Precautionary Principle that they use in all other aspects of their lives: If there is baby formula with a 1% chance of causing adverse effects, we would all stop using it immediately. So why, in this instance, are we insisting on 100% certainty that we are harming our babies before we stop? **

Happy Holidays!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM

Exactly TIA. A+ on that one.

If natural Astronomical cycles caused them, why isn't that the reason for the current cycle?

The cycles are almost evenly spaced so aren't we due for one anyway? Maybe mankind has finally been able to replace a natural cycle with one of it's own making.

Now tell me why the peaks are all different?

After you have politely cleared up all my undecidedness with out resorting to personal attacks, please answer my overarching question which in my opinion makes the current debate, which the real smart people claim is over because they have lost their subjectivity, irrelevant and short sighted.

If and after this greenhouse gas "crisis" is solved, How are we going to prevent the build up of heat in the atmosphere that is produced by even 100% clean and efficient energy sources of the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 10:40 AM

Looks like it has not peaked yet. ***Agreed. but it also does show the same rise, then rapid fall. Looks like it is "stuck" on warm*** Also it shows CO2 climbing while temperatures are dropping which conflicts with the CO2 causes warming theory ***where feedbacks are involved, simple analysis of who is leading who cannot be done by looking at a graph of one parameter***, not that I am claiming that the theory is wrong. **good**

It also shows CO2 bottoming about 2000 years ago then shooting up to a peak in the next approx 1000 years. Where was the mass consumption of fossil fuels 1000 years ago? ***none of course*** I look at the chart and I see questions, not answers. ** no worries, I'll answer them for you***

Tell me why the first peak is different from the second peak. What caused that variation? ***Earth's flora, fauna and lansdcape change a lot over the 100000 years between peaks so some variation is expected****

What caused the first four peaks? You are not answering that question. ***get your parakeet to show you my previous post again. The first thing I did was answer your question!****

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM

Looks like it has not peaked yet. Also it shows CO2 climbing while temperatures are dropping which conflicts with the CO2 causes warming theory, not that I am claiming that the theory is wrong.

It also shows CO2 bottoming about 2000 years ago then shooting up to a peak in the next approx 1000 years. Where was the mass consumption of fossil fuels 1000 years ago? I look at the chart and I see questions, not answers.

Tell me why the first peak is different from the second peak. What caused that variation?

What caused the first four peaks? You are not answering that question.

Here is the chart again

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:53 AM

Dear Sawzaw:
Natural astronomical cycles caused them.
Now please have your parakeet tell me why the last one is so different from the first four.
Even a dim-witted bird (which I am sure yours is not) can see that the "peak" is really not so peaky as the first four.
Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:46 AM

Mr Bill:

Can you tell me what caused those previous spikes in Temperature and CO2?

They are all different but seem to be evenly spaced and peak out the same.

We are clearly on the cusp of another spike.

Is the current spike man made?

If so is it stoppable?

Got any answers or do you arrogantly avoid answering by calling someone asking questions shallow & dense?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:33 AM

"He read data from concerned scientists and used his own bully pulpit to spread the word."

He used his bully pulpit to bully the world.

"This week former US vice-president Al Gore told the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen that new data suggests the Arctic polar ice cap may disappear in the summertime in as little as five to seven years from now."

"Gore said polar scientists told him that the latest data "suggest a 75% chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years"."


But climatologist Wieslaw Maslowski, the scientist whose work Gore cited as "fresh" evidence of the claim said, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at . . . I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:28 PM

Merry Christmas to all you blizzard sufferers in the Northeast.

Expect about one foot of Global Warming tomorrow in New York.

Perhaps near two feet in DC.

I here Bing Crosby singing...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM

"I am looking for proof that it is man made and stoppable."

"Proof" is something that happens in math! What we have is strong evidence and data that suggest the problem is real! It is not 'arrogant' to try to get that strong evidence out in as clear a manner as possible. It would be reprehensible to see a potential problem of that magnitude and NOT warn people!
Al Gore didn't invent this situation.He read data from concerned scientists and used his own bully pulpit to spread the word. Al Gore has being reading, writing and studying environmental issues for 20 years or more. I listened to an audio book by him 16 years ago, when I barely knew who who Al Gore was, and was strongly impressed by his thorough treatment of the issues.

You, Sawzaw, are being shallow & dense in your refusal to see the relevance of the data in proper context!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM

PS: even my goldfish knows that when I write "I am not denying" it means I am not denying. Apparently the average temperature has been rising recently but it could suddenly stop like it has in the past. It may have already stopped.

I am looking for proof that it is man made and stoppable. I see too many conflicts and people jumping on the bandwagon.

All these screechy warnings and "your a idiot if you disagree" talk is making be even more questioning.

I think the subjectivity is gone from the issue when people like Al Gore are so cocksure that they refuse to debate anything.

I think he is an arrogant hypocrite, stricken with the bighead (hubris).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 12:35 PM

Dear Tia:

My question was what caused the first four spikes. Was it dinosaur farts?

Every spike is different. My parakeet said so ;}

Amos the climate expert:

"peer reviewed papers studying climate change have been published"

The papers that disagree were rejected. The authors were accused of being part of a conspiracy.

Bingo. All of the peer reviewed papers agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM

from the letter:

"Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena."

*sigh*... I see their concern, but they, being scientists, should know that some dangers can't wait to be addressed until they are all convinced of "solid observational data".

The situation IS complex, as the Earth undergoes 4-5 different cyclical changes on many different time scales... dozens of years (El Ninó), hundreds of years(the worlds currents), 43,000 years (axis tilts), 100,000 years(Earths orbit)...and even millions of years(continental drift). These all affect climate, and are operating semi-indepentently of humans. (I think I left out one)

but... No matter what else is happening, the HUGE amount of fossil fuel burning and deforestation, etc. that we contribute cannot be ignored!

I repeat....even IF human effects were not exacerbating the standard cycles, reducing our carbon footprint and living more in harmony with the Earth cannot help but be positive for everything...except those whose bank accounts are tied to short-term exploitation.

Concerned scientists need to show their concern by gathering the most data possible, not just by providing nay-sayers with fuel for continued denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:40 PM

The Heartland Institute, to which pdq linked, is a conservative/libertarian think tank devoted to "finding free-market solutions" to all social problems. Among their many non-government interference free-market causes, they oppose all tobacco taxes as a method of discouraging smoking (one of the Heartland Institute's biggest contributors is the Philip Morris tobacco company), and they oppose any laws intended to limit smoking in public places. They maintain that any links between smoking and lung cancer is "junk science." They compiled a long list of "scientists" who agree with them.

This is also their answer to anything having to do with climate change and global warming.

By the way, computer generated projections are real science.

Gotta do a bit better than that, pdq!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM

140 top climate scientists ask for proof in an open letter to UN...

                                                 give us real science, not computer-generated predictions

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 01:51 PM

Funny how slogans about "getting the workshy back to work" always seem to go hand in hand with policies which throw hardworking people out of their jobs.

But that's drift, and toxic drift into the bargain.
....................

Evidence won't convince the climate change deniers. Neither the evidence of scientific research, nor of their own eyes. It's the same mindset as with so many other "Conspiracy Theories", it's not really about seeking out the truth.

And, as so often is the case, there actually is a conspiracy, it's just not the one that's being played up. There's a serious bid being made to sabotage efforts to behave rationally to respond to a major crisis that threatens to turn into a catastrophe.

The conspiracy is made up of people with money at stake and with short-term interests to defend, and with money to spend; it's made up of media guns for hire, because there's bestsellers to be assembled and peddled denouncing climate change as a fraud; there are ordinary people clutching at easy words that seem to offer a shield against a frightening future; and there are the politicians who see a way of using all this as a lever to give themselves a free ride into power.

It's comical enough in a way. But it is threatening our very survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:33 AM

"Global warming is happening before our very eyes. All over the world, from the Arctic to Antarctica, scientists are observing the impacts of climate change. In the three years since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was drafted, hundreds of peer reviewed papers studying climate change have been published. A summary of the latest research has been compiled in The Copenhagen Diagnosis, released by the University of NSW and authored by 26 climate scientists. It's a resource heavy report, referencing hundreds of papers. Here are some of the highlights:

At a time when we need to be lowering our carbon footprint, global CO2 emissions have been sharply rising. In fact, the acceleration in fossil fuel CO2 emissions is tracking the worst case scenarios used by the IPCC AR4. Consequently, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years."

Details and charts can be seen here.

"Over the past 25 years, global temperature has warmed at a rate of ~0.2°C per decade. Superimposed over this long term trend is short term variability. Most of these short-term variations are due to internal oscillations like El Niño Southern Oscillation, the 11-year solar cycle and volcanic eruptions. Over periods less than a decade, such short-term variations can outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events can change global temperature by up to 0.2°C over a few years. The solar cycle imposes warming or cooling of 0.1°C over five years. However, neither El Niño, solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to long-term climate trends. Consequently, over the past decade (1999-2008), the warming trend is 0.19°C per decade. consistent with the long term trend."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:47 AM

Sorry, Here it is
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7274/full/nature08555.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:45 AM

Interesting article ion Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7274/full/nature08555.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,thurg
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:47 AM

Britain will be throwing 1.5 billion at the problem. Just heard it on the BBC lunchtime news. It turns my stomach to see this clown Brown taking taxpayers money and handing it out to any overseas tinpot group that can't run their own country. In the meantime, our local hospital faces closure due to lack of funds. Our two schools need 2.2 million spend on them and the government said "Sorry no money".

This government must be booted out next year. Hopefully the next one will get the workshy off their ass and into employment. Government figures show unemployment isn't rising as expected. The answer is very simple. Because nobody wants to live on unemployment benefit and get hassled by interviews, so they sign on the sick and leech. These figures are never released.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 12:13 AM

While it is not a surprise

never forget that the most money spent to debunk and delay climate change research and response is Saudi Arabia. As partners with the Arabs firms like BP and Exon have merely been the local architects as well as Bush political appointees to counter any and all research, findings and pro active programs to reverse global warming effects.

When drill baby drill folks repeat "there ain't no such thang as climate change, they are speaking for the interests of Saudi Arabia and their petroleum sub subsideries that refine our gas.

Those guys have hard cash to pass out to people like the Bush family and Sarah Palin but your average Joe just gets screwed at the pump and dooms his future family for someone else's short term profit.

Go ahead and fight for outrageous profits for Saudi Arabia, but don't whine about all of the terrorists of 9-11 being Saudis.
You should not have it both ways. If you support the No Global warming Mantra then you support Saudi interests above the USA and in turn support the Saudi terrorists of 9-11

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 12:03 AM

BTW, I encourage EVERYONE to go to the website Sawzaw linked to.

It is www.skepticalscience.com.

I suspect that Sawz hopes that you to only see the chart he blicky'ed, but please look at the entire site:

www.skepticalscience.com

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:50 PM

I am perfectly willing to tackle the question!!!!!!!!!

Do you see any difference between the first four spikes and the last.

Of course you do!

Please forget politics. Look at the first four spikes. Now look at the last (recent) spike.

What is the difference?

Describe the difference.

My 11 year old saw it immediately.

She is too young to know what a LIBRUL is or to have an arrogant bunker mentality.

Please try to understand my previous posts on methane and water vapor.

Methane and water vapor are clearly more powerful GHG's, but CO2 is the one that we humans have leverage on.

I am very sorry to say this, but despite your obvious (no sarcasm) intelligence, you seem to be ignoring which one we humans have almost complete (albeit with feedback) control over.

This is not politics. It is survival of the human race as we know it.

Life on Earth is in no danger whatsoever.

NONE.

What is threatened is the dominance of Homo Sapiens.

I have no particular love for them as a species (although there are individuals that I love dearly).

If you are willing to accept the demise of Homo S. as the dominant specie, you are on the right track (and not necessarily a bad one IMHO).

But, please do not pretend that human civilization is not threatened by global climate change. If you do, your politics shine through, and your scientific literacy is monstrously in question.

Sorry.

Love ya.

But there it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:53 PM

I repeat, Personally I do not deny that there is some global warming. My question is what is really causing it and if anything can be done about it. I am questioning the alarmist consensus.

There is so much conflicting information. If someone could come up with a chart from a reputable source showing CO2 rising followed by temperature rising and sea level rising going back millions of years, it would be convincing.

And yes, all of those things can be determined back that far.

But even then it might prove that rising Co2 causes temperature rise today's but it would not prove that todays global warming is manmade.

Why? Because in this chart you can see five spikes in CO2 and temperature. What caused the first four spikes? Obviously they were not man made.


And no one here is willing to tackle my question about the future, after and if the current one is or can be solved.

Every energy source even if it produces no CO2 creates heat. This heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The more people on earth, the more heat to build up.

Do we need to build a big adjustable solar shield on space? it has been proposed.

Al Gore was just asked what in the atmosphere traps that heat and causes global warming. The names all of the gases and pointed out that CO2 was the main heat trapper.

He chose not to mention water vapor. He was not being honest. He refuses to debate the matter because he claims he is right and anybody that disagrees with him is wrong. Arrogance pure and simple. I am not claiming he is absolutely wrong.

If he is so right,a debate would be a piece of cake and lend him more credibility.

Refusing to debate takes away his credibility.

An intelligent person is constantly checking his conclusions to make sure they are correct. Otherwise they have that arrogant bunker mentality so often attributed to GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:47 PM

KP, thanks for that link - it isn't what I was thinking of, but is more grist to the mill.

There are three different types of plants with regard to the way they process CO2, and each reacts differently to changes in level - my memory is rubbish when I haven't read something, and I heard this in lectures and conversation.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM

Sorry for all the typos above....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM

Think of CO2 as the handle on a spigot. It provides huge leverage over climate, but is clearly not the whole story.

Water Vapor and Methane are far more potent greenhouse gasses. Melting permafrost release CO2 and methane. Rising temperatures enhance evaporation and increase water vapor. A small rise in T due to CO2 creates an even larger rise due to enhance water and methane in the atmosphere. And rising T cause rising CO2 as well. Their is no simple one-way cause and effect. McGrath used exactly the correct phrase above - positive feedback. Climate and all of the above gasses are in a feedback loop.

That has been true for billions of years. What has changed in the last few hundred to thousand is the increased anthropogenic emissions - CO2 among them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:30 PM

"On this chart temperature rise precedes CO2 rises."

I think you must have linked to the wrong chart Sawzaw, because the one you have linked to doesn't appear to show that happening.

In any case, so what if it the charts had demonstrated that happening? One of the effects of global warming is that CO2 levels do go up in a process of positive feedback. One of the biggest worries at present is that, as the permafrost melts, it will release enormous quantities of trapped CO2, causing yet further warming. In fact the CO2 released in this way is liable to far exceed the amounts we have released through our way of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM

the claim temperature rise precedes CO2 rises. So how can CO2 case the rise in temperature is false, a ruse and science
fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM

"temperature rise precedes CO2 rises. So how can CO2 case the rise in temperature?"

Tim Lambert famously parodied this argument with "chickens cannot lay eggs because they have been observed to hatch out of them."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:01 AM

Sorry Sawzaw - your two posts right after mine certainly seem to be denying there is a problem, thus proving my point. So there is no knee-jerking here.
Please correct me if I am wrong. What did you write that acknowledges the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:32 AM

Figures lie and liars figure but

answer me this.


If you had to put your child on an airplane that was Guaranteed to crash at a certain percentage, what percentage would you accept?
Truthfully you do accept a certain failure rate already, so would you accept 50 - 50?

10% ?

5% ?

1% ?


Well an increase in Earth temperatures over 100 years is only about 95% certain.

While all the forces in the Universe are always in flux such as the Sun being very cool right now, and the 900% increase in CO2 on Earth since the 1800's, the liklihood of rising Earth temperatures (From whatever cause !) is like putting your child on an airplane that has a high probability of crashing.

Except that in the climate scenario, you HAVE TO put your child on that "plane".








I know people who feel that Sarah Palin has put the climate change "debate" to bed. But when asked the airplane crash question they do give pause.




So

stick that in your pipe and chew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 07:52 AM

Yes, other nutrients are needed, just like in your garden. Soild in mMany areas of the world are nutrient rich. Other nutrient poor areas, like parts of the warm and damp rain forest, plants rely on rapid nutrient recycling. Significant changes in climate can negatively impact this rapid recycling.

Ocean and freshwater plants gets nutrients from land sources and upwelling of nutrients from ocean depths and the seafloor. Wind storms (especially in the winter and spring) and currents bring the nutrients to upper layers, where sunlight is present.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 07:31 AM

Penny S
I think this is the report you were interested in. Plant growth depends on the availability of various nutrients, not just CO2.
KP
Plants reduce less of our carbon mess

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:50 PM

TIA: If you belay the knee jerks and read what I wrote you will see I am not denying there is a problem.

On this chart temperature rise precedes CO2 rises. So how can CO2 case the rise in temperature.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:41 PM

"There are more storms now off the coast of the US turning into hurricanes."

2009 Atlantic hurricane season was below average in activity, with a total of nine named storms and three hurricanes. For the first time since 2006, no storm brought hurricane force winds to the United States, and only four storms made landfall anywhere at tropical storm force.

"The sea level has been measured by reputable scientists and is rising"

It has been rising at a steady pace since 1915 on this chart. If it was tied in to global warming, how come it did not abate in the '70's when there was so much shouting about global cooling and it has not risen at a faster pace recently. Remember the hockey stick curve?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 10:22 PM

Fer Crissakes. Of course the UN can't fix the problem. But you can. And I can. And we all can.
But, first you have to stop pretending the problem does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 10:14 PM

I certainly hope the UN will fix this problem in the same way it has fixed other problems in the world.

Here is a list:

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM

Global warming or climate crisis doesn't insist that there is warming all over the planet.
It sometimes creates terrible temperature drops suddenly in certain areas. In the meantime, polar ice caps are melting and Australia and Africa are becoming victims
of desertification.   There are more storms now off the coast of the US turning into hurricanes. The sea level has been measured by reputable scientists and is rising.

The question "where's global warming" misses the point. This is a climate crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 06:52 PM

Now why would the UN want no wars? Because it was set up to prevent them? Wars are good? The disunity that led to the world wars was seen as an evil at the time, when people knew what the effects of war were. Many of the civilians of the world knew then, and still do, what war means.

Methinks our guest does not know his history, and does not live where war has ravaged of late.

Global warming is not a term coined to control. It is descriptive. There is atmospheric warming. It is happening globally, and recorded by several bodies under the control of various authorities. What else do you call it?

Oh, while the average temperature smoothed out around the world is rising, there will be places which cool - the UK will reach Canadian temperatures if the Gulf Stream stops. Currently, I gather the USA is not as heated as other places.

The conspiracy is not to promote global warming as a means of controlling the people. It is to blind the people to the science.

Look to see who pays the piper.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM

rich countries will be permitted to emit twice as much CO2 as poor countries ?

2 % tax on GDP of nations, plus tax on travel, all going to The World Bank, IMF, WTO....abandoning Kyoto, and bypassing the UN ?

conspiracy ? read the text of the secretive Copenhagen document,,,, now that's some scary shit...

something rotten in Denmark.... smells like NWO

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:00 PM

And smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:38 AM

"Let the world take care of itself for pity's sake."

The Earth would be in no danger if we did exactly that. Problem is - we are not.


"Temperature drives CO2 levels."

On this subject, Tim Lambert of Univ. NSW, AU famously stated:
"CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. See also my forthcoming paper: 'Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them'."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM

The people who want to believe in conspiracy theories about the UN and who don't want to understand the scientific research about climate change already have their minds made up about the issue.

For those who are interested in understanding climate change, here is a bit of info from National Geographic. They have 2 pages on their web site called "Global Warming Fast Facts". Click the second page link to go to "Are Humans Causing It".

National Geographic, Global Warming

snip
quote
"...Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it....

Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less...."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Phallan
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 10:19 AM

"Global Warming."

This is a term coined by the UN and used like an enemy to unite the people. When people are united they are easily manipulated. The UN wants no wars. It wants no nations. It wants to govern and get its illuminate rich. George Orwell was correct. This is where we are at.

Look folks, it's simple. Just ignore the big pigs who govern. If you want to conserve energy do so, if not don't worry. Don't pay unnecessary taxes. But most importantly don't vote at all. That is the only way to return to sovereignty and sanity.

There appears to be higher global temperatures right now but soon there will be lower global temperatures. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas it is a catalyst. Climate warmists declare doom over a geologically recent 180 parts per million increase in the gas. The largest green house gas is water vapour. ( oh God! Now water is scary stuff)

Temperature drives CO2 levels. Increase CO2 drives increased carbon sinks. Let the world take care of itself for pity's sake. IT DOES NOT NEED OUR HELP!

P

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM

The effects of increased CO2 are not as simple as may seem at first. We all know that plants use the stuff in photosynthesis, but above a certain level there are other factors that kick in and prevent the plants benefitting further. Something to do with pressure. I need to check up on the details, but I have a friend who has been researching this sort of thing with regard to planetary habitability, and he has checked atmospheric stuff with a colleague in the Met Office.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 02:52 PM

an expert on warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

My post below, which you accuse of presumpption and being ill-informed, is, unfortunately, a quote from the BBC, not my own, citing environmental experts.

Here's a bit more:

"The WMO said global temperatures were 0.44C (0.79F) above the long-term average.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in North America were there conditions that were cooler than average," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

"We are in a warming trend - we have no doubt about it."

Mr Jarraud emphasised that the final analysis would not be complete until early next year; but the UN agency always issues a summary during the annual climate negotiations in order that delegates have the latest information.
Graphic showing global average land surface temperatures (Image: BBC)

The WMO uses three temperature sets - one from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and two from the US, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the space agency Nasa.

Asked whether the controversy surrounding e-mails hacked from CRU could have any bearing on the results, Mr Jarraud replied that all three datasets showed the same result.

Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office made the same point: "The datasets are all independent, and they all show warming," she said.
        
Graphic of global warming projection (Image: BBC)

Global warming: A future glimpse

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale.

Although the Met Office has 1998 as the single warmest year, that coincided with strong El Nino conditions - the warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific that releases heat stored in the deep ocean into the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally.

Now, after a period of La Nina conditions which depressed temperatures in 2008, another El Nino is developing; and it is this, combined with greenhouse warming, that is pushing temperatures upwards again, according to Dr Pope.

She declined to give a forecast for the next few years - the Met Office is releasing that later during this summit. ..."

P'raps your advice should be taken to heart on your own side.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:50 PM

There have been some things said in the last few threads here which to me defy common sense.

Please keep in mind the influence of the sun which we observe every day.
the sun shining on the ground produces many orders of magnitude of heat than anything that man does the problem with greenhouse gasses is that they keep a percentage of heat from radiating back to space.

Water tends to self regulate. On the one hand water vapor may trap heat near the surface, on the other, clouds, an obvious manifestation of water in the atmosphere, reflect much much more heat than air saturated to pre-cloud levels can trap.

In North America, especially in the southern, in my experience, the droughts have only been serious problems to those employing irrigation. So the problem is not people. It is lawns and monoculture.

In the west, particularly California, the problem is the same. However the dearth of snow in the Sierras means that the water resources will support an ever decreasing level of activity. Can California remain America's fruit basket?

Only the intentionally ignorant would deny that humans are increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. And knowing that Only fools would wait to see if that would affect the ecosystem.

We are living under two potential avalanches. The polar ice caps and the millions of acres of permafrost. The tipping point awaits. If both significantly melt more than they already have. Coastal geography will significantly change for the worse.

It would seem to me that the risk is much to great to ignore. The disaster in New Orleans looked inevitable. A pop song was written about it for gosh sakes.

Do we really need to wait for President Sarah Palin to promise gondola launches for the remaining buildings of lower Manhattan before this is taken seriously.

Don't look it as alarmism. Think of it as the passengers of a bus traveling toward the center of a lake with thinning ice. They know that eventually the ice will give way. They are doing anything they can to get the driver to at the very least, slow down.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:28 PM

Some interesting stuff on BBC World Service which I'm hoping should be available outside the UK

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:03 PM

Amos:

Tia has a much more coherent, original and believable answer than yours. You tend to browbeat others without demonstrating any knowledge is the matter. It is as if you know you are right even if you don't know the subject matter because so many others think the same thing. A herd mentality that does not require the hard thinking and decision making. The Emperor's new clothes scenario. The Bloods against the Crips.

However more and more Experts are reversing thier opinion on the matter.

Personally I do not deny that there is global some warming. My question is what is really causing it and if anything can be done about it. I am questioning the alarmist consensus.

Burning fossil fuels should be replaced by solar, wind, hydro and hydro ASAP if only to reduce or dependence on foreign energy sources and negative health issues. Fossil fuels and nuclear should be used sparingly as a bridge until an ultimate energy source {fusion?] is perfected.

However any energy source, no matter how much CO2 it produces or does not produce, creates heat that is trapped by the atmosphere.

How are we going to overcome that? We will need even less CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere than the was when this so called man made global warming began so that the heat can radiate out into space.

Will Cap and Trade do that? Did ethanol from corn do any good?

Not my words:
"Please make the effort to educate yourself about what the other side has to say. An excellent place to start would be to view The Global Warming Swindle, featuring some 17 eminent scientists, many of whom were for a good long time situated prominently in the Global Warming camp (among whom were a founding editor for Scientific American Magazine, as well as a founding member of Green Peace). I believe you'd find the list fascinating. Even more fascinating is getting to see and hear these scientists themselves explain how it is they came to reconsider their views on Global Warming"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Brian Peters
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:56 AM

"I'm a lot more worried about deforestation and desertification than I am about carbon emissions... We need to protect our forests and reclaim lost forestlands."

Climate change = more desertification. Protecting forests = reduced carbon emissions. A = bad, B = good. No contradiction there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:01 AM

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Met Office scientists have been giving details of the new analysis at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

The WMO said global temperatures were 0.44C (0.79F) above the long-term average.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in North America were there conditions that were cooler than average," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

"We are in a warming trend - we have no doubt about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 09:26 AM

Interesting:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2009/12-07-09-eng.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM

BEcause some people respect human life as the ultimate resource, PDQ, believing that it is th eonly organic form f life capable os intelligence.

Others may disagree that there really is such an organism. YMMV.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM

" I am not a climate change scare monger - I am more of a human overpopulation scare monger since that is the root of *all* environmental problems..."

Well, I have said nearly the same thing on various Mudcat topics for years.

We do not have a water crisis in the western US, we have a people crisis (as in too many).

Same thing with wars. Mostly caused by the fact that a given group has inadequate amount of land that they control for their population. They think the answer is to land that belongs to others. See Albania, et al.

Perhaps someone can explain why we have a "climate change summit" going on right now, not a "population crisis summit"?

Rain forests? Being cut down to make room for excess people.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad, but the Climate Summit folks meeting right now in Denmark to stop C0₂ emissions, arrived in 1500 limousines and 150 large poluting airplanes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM

To be (I hope) more optimistic, this link is a review of some of the developments in renewables technology likely to appear over the next few years. Its part of a larger booklet prepared for the international all-energy conference in Aberdeen earlier this year.

Current Status of Renewables

In summary, yes there are technologies but its going to cost a lot to implement enough of them. Also guess which country has installed the most hydropower and is already second in wind power? The answer may surprise some.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:11 PM

Good point, TIA. I'm a lot more worried about deforestation and desertification than I am about carbon emissions. I think CO2 is a bit player in the scenario, and its importance is being greatly overemphasized by the popular Global Warming theories. We need to protect our forests and reclaim lost forestlands.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM

LH asks:

"Plant life benefits from an increase in atmospheric CO2, does it not? Increased plant life benefits other living creatures, does it not?"

Answer is of course "Yes".

But at the same time that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, we are decimating rain forests, and paving vegetated areas, and desertification is rampant in many areas - thereby completely undermining Earth's ability to naturally equilibrate.

FWIW: I am not a climate change scare monger - I am more of a human overpopulation scare monger since that is the root of *all* environmental problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM

KP posted above a link to a good cartoon of the carbon cycle.

Quick summary:
Very true that plants use a lot of CO2 -- land plants absorb about 440 Gt of CO2 per year. Various biological and chemical processes in the ocean absorb another 330 Gt. This is where it is "going".
As to where it is "coming from": Consumption of vegetation by other organisms produces 220 Gt per year. Respiration by plants produces another 220 Gt, and the ocean releases about as much as it absorbs, or 330 Gt. Humans are producing a paltry 26.4 Gt per year in emissions.
But see how perfect the balance is without human emissions?
And what happens to these human CO2 emissions?
About 40% are absorbed (mostly into an increasingly carbonized = acidifying ocean...a potentially huge problem in its own right). The rest remains in the atmosphere for a net annual gain. Natural changes of about 100 ppm in the past have occurred over thousands of years. Atmospheric CO2 is now at its highest level in 800,000 years, and the latest increase of 100 ppm took only 120 years! Something unatural is definitely going on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:00 PM

Thanks Amos, I am aware of the network, many nations contributed to the network which supplied valuable information.

A promising new piece of equipment is in the final stages of development at Canada's Bedford Institute of Oceanography. It's calles an SEACYCLER. The equipment is moored near thedeep ocean bottom for long periods. Each day a probe is sent up to the surface measuring oceaographic properties (and back down again. When there is a passing satellite, it transmits the data. It is energy efficient, operating for a year on about 500 flashlight batteries stored inside. The equipment is being developed in association with Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of Bremen, IFM-Geomar (Germany), the National Oceanography Center (Southampton) and a private ocean researtch company, ODIM (Brooke Ocean).


The device is based on a similar piece of equipment developed at the same research facility....the SEACYCLER....that is moored under the Arctic ice cap, and sends a probe up each day to measure the fresh melt water under the ise. This piece of equipment operated on its own for a year, and is picked up by a vessel and a years worth of data is then anaylsed.

Here is a link:http://www.brooke-ocean.com/icycler.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:59 PM

Plant life benefits from an increase in atmospheric CO2, does it not? Increased plant life benefits other living creatures, does it not?

Here are the stats on the composition of the Earth's atmosphere:

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2] ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see Gas volume#Partial volume)

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)

Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)

Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 387 ppmv (0.0387%)

Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)

Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)

Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)

Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)

Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)

Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9x10−6%)

Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0% to 7x10−6%)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2x10−6%)

Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1x10−6%)

Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv

Ammonia (NH3) trace

Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface



Okay....so CO2 comprises less than 4 hundredths of a percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Oxygen comprises about 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor comprises about 1 to 4% of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level...about 4 tenths of a percent over the full atmosphere.

Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10 times the amount of CO2.

Anyone smell something odd in the current global warming scare as applied to human-based carbon emissions? I do.

Here's the webpage with those stats I pasted in above:

Earth's atmosphere

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM

When the Sun shines, plants work all day to remove atmospheric CO₂ and convert it to the nutrients that support both plant and animal life. You need only think of how much plant life exists on planet Earth to know that plants will take out much more CO₂ than Man could possibly produce:



CARBON DIOXIDE AND LIFE
By Adip Said

Carbon Dioxide is an organic compound formed by one atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen (O=C=O).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural constituent of the atmosphere with a density of 747 mg per cubic meter of air. Its concentration in the composition of air is roughly 0.032%; however, of all the organic compounds, carbon dioxide is by far the most important one for the sustainability of the biosphere (the whole of life on Earth).

Without CO2 the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals.

Through photosynthesis, organisms with chlorophyll take in atmospheric CO2 or dissolve CO2 in water to form more complex molecules, such as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids. The general formula of photosynthesis is as follows:

6CO2 + 6H2O + Light = C6H12O6 (Glucose) + 6O2

Carbon Dioxide is fixed in the chloroplast stroma. Thus fixed, carbon dioxide is then used by cytoplasm to synthesize sucrose.

An organism with chlorophyll absorbs light, CO2 and water from its surrounding environment. The water molecule is broken and the Hydrogen molecule bonds with carbon dioxide molecules to form glucose. Oxygen from the water molecule is released to the atmosphere, whereas the energy provided by photons is stored in the bonds of the glucose molecule.

Any nutritional chain begins with producer organisms; that is, with those organisms that produce their own food. These organisms are called autotrophs. Plants are autotrophs because they produce their own food; the raw materials for photosynthesis are water, carbon dioxide and light.

It has been determined experimentally that the density of carbon dioxide needed for the optimal development of all kinds of plants is 895 mg per cubic meter of air (about 500 ppmv).

Certain plants grow much better in atmospheres with very high densities of carbon dioxide; for example, the pteridophyte and certain species of conifers develop more successfully in humid atmospheres with 5000 ppmv of carbon dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide is not an environmental polluting agent because it is not detrimental or poisonous to life. Carbon dioxide cannot kill living cells by altering their structure or physiology in the same way, for example, as a snake venom will. It can only suffocate an organism when Oxygen is not present at a sufficient concentration to sustain life...

{last portion cut off for space considerations}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM

Two things on water:

1) It is quite stable in the atmosphere. If too much vapor is present, it condenses and falls as precipitation.

2) Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas. Since evaporation is directly proportional to temperature, there is a huge positive feedback - anything that raises temperature raises evaporation, which hugely raises temperature. That is one of the reasons the relatively weak greenhouse effect of CO2 is so important. Similar effect for methane - warming thaws the permafrost, which releases methane, which hugely aids warming. The focus is on CO2 because it is a controllable emission with huge climate leverage (due to the feedbacks described above).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM

Crap.
that one doesn't work.
Sorry...here is the URL to cut and paste:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1961&base2=1990&radius=1200&pol=reg

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:14 PM

Ooops.
clicky 2 above points to the wrong map.
Current temperature anomalies are here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1961&base2=1990&radius=1200&pol=reg

clicky 2 for real

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:13 PM

People keep calling CO₂ a pollutant. That is absurd:


CARBON DIOXIDE AND HUMAN HEALTH
By Nasif Nahle

Pollutants are dangerous compounds for living beings.

Like water, CO2 is vital for life on Earth; thus, CO2 is not a pollutant or contaminant.

The specific heat of CO2 is 850 J/Kg K, which means carbon dioxide is able to absorb, store and emit heat. However, we cannot take this property into account when considering if CO2 is a pollutant because Water has a specific heat of 1,996 J/kg K, which means it is more efficient than CO2 at absorbing, emitting and storing heat. Water, like CO2, is vital for living beings.

CO2 densities have increased to more than 4000 ppmv in some geological eras, for example, during the Permian Period. When CO in the terrestrial atmosphere has reached densities this high in the past, life flourished abundantly. Consequently, we cannot consider such a high concentration of atmospheric CO2 as "pollution".

CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them.

In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either...

{last portion cut off for space considerations}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:05 PM

Good question LH. And timely. there was a paer last month in Science magazine on exactly this (Mann et al., 2009).

Turns out the "Medieval Warm Period" or MCA, was a highly locallized phenomenon. It affected the North Atlantic, but other regions of the globe were actually cooler. Thus, there was no "Global Climate Change" at that time. The Earth was close to the baseline 1961-1990 global average temperature.

In contrast, today, all regions of the Earth are warmer than the 1961-1990 baseline. It is truly a global phenomenon.

Compare the temperature anomlies for the MCA on this map:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content-nw/full/326/5957/1256/F2
clicky 1


With modern temperature anomalies on this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content-nw/full/326/5957/1256/F3
clicky 2

Big difference between then and now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:01 PM

Ed:

Peter Niiler, an oceanographer of international repute working from Scripps, has spent the last twenty years building a network of drifter buouys which collect and transmit data on ocean currents. The drifters have built up a vast wealth of data points over the years from which Niiler was able -- with some additional satellite observations and some very advanced math--work out the existence of what has come to be know as Niiler striations in the current formations of the major oceans. See this page at Scripps and this piece. More on the Niiler drifter program.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:37 PM

I posted some material to indicate why the ocean is important to climate and carbon uptake. The oceans are hard to study and model because they are vast, complex (differing in currents, salinity, chemical and biological content), deep, salty, cold, stormy, and pressure increases as you go down.   Many ocean areas fall out of any national jurisdiction....but many ocean processes cover vast ocean areas (for example the Global conveyor belt) Satellites can only give so much information. Ship research is necessary.

Offshore ship research is costly....upwards of 30 K a day. (and onne day doesen't get you far). There are only so many specialized research ships under a few flags, and very few that can operate and conduct research in while moving, and in extreme weather and ice. Most world nations do not have these ships. Many science ships are getting older, and science budgets are getting smaller (for this type of research) and costs are in creasing. Only a few nations have science budgets to do research beyond their own coastal areas.

There are only a few pieces of specialized equipment that can operate remotely collecting data on the deep ocean. Again, they must be built big to withstand pressures, storms and hazards.. They must be able to be efficient...as they operate on batteries in a cold sourrounding. They are very expensive and to be most useful be able to pass information on to sattelites. (Gliders, moorings, pop up equipment are a few).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM

The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Look up some stuff about that. Study its comparative effects alongside those of CO2.

Then study the lengthy medieval warming period when you could farm in Greenland, as the Vikings did, and that's why they called it "Greenland". What caused that warming period? Rampant industrialization? Increased human-based CO2 emmissions?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 01:47 PM

Thanks to GUEST,KP as well as Burton Coggles and Ed T for raising the level of discouse just a bit.

The bio of Dr. Roger Ravelle was posted because everybody should know who he was. Simple, eh?

Dr. Ravelle is where the concept of C0₂ as a "greenhouse gas"started, early 1950s.

He was an honorable man and did not adjust data to fit his politics. He was a pioneer in the study of oceans and the mechanics of their storage of C0₂.

As far as physics/chemistry types vs biology/natural science types, the gulf can be large.

People who do not know about the importance of C0₂ in photosynthesis may not really know where the stuff really goes. Google a few articles on the subject and keep an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM

AAArgh!

I wrote a longish exposition to pdq's second question/comment and it vanished when I tried to preview it.

I'll try again.

I said: "Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

PDQ said' Well, 35% of all atmospheric carbon is returned to the Earth each year, so "stuff" produced by factories during the early days of the Industrial Revolution is long gone.

Also, you seem to be a physics/chemistry type. You did not mention that plants take in CO2 and give us back Oxygen is such quantities that the human-sourced CO2 insignificant.'

I think the numbers look like this:
800 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 in atmosphere
2000 Gt in various biomass sinks
9 Gt added each year, 5 Gt removed by various 'sinks'
61 Gt involved in plant photosynthesis but 60 Gt returned by plant respiration. So 1 Gt acts as a 'sink' (included in 5 Gt above)
carbon cycle diagram

These people reckon that it will take a long time to lower CO2 down to pre-industrial levels
Carbon is forever

But like you say, I'm a physics/chemistry guy so some of this plant science is not my forte!

cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:04 PM

Sawzaw:

The graphs you keep providing for Amos to interpret have very cleverly chosen axis limits. One begins at 1998 - which is an historic peak, so of course all that follows looks like cooling.

Another starts at 1979 - similar trick.

The third starts at maybe 2000 (the legend partially covers the axis) - same trick.

The farther back you look, the more pronounced the current warming trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:57 AM

TO answer the OP:

Right here,

Temperatures are changing in the lower atmosphere - from the Earth's surface all the way through the stratosphere (9-14 miles above the Earth's surface). Scientists are working to document temperature trends and determine their causes.
Surface Temperature Change

Figure 1: This diagram (See link above) shows global mean surface temperature anomalies over land and ocean from 1880 to 2008. The anomalies are in comparison to the 1901-2000 mean. From the late 1800s to the late 1930s, temperatures were below the long-term mean. Between the late 1930s and late 1970s temperatures ranged above and below the long-term mean. Since 1980 temperatures have been well above the long-term mean.         
Figure 1: Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2008. Courtesy NOAA (Surface temperature records such as the one shown here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at observing stations in and around cities).


United States Surface Temperature Trends

Observations compiled by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record.

Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979.

Thumbnail map of the United States, depicting annual mean temperature anomalies from 1901 to 2005. The map shows which areas of the country that have warmed or cooled during this period. Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S. during this period, with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979.

Figure 2: Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies 1901-2005. Click on Thumbnail for full size image. Data courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now "unequivocal," based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2008 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2008 Surface Temperature Analysis:

    * Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
    * The Earth's surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
    * The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.

Additionally (from IPCC, 2007):

    * The warming trend is seen in both daily maximum and minimum temperatures, with minimum temperatures increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures.
    * Land areas have tended to warm faster than ocean areas and the winter months have warmed faster than summer months.
    * Widespread reductions in the number of days below freezing occurred during the latter half of the 20th century in the United States as well as most land areas of the Northern Hemisphere and areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
    * Average temperatures in the Arctic have increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years.

The IPCC has concluded that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the mid-20th century is very likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). During the first half of the last century, there was likely less human impact on the observed warming, and natural variations, such as changes in the amount of radiation received from the sun, likely played a more significant role.


Tropospheric Temperature Change

Measurements of the Earth's temperature taken by weather balloons (also known as radiosondes) and satellites from the surface to 5-8 miles into the atmosphere - the layer called the troposphere - also reveal warming trends. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center:

    * For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22°F per decade near the surface and 0.27°F per decade in the mid-troposphere. The 2006 global mid-troposphere temperatures were 1.01°F above the 1971-2000 average, the third warmest on record.
    * For the period beginning in 1979, when satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures began, various satellite data sets for the mid-troposphere showed similar rates of warming — ranging from 0.09°F per decade to 0.34°F per decade, depending on the method of analysis.


Stratospheric Temperature Change

Weather balloons and satellites have also taken temperature readings in the stratosphere – the layer 9-14 miles above the Earth's surface. This level of the atmosphere has cooled. The cooling is consistent with observed stratospheric ozone depletion since ozone is a greenhouse gas and has a warming effect when present. It's also likely that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere are contributing to cooling in the stratosphere as predicted by radiative theory (Karl et al., 2006).


Recent Scientific Developments

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) recently published the report "Product 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences," which addresses some of the long-standing difficulties in understanding changes in atmospheric temperatures and the basic causes of these changes. According to the report:

    * There is no discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.
    * Errors identified in the satellite data and other temperature observations have been corrected. These and other analyses have increased confidence in the understanding of observed climate changes and their causes.
    * Research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.
    * An unresolved issue is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict greater warming higher in the atmosphere than at the surface. However, greater warming higher in the atmosphere is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known.

Top of page
References

    * IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Exit EPA DisclaimerContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
    * National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. Exit EPA Disclaimer National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
    * Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors, 2006. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:45 AM

Your point?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM

Here is a bio of the "Father of Global Warming":


Roger Revelle
   
    Born: March 7, 1909
       Seattle, Washington
    Died:July 15, 1991 (aged 82)
       San Diego, California

    PhD: University of California, Berkeley
   
    UC San Diego's first college is named Revelle College in his honor.

Roger Revelle was born in Seattle to William Roger Revelle and Ella Dougan, and grew up in southern California, graduating from Pomona College in 1929 with early studies in geology and then earning a Ph.D. in oceanography from the University of California, Berkeley. Much of his early work in oceanography took place at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in San Diego. He was also Oceanographer for the Navy during WWII. He became director of SIO from 1950 to 1964. He stood against the UC faculty being required to take an anti-communist oath during the Joseph McCarthy period. He served as Science Advisor to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall during the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s, and was President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1974).

Revelle was deeply involved in the growth of oceanography in the United States and internationally after World War II. Working for the Navy in the late 1940s, he helped to determine which projects gained funding, and he promoted the idea that the Navy ought to support "basic research" instead of only trying to build new technology. At Scripps he launched several major long-range expeditions in the 1950s, including the MIDPAC, TRANSPAC (with Canada and Japan), EQUAPAC, and NORPAC, each traversing a different part of the Pacific Ocean. He and other scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography helped the U.S. government to plan nuclear weapons tests, in the hope that oceanographers might make use of the data. Revelle was one of the committee chairmen in the influential National Academy of Sciences studies of the biological effects of atomic radiation (BEAR), the results of which were published in 1956. In 1952, along with Dr. Seibert Q. Duntley, he successfully moved the MIT Visibility Lab to SIO with financial support of the U.S. Navy. Along with oceanographers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Revelle planned the American contributions to the oceanographic program of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). He became the first president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, an international group of scientists devoted to advising on international projects, and he was a frequent advisor to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, created in 1960.

Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). During planning for the IGY, under Revelle's directorship, SIO participated in and later became the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.

In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time. Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was "the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time."

Revelle and Suess described the "buffer factor", now known as the "Revelle factor", which is a resistance to atmospheric carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean surface layer posed by bicarbonate chemistry. Essentially, in order to enter the ocean, carbon dioxide gas has to partition into one of the components of carbonic acid: carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, or protonated carbonic acid, and the product of these many chemical dissociation constants factors into a kind of back-pressure that limits how fast the carbon dioxide can enter the surface ocean. Geology, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry ... this amounted to one of the earliest examples of "integrated assessment", which 50 years later became an entire branch of global warming science.

During the late 1950s, Revelle fought for the establishment of a University of California campus in San Diego. He had to contend with the UC University Board of Regents who would have preferred merely to expand the University of California, Los Angeles campus rather than create an entirely new campus in San Diego. He also faced local San Diego politicians and businessmen who tried to undermine establishing the new campus near the original Scripps Institute in La Jolla by suggesting it be placed in less optimal sites in San Diego proper, such as near San Diego State University or in Balboa Park. The watershed decision was made in 1959, with the first graduate students enrolled in 1960, and the first undergraduates in 1964.

Revelle's struggle to acquire land for the new campus put him in competition with Jonas Salk, and Revelle lost some of what he called the "best piece of land we had" on UCSD's eventual Torrey Pines site to the fledgling Salk Institute. In later years Revelle continued to show some animosity toward Salk, once saying, "He is a folk hero, even though he is... not very bright."

When at Scripps and while building UCSD, Revelle also had to deal with a La Jolla community that refused to rent or sell property to Jews. In addition to battling the anti-semitic restrictive covenant of La Jolla real estate, Revelle helped found a new housing subdivision for Scripps professors, partially because some of them would not have been allowed to live in La Jolla.

Revelle left Scripps in 1963 and founded the Center for Population Studies at Harvard University. In over ten years as director there, he focussed on the application of science and technology to the problem of world hunger. In 1976 he returned to UC San Diego as Professor of Science, Technology and Public Affairs (STPA) in the school's political science department.

It has been alleged that near the end of his life Revelle expressed doubts about climate change, but his daughter wrote that Revelle

...remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense - measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate."

During his last decade at UCSD and SIO, Revelle continued to work and teach. In the early 1980s, he taught undergraduate STPA seminars twice a year, in Energy and Development (mainly on problems in Africa), the Carbon Dioxide Problem (known now as the Global Warming problem), and Marine Policy. In 1986 he won the Balzan Prize for Oceanography/Climatology. A 1990 heart attack forced him to move his course to the Scripps Institution from the Revelle College provost's office, where he continued to teach the Marine Policy program until his death the following year. In 1991, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President George H.W. Bush (one of about 500 recipients in the 20th Century). He remarked to a reporter: "I got it for being the grandfather of the greenhouse effect."

Revelle died in San Diego on July 15, 1991 of complications of cardiac arrest. He was survived by his wife, Ellen Clark Revelle (1910-2009) three daughters, and one son, William, as well as numerous grandchildren. In his honor, a new research vessel at the Scripps Institution was christened R/V Roger Revelle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:47 AM

PDQ,
You asked:
"Please explain the difference between "CO2 absorbs heat" and "CO2 reflects heat back to Earth".

Hope this is neither too pedantic or simplistic, but here goes.

A multi-atom molecule like carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation. The radiation hitting each molecule imparts energy to the molecule (at uv and high frequencies the molecules vibrate, at lower frequencies the molecules just spin and twist). Some of the energy is therefore used up in making the molecule spin/twist/vibrate (yup, sounds like 1960's pop music...) and less is available for other purposes. This is energy absorption. Only certain frequencies excite these various rotation/vibration modes (like the way a guitar body vibrates best at certain frequencies/notes), so if you measure the spectrum of em radiation going through CO2, you'll see reductions in radiation intensity at these particular frequencies. One big point of argument is how broad these absorption bands are, and whether the large band for water vapour overlaps and swamps the smaller one for CO2.

The 'greenhouse' process can be summarised as:
1. high energy radiation from the sun impacts the earth, warming it
2. As the earth warms up, it then radiates heat in the form of lower energy infra-red rays
3. CO2, water, and methane absorb much of this radiation coming from the earth which would otherwise be 'lost in space'
4. This absorption of radiation speeds up/twists/turns the various absorbing molecules so they have more energy. This then causes (but its not the only cause) the variety of secondary effects we call 'climate change'.

I find it more conceptually useful to say that CO2 puts more energy into the global climate system than to talk about average temperature. With more energy in the system, you'd expect to get more extremes (hurricanes being more intense, hotter places being hotter, wetter places being wetter, but also anomalous cold spots). One consequence of climate change might be to disrupt the Gulf Stream warm current which would make northern Europe a lot colder.

Reflection on the other hand is where the radiation just 'bounces off' the molecule without being absorbed. This happens when solar radiation hits for example a symmetrical molecule like nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2). It also happens, (as BeardedBruce's article points out) when you have aerosols - tiny droplets in the atmosphere. These aerosols reflect the sun's radiation back out to space and mitigate the warming effects. Producing more aerosols in the atmosphere is a potential approach to controlling/reversing climate change. Just burning more dirty coal probably isn't the answer though - for one the cooling impact discussed in the final paragraphs of that article are quite small, partly because the aerosols are largely in the lower atmosphere. Also, the aerosols you get from coal burning are essentially dilute sulphuric acid aka 'acid rain'. What you'd need would be less toxic aerosols, higher in the atmosphere where smaller quantities would have a bigger impact.

So it is not really accurate to say that CO2 reflects heat back to earth - it is really the absorption process that is causing the 'greenhouse effect'.

Hope this helps. I'll see if I can find some references, and address your other point about CO2 in plants, a bit later.

regards
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 02:33 AM

Excellent post KP.

I think the point you make about fossil fuels running out (and the politics of obtaining what remains) is reason alone to act, along the lines you suggest: i.e. investing in renewables/nuclear* combined with efficiency increases.

Combine this with the precautionary principle regarding potential climate change due to C02 from fossil fuels and I think the need for action becomes even more critical.

It would be nice if governments offered a little more "carrot" and less "stick" though in helping us reduce energy usage or general consumption.

Pete.


*I'm not convinced about nuclear though. Safety + waste issues...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM

A good summary on the importance of the oceans to climate and absorbing atmospheric carbon:

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM

GUEST, KP...

Thank you for declaring this a debate. It should be, but a quick check of earlier posts suggests it is more a shouting match.

I will address a few points...

"Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation."

Please explain the difference between "CO₂ absorbs heat" and "CO₂ reflects heat back to Earth".

"Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Well, 35% of all atmospheric carbon is returned to the Earth each year, so "stuff" produced by factories during the early days of the Industrial Revolution is long gone.

Also, you seem to be a physics/chemistry type. You did not mention that plants take in CO₂ and give us back Oxygen is such quantities that the human-sourced CO₂ insignificant.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:31 PM

PDQ
You mention that the only thing all/both sides agree on is that average temperature has risen by about a degree. I think the fixation with 'average temperature' rise and the calculation thereof has only served to muddy the arguments. If you think about what measuring the average temperature of the world actually implies you have to do, with all the huge changes in day/night and summer/winter temperatures, its not surprising that its hard to get good data.

However there are a number of things that most people should be able to agree on, and I'd be interested to hear people's comments

1. Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation. The physics of that has been pretty clear for about 100 years, thanks to Arrhenius and others.

2. Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

3. You would expect the heat absorbed by the extra carbon dioxide has to go somewhere.

4. Our global climate should be affected by the extra heat - there is more energy driving the fronts and cyclones around

5. Carbon dioxide is clearly not the only thing driving changes in global climate - there are solar variations, Milankovitch cycles etc. In particular we don't know nearly enough about the role of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the impact of aerosols in mitigating the greenhouse effect.

6. You can't make any useful conclusions about the changes in global climate from individual episodes of good/bad weather - weather is a chaotic system (especially here in the northern UK), which means tiny changes in the starting conditions have huge changes in the final weather outcome. Indeed chaos maths was first discovered by a meteorologist.

7. Changes in average temperature don't kill you - its the possible increase of extreme events that's damaging. Its a problem if a 1 in 300 year flood actually happens every 25 years.

8. At some point we will have to move to a renewable non-fossil fuel economy so it makes sense to invest in these technologies. Given the sources of much of the world's oil and gas there are probably good political reasons for doing so.

9. The cost of converting large quantities of the world's power supply to renewables/nuclear could be huge (the International Energy Authority are talking about a trillion dollars a year for the next thirty years!), but its not dissimilar to the amounts Governments are spending/talking about spending to reflate the world economy out of the current recession/depression.

10. Although a lot of attention is focused on the impact of transport (from SUV's to air travel), actually the biggest source of greenhouse gases is the heating lighting and air-conditioning of buildings (about 40% in the UK). Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings can usually be achieved by decreasing their energy consumption - in other words it can save you money to reduce your emissions. There are lots of easy gains here - there is typically a 500% difference in energy consumption between the best and worst office buildings for example. So it makes sense to 'turn the lights off when you go home'.

I don't know about every point but I would hope that many of the contributors to this debate would actually agree with much of the above.

As a personal note I have sufficient technical background to understand some of the climate science but am not a practicing researcher in the area. I used to work for an oil company, and indeed still own shares in it. I do produce a number of studies into the economic impact of global warming and some of the amelioration strategies.

Looking forward to hear your comments.
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:00 PM

What do the blue and orange line mean Amos? I need a little help from an expert.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:48 PM

pdq
?
When one wants to make a longer long term projections it is preferable to look at a long term data set (pattern) , versus what could be a one time dip...that could be an anomility. However, it isn prudent to pay attention to what is occuring now.... which could be inmportant, or not. Curves are more commonly useful in curling:)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM

Since the major factor in absoebing transfering (to the atmosphere) heat north and south is the ocean....what is happening there is a major factor. The ocean is vast and deep(up to 5 miles deep), with many layers and currents. So, one would want to know what is happening in the deep ocean....not what satellites tell us is happening on the surface, that can be vastly different from below. Looking at one chart may tell us the current weather, but is (selectively) only one factor to be considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM

But remember, Ed T...

A rectilinear asymptote may be conceived as a tangent to the curve at an infinite distance.

Perhaps that is too obvious, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:32 PM

Check this one interpretation out?:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM

Ummmm, Sawzaw....not intending to speak for Amos...who has shown no difficulty in speaking for himself :)
But,
If you draw a straight line ontop of the vhart's peaks and valleys, there does seem to be a pattern of rise, between the ups and downs. One can awlways expect peaks and valleys in climate. The more energy in the system, the greater the variability....I suspect? Looks like we are currently on one of the valleys, if the pattern continues....?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:04 PM

Hmmmm. What does this mean Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:57 PM

Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.
Conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it says that warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent.
Ozone loss has cooled the region, it says, shielding it from global warming.
Rising temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula are making life suitable for invasive species on land and sea.
The report - Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment - was written using contributions from 100 leading scientists in various disciplines, and reviewed by a further 200.
        


Rising seas: A tale of two cities
SCAR's executive director Dr Colin Summerhayes said it painted a picture of "the creeping global catastrophe that we face".

"The temperature of the air is increasing, the temperature of the ocean is increasing, sea levels are rising - and the Sun appears to have very little influence on what we see," he said.

SCAR's report comes 50 years to the day after the Antarctic Treaty, the international agreement regulating use of the territory, was opened for signing, and a week before the opening of the potentially seminal UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

High rise

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the global average sea level would probably rise by 28-43 cm (11-16in) by the end of the century.

But it acknowledged this figure was almost certainly too low, because it was impossible to model "ice dynamics" - the acceleration in ice melting projected to occur as air and water temperatures rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:23 PM

Don't know when this US site was put up...but it's interesting anyway:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM

Thanks for the BBC link KP. I think it's fairly balanced all things considered.

The saddest part of this whole business is that there are "sides".

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM

Will somebody please explain this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 02:44 PM

The above article was "The Cooling World" article, Newsweek, April 28, 1975 when the consensus of the scientists was global cooling. Anybody that disagreed was just plain wrong and stupid.

Click here and please explain what the hell happened in 850 to cause global warming. There were no belching smokestacks and gas guzzlers back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM

The BBC site that GUEST,KP links to is worth reading.

It does, however, demonstrate how ossified the various sides have become.

Remember, the only thing that all sides agree on is that the average temperature, as measured near the surface (above land) has risen 0.74 C^o from 1845 to 1995. A period of 150 years. That is also expressed as a 1^o F increase.

Insignificant in the real world.

Modern computer models produce whatever the programer wants. Junk Science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM

PDQ:

The correct name for the change-curve is climate change.

I am glad you're enjoying the random cold spots.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:31 PM

I just checked our local weather station on the net. It is 15 degrees F right now.

That is extremely cold for the Nevada desert this time of year.

Last night the news said it was snowing in Houston and New Orleans.

Major problem for many trees, as well as other plants and animals not used to such cold.

Again, the earliest snow on record for those Gulf Coast cities.

Perhaps the Global Warming crowd will go back to their earlier "impending Ice Age" tack.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM

The BBC has this discussion on its website today
The arguments made by Sceptics

I think you can tell which 'side' its on from the title
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:06 PM

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects....

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production â€" with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas â€" parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia â€" where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree â€" a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras â€" and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 â€" years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases â€" all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

NEWSWEEK

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 01:35 AM

"Recent warming in the Arctic has interrupted and reversed a long-term cooling cycle triggered by wobbles in Earth's orbit, according to new research.

The Arctic should still be cooling, an international team reports, but instead is warmer than it's been in at least 2,000 years, likely because of human interference.

"Something perturbed the system in the 20th century, and by far the most likely culprit is greenhouse gases," says climate scientist Scott Lamoureux, at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., who collaborated on the study that will appear today in the journal Science.

Earth is in the midst of a periodic and natural change in its orientation to the sun. The wobble has shifted the planet's closest pass by the sun from September to January, reducing the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in summer. The new study shows summer temperatures in the Arctic cooled in step with the reduced solar energy for almost 2,000 years. Then, they report, the cooling trend was abruptly interrupted in the 20th century even though the Earth continued to move away from the sun. It's now about one million kilometres further during the Northern Hemisphere's summer solstice than it was 2,000 years ago

The researchers combed through lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores to reconstruct temperatures for the Arctic going back 2,000 years, the most comprehensive long-term record yet.

Lamoureux and his colleagues from the U.S. and Europe, working independently at a network of 23 sites across the Arctic, have turned up evidence of "pervasive cooling" for 2,000 years. It came to an end when burning of fossil fuels began to send large amounts of carbon dioxide wafting into the atmosphere.

The reconstruction shows the last half of the 20th century was the warmest of the last 2,000 years - with four of the five warmest decades occurring between 1950 and 2000."

From the link above, for which thanks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 07:38 PM

Far too many posts to see if this nwas put up before...anyway, here it is


http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Arctic+warming+ends+cooling+cycle/1960818/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 06:42 PM

This review paper from Nature might be of interest to those considering the link between solar variation and climate change:
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:08 PM

"Willson says his work with ACRIM and a handful of other sensors shows not only that the total solar irradiance varies over the 11-year solar cycle, but that it has crept upward between the last two solar minimums. It's this latter claim that has sparked disagreement within the solar research community."

Learn to read thoroughly, Bruce, not just the parts that support your global warming argument.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:06 PM

THere's no question solar incidents can wreak havoc, as in this example from the 19th century, but that does not mean they are responsible for the global warming trend.

"On Sept. 2, 1859, at the telegraph office at No. 31 State Street in Boston at 9:30 a.m., the operators' lines were overflowing with current, so they unplugged the batteries connected to their machines, and kept working using just the electricity coursing through the air.

In the wee hours of that night, the most brilliant auroras ever recorded had broken out across the skies of the Earth. People in Havana and Florida reported seeing them. The New York Times ran a 3,000 word feature recording the colorful event in purple prose.

"With this a beautiful tint of pink finally mingled. The clouds of this color were most abundant to the northeast and northwest of the zenith," the Times wrote. "There they shot across one another, intermingling and deepening until the sky was painfully lurid. There was no figure the imagination could not find portrayed by these instantaneous flashes."

As if what was happening in the heavens wasn't enough, the communications infrastructure just beginning to stretch along the eastern seaboard was going haywire from all the electromagnetism.

"We observed the influence upon the lines at the time of commencing business — 8 o'clock — and it continued so strong up to 9 1/2 as to prevent any business from being done, excepting by throwing off the batteries at each end of the line and working by the atmospheric current entirely!" the astonished telegraph operators of Boston wrote in a statement that appeared in The New York Times later that week.

The Boston operator told his Portland, Maine counterpart, "Mine is also disconnected, and we are working with the auroral current. How do you receive my writing?" Portland responded, "Better than with our batteries on," before finally concluding with Yankee pluck, "Very well. Shall I go ahead with business?"

In terms of the relationship between the Earth and its star, it is probably the weirdest 24-hours on record. People struggled to explain what had happened.

NASA's David Hathaway, a solar astronomer, said that people in the solar community were beginning to understand that there was a relationship between events on the sun and magnetism on Earth. But that knowledge was not widely disseminated."...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:56 PM

No, I do not have a degree in astronomy, but it has been a life-long interest of mine, I have read a great deal about it, and have studied it formally in school--and I have spent quite a bit of time in an observatory in addition to lectures and book study.

Can you say the same?

I don't have a degree in music either, but I have one helluva lot of both formal training and study on my own, and I have made my living at it by both performing and teaching.

Astronomy happens to be a field I know a lot about and can (and have) discussed it knowledgeabley with professional astronomers. Not only that, I keep current in the field.

The sun does vary slightly in intensity, but its primary variation is the eleven year sunspot cycle. It is not regarded by astronomers as a "variable star" such as a cepheid variable.

And your degree in astronomy came from what school?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM

"The Bottom Line

Our Sun, like all stars, is a variable star. We must learn to live with the uncertainty of a star that is a product of its environment. We can expect our Sun to change when it enters regions of interstellar space where there is more or less dust, which alters the plasma characteristics. In the meantime, we can only look for reassurance by closely examining the behavior of nearby stars. A few massive CME's are the least of our concerns. "

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/VariableSun/



smm results- 1% variable

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:00 PM

Don,

There are a significant number of other solar cycles, bsides the 11 year one. When YOU have a degree in Astronomy, please come back and discuss this with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:56 PM

". . . global warming due to increased solar output. . . ."

This is simply inaccurate astronomy. As stated above, the sun goes through a regular 11-year cycle. Sunspot activity is on the increase right now, but this is NOT solar warming. Sunspot activity (periodic reshuffling of the sun's magnetic fields) will reach it's peak in 2112, then it will ease off until it happens again in another eleven years.

This has been going on for billions of years, and other than an increase in auroral activities ("Northern Lights") when sunspot activity reaches its peak, and some radio interference, the average person doesn't even notice it. Nor does it reflect itself in the earth's global temperature.

Simply business as usual. If we want to learn the causes of global warming, we need to look much closer to home. Like in the mirror, perhaps.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:14 PM

Yes...I read it....I do NOT see anything to support your contention.

then I sat down to read the Post today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html


"Human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have helped reverse a 2,000-year trend of cooling in the Arctic, prompting warmer average temperatures in the past decade that now rank higher than at any time since 1 B.C., according to a study published Thursday in the online version of the journal Science."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM

BillD,

Did you bother to read the referenced post, or the one of 16 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM that I posted? If not, you need to, if so, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:09 PM

Your problem, bb, may be this is NOT rocket science. Because to me, non-expert in almost all things, your postulation appears to stem from a mistaken place and then becomes circular. :)
************************

"Many photos he has recovered from the 1890s, the 1940s and the 1970s show how fast the glaciers have been retreating; in a few cases, however, where warming temperatures have increased precipitation at higher altitudes, some glaciers actually advanced..." from the link

The last three years Southeast Alaska has had almost double the amount of snow that our climate stats have pegged.

As I said, I am no expert - at all - but I'd like an analysis of this idea, that since
#1 we are pretty far north and
#2 our mountains, our latitude and the Pacific Ocean have a volatile effect on our weather
#3 Therefore, ergo, and all that, when the ocean warms thus creating more moisture, does it not follow that the moisture will more frequently display as snow rather than rain?

Given no more expertise than I have (Hey! I'm getting tired of that!) it makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

bruce....your analysis of the physics involved is either a long, involved, tongue-in-cheek joke, or a bit of wishful thinking based on some set of premises extracted from a website like this. ☺

By your analysis, if we'd just all put in fireplaces and burn wood and use LOTS of hair-spray, it would solve things faster.....until.....never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM

Amos,

See my post of 18 Aug 09 - 11:15 PM- the obvious cause is the actions of Gore et al, increasing the already significant global warming. They have been reducing COAL , and removing the aerosols that have been slowing the global warming due to increased solar output.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM

Seems there's a lot more measurement on the shrinking side than on the growing side, Sawz. Including photos. Why would that be?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:12 PM

shrinking glaciers

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 09:45 PM

From the Examiner

The Briksdal glacier in Norway is growing by over seven inches a day. The glacier at the top of Canada's highest mountain, Mount Logan, has continued to grow since 1992. In fact, the official height was determined to be seven meters higher than last measure. Mike Schmidt of the Geological Survey of Canada says this is mostly due to snow and ice accumulation. Silvretta Glacier in Switzerland and the Greenland Glacier is advancing over 7 miles per year. In February of 2008 it was reported that there was a third more ice than usual in Antarctica and that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that the 3.5 million square miles of ice cover that the earth had lost from January of 2007 to October of that year had been returned to normal levels.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 08:20 PM

Arctic temperatures hit 2,000-year high


"The 1990s were the Arctic's warmest decade in the past 2,000 years, says a study released in Friday's edition of Science. The warming -- due to the release of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere -- overpowered a natural cooling trend that should have otherwise continued.

Scientists used "natural" thermometers -- such as glacial ice cores, tree rings and sediments from lakes -- to calculate the temperatures of the Arctic over the past two millennia. Instruments have been used to measure the actual temperature of the Arctic since the late 1800s.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system," reports study co-author David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

In the decade of the 1990s, Arctic temperatures measured about 2.5 degrees F higher than they would have had the cooling continued.

The Arctic's gradual cooling trend is due to a wobble in the tilt of the Earth, which, over the last 7,000 years, has shifted the Earth's closest pass by the sun from September to January. This reduces the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Arctic in the summer and has caused noticeable cooler summers over the past several centuries. That is, until the effects of global warming took over.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.
"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," added Schneider. These impacts include remarkable shrinking of summer sea ice due to the rising temperatures, which reached a record low extent in 2007." (USA Today)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 11:15 PM

Amos,

"Conflating aerosols of sulf with carbon,"

Who has done that?????


You miss the point.

The CO2 is one greenhouse gas- Water vapor and methane are others that have greater effect. The coal fired plants that produce much of the CO2 also produce the aerosols that are providing cooling.

So what is it that Gore is concentrating on? CO2, and coal. The EFFECT is to ignore the other greenhouse gasses, and increase global warming by removal of the aerosols. IF G-W is not inevitable, Gore's actions are more likely to lead to it than just ignoring the problem- WHICH IS NOT what I have advocated, regardless of what you and others have said. IMO ( which I thought I was entitled to) there IS global warming, WHICH WE NEED TO ADJUST TO ( since IMO it is a factor of solar output, that we cannot control).

I think that Gore is pushing a flawed solution that will not work, will prevent the actual accomadation of GW, and will cost untiold lives in the next 50 years, which could be saved with a different course of action.


What Gore is pushing will cause more war and destruction than a dozen Bush presidencies.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:59 PM

Conflating aerosols of sulf with carbon, a greenhouse gas, is a bit cockamamie, Bruce. Are you being argumentative for its own sake?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:40 PM

And YOU want to increase global warming, too? IF you reduce the pollution, that is the EFFECT of what you do, regardless of what you WANT to do.

I have not bet against Gore- have you bet with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:38 PM

Just because beardedbruce says something doesn't make it true.

And you don't want to LOSE the bet against Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 12:06 PM

So, TIA, you are advocating actions that will increase Global Warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Leadfingers
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 06:36 AM

500

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 02:28 AM

Yes, aerosols have been masking global warming. But, it is pure idiocy (actually it is an attempt to look smugly clever, imagine that) to propose that we increase one type of environmental degradation so we won't be so worried about another.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:29 PM

"The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which sent prodigious amounts of tiny sulfuric acid droplets high into the stratosphere where they reflected sunlight back into space, temporarily caused the global average temperature at Earth's surface to drop by around 0.5 degrees Celsius,"

"Since 2000, the amount of the laser light scattered by aerosols between altitudes of 20 and 30 kilometers has been rising between 4 and 7 percent each year, says Trudeau. Other observations suggest that atmospheric upwelling in tropical latitudes hasn't increased substantially since 2000, so Trudeau and his colleagues pin the blame for rising aerosol concentrations on human-made sources."

"The largest sources of human-made aerosols are coal-burning power plants, which spew sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of the combustion of sulfur-tainted coal. Between 2002 and 2007, coal consumption worldwide jumped more than 36 percent — mostly in China, Trudeau and his colleague note, where sulfur dioxide emissions rose an average of 5.4 percent per year from 2000 to 2005."



I would think you would jump at this chance to explain the RECENT cooling trend that threatens thre G-W gospel.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:23 PM

If you stop the pollution ( aerosols) you INCREASE the global warming. You all have stated how if there is even a chance of reducing global warming you want to do whatever is needed, regardless of the effect on civilisation: So, here you are- the reduction of aerosol pollution contributes to global warming: We have no choice but to INCREASE that pollution.

Or maybe you want to reconsider your previous position??

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:19 PM

Read the article Amos posted, Bill.

Just because Gore said something does not make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:17 PM

"ANY attempt to reduce pollution by reduction of coal-fired powerplants will REDUCE the aerosols, and INCREASE global warming."

ummmm...you can't be serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:13 PM

"Ground-based observations reveal that the amount of light-scattering aerosols in the stratosphere has been increasing substantially in the past decade, probably due to a dramatic rise in coal-fired power plants worldwide.

Aerosols in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between altitudes of about 10 kilometers and 50 kilometers, come from three main sources: major volcanic eruptions, upwelling of the lower atmosphere at tropical latitudes and the slow upward drift of aerosols created by industrial emissions worldwide. Now, a nearly two-decade-long lull in large volcanic eruptions has enabled scientists to discern that anthropogenic aerosol levels in the stratosphere are on the rise, says Michael E. Trudeau, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. He and his colleagues report their finding in the Aug. 16 Geophysical Research Letters."

Aerosols cause cooling. CO2 is NOT an aerosol, it is a greenhose gas like water vapor and methane. ANY attempt to reduce pollution by reduction of coal-fired powerplants will REDUCE the aerosols, and INCREASE global warming.

But you won't hear that from the G-W religious hierarchy. It is NOT as simple as Gore wants you to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:04 PM

It says that aboout sulfuric acid droplets, not carbon emissions; my understanding is that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, retaining heat.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 09:02 PM

re 16 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM

Those aerosols are acting to COOL the earth, (according to the post) by reflection of the sunlight. So, our pollution is counteracting the greenhouse effect of our energy production. All we need to do is pollut more, then.

Not excactly what Gore wants, now is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM

"Ground-based observations reveal that the amount of light-scattering aerosols in the stratosphere has been increasing substantially in the past decade, probably due to a dramatic rise in coal-fired power plants worldwide.

Aerosols in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between altitudes of about 10 kilometers and 50 kilometers, come from three main sources: major volcanic eruptions, upwelling of the lower atmosphere at tropical latitudes and the slow upward drift of aerosols created by industrial emissions worldwide. Now, a nearly two-decade-long lull in large volcanic eruptions has enabled scientists to discern that anthropogenic aerosol levels in the stratosphere are on the rise, says Michael E. Trudeau, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. He and his colleagues report their finding in the Aug. 16 Geophysical Research Letters.

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which sent prodigious amounts of tiny sulfuric acid droplets high into the stratosphere where they reflected sunlight back into space, temporarily caused the global average temperature at Earth's surface to drop by around 0.5 degrees Celsius, says Trudeau. But ground-based observations show that natural processes had largely cleansed that eruption's aerosols from the stratosphere by 1996, he notes. Because there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption since Pinatubo, scientists have been able to get a clear look at trends in other sources of stratospheric aerosols.

To make those assessments, the researchers fired lasers into the sky from two observatories, one atop Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano and the other near Boulder. Since 2000, the amount of the laser light scattered by aerosols between altitudes of 20 and 30 kilometers has been rising between 4 and 7 percent each year, says Trudeau. Other observations suggest that atmospheric upwelling in tropical latitudes hasn't increased substantially since 2000, so Trudeau and his colleagues pin the blame for rising aerosol concentrations on human-made sources.

The largest sources of human-made aerosols are coal-burning power plants, which spew sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of the combustion of sulfur-tainted coal. Between 2002 and 2007, coal consumption worldwide jumped more than 36 percent — mostly in China, Trudeau and his colleague note, where sulfur dioxide emissions rose an average of 5.4 percent per year from 2000 to 2005. In 2006, some scientists estimate, China passed the United States to become the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide."

Science News, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/46462/title/Hazy_changes_on_high

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 06:13 PM

"n law-making, as in medicine, the first rule should be do no harm. And it is surely true that if the United States does not take the leadership in trying to counter climate change nothing will be done. But what if it is too late? What if everything the United States, or Europe, does in the way of clean energy and cutting earth-heating gasses is not enough to halt the onrushing warming to the world, with all its attending consequences?

The effects of humanity's industry, piggy-backing on a normal warming trend that has been going on since the 19th century, is causing temperatures to climb at an unprecedented rate. On that most of science agrees. But what if the centuries-long build–up of gasses and nature itself have conspired to make this trend irreversible?

This is not an argument against a strong effort on the part of mankind to at least slow down the warming. The United States and the world can and should make a big effort to stop making the problem worse.

But the world is not united. The developing countries feel it is unfair to demand caps just as they are industrializing, and we are moving into a post-industrial economy. It is simply not possible to shut down enough of the world's smoke stacks, and a lot of cap and trade begins to sound like a shell game.

So when the world meets in Copenhagen to discuss climate change come December, I hope there will be more thought on what has to be done if climate change cannot be prevented.

Where will we put the island peoples whose nations are inexorably disappearing? What can we invent that will keep crops growing in higher temperatures and less water? What can we plan now that will mitigate — and maybe even prevent — some of the worse horrors that we can now quite accurately predict?"

(Op ED contributor H. Green, NY Times)

---

Bruce:

Here's someone who is tracking with your commendable line of thought.

As for human induced, I think the correct term is human vectors piggybacking on other, natural, build-ups. Given that our carbon production parallels the trend of temperature climb since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, I think it is certainly fair to say our production of carbon, other greenhouse gasses, and our general attack on forests world-wide have contributed a distinct additive vector to the climate change.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:29 PM

"Human-induced"? Saying so does not make it so- please provide at least as much evidence as Bush did for Saddam's WMD Programs.


There is a difference between "climate change" and "human-induced climate change". Most here will agree these are effects of "climate change".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:24 PM

A summary of existing and near-term impacts of human-induced warming, planet Earth, circa 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:10 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cu


Sounds good- until one realizes they are putting water vapor into the atmosphere- A more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. Are they reflecting enought to make up for the additional greenhouse effect? (Real question- the article does not address it)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 11:24 AM

Scientists claim planet is heading for 'irreversible' climate change by 2040


Published Date: 02 August 2009
By Tom Peterkin
Scottish Political Editor

CARBON dioxide levels are rising at a faster rate than the worst-case scenario envisaged by United Nations experts, with the planet heading for "catastrophic" and "irreversible" climate change by 2040, a new report claims.

The rise of greenhouse gases will trigger an unprecedented rate of global warming that will result in the loss of the ice-covered polar seas by 2020, much of our coral reefs by 2040 and see a 1.4-metre rise in the sea level by 2100.

The apocalyptic vision has been outlined in a paper by Andrew Brierley of St Andrews University, which is likely to influence the views of UN experts gathering in Copenhagen this December to establish a new protocol that will attempt to halt global warming.

Brierley and his co-author, Michael Kingsford of the James Cook University in Australia, examined the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on ocean habitats and marine organisms.

The scientists compared current carbon dioxide emissions with those forecast in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), the leading body for the assessment of global warming, which was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation.

In 2007, the IPCC predicted a "worst-case scenario" that would see rapid industrialisation cause carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by two parts per million each year. Parts per million (ppm) is a unit of concentration used to measure pollutants.

Brierley said atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had increased from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 385 ppm last year and was now rising at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year.

He described the outlook as "really quite nasty doom-and-gloom situation".

He added: "People have looked at how various economic situations, various developments in India and China might impact on carbon dioxide admissions and in 2007 they made a series of forecasts and if you take the worst-case scenario, carbon dioxide would be going up by two parts per million.

"This really august body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said these are the worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide increase and we are above that already. That's the thing that really frightens me."

In their paper, Brierley and Kingsford said that a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm was the critical threshold beyond which catastrophic and irreversible change might occur.

Reaching that level would mean a global mean temperature rise of 2C above pre-industrial values. At present rates this threshold will be passed by 2040.

The authors added: "By 2040, some particularly sensitive marine ecosystems such as coral reefs and ice-covered polar seas could already have been lost and other unexpected consequences may arise."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 09 - 03:01 PM

"In a recent interview with Yale Environment 360, Jane Lubchenco, the head of NOAA, called oceanic acidification global warming's "equally evil twin." Ocean acidification occurs because carbon dioxide, when dissolved in water, forms a weak acid. Put more CO2 into the atmosphere, and more will inevitably dissolve into the oceans, lowering their pH. A landmark report published in 2005 by the British Royal Society urged the global community to invest more time and effort into studying this critical issue, warning that "Marine ecosystems are likely to become less robust as a result of the changes to the ocean chemistry and these will be more vulnerable to other environmental impacts."

While research efforts have since taken off, what has been sorely lacking are datasets that could help scientists document the long-term rate of acidification and understand the underlying physical and chemical processes. That is, until now. In the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John E. Dore of Montana State University and colleagues from the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, present the results of the first set of longitudinal time-series measurements of seawater pH, spanning an almost twenty-year period (from 1988 to 2007). The data were recorded at ALOHA, a research station off Hawaii.

When CO2 enters the ocean, a fraction of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), a weak acid, and the rest remains in dissolved form. Some of the carbonic acid dissociates, releasing hydrogen ions that further react to produce either bicarbonate (HCO3-) or carbonate ions (CO3-2). These three forms of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) make up the carbonic acid system, a natural buffer that handles slight variations in CO2 and maintains seawater pH around 8.1-8.2. The loss of this buffer—even its weakening—could have a significant impact on corals and other organisms that build their shells out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

The Hawaiian record shows a long-term decline in surface pH of 0.0019 ± 0.0002 per year—which may not seem like much until you recall that pH units are expressed on a logarithmic scale. This means that a one-unit drop in pH corresponds to a ten-fold increase in the hydrogen ion concentration. To put that into context, the 0.1 decrease in globally averaged pH—from 8.2 to 8.1—over the last 250 years is roughly equivalent to a 30 percent increase in hydrogen ions.

This trend, they emphasize, is "indistinguishable from the rate of acidification expected from equilibration from the atmosphere"—confirming the basic theory that as atmospheric CO2 increases, more and more of it will be absorbed by the oceans, where it will alter the chemistry. Scientists are worried that this sudden influx of CO2—they estimate that the oceans have taken up nearly half of all carbon emitted since the beginning of the industrial era—risks overwhelming the delicate buffering system that has kept the ocean's pH in check for millennia.

Dore and his colleagues also found that the pH cycle displays a strong seasonality, typically reaching a maximum during the winter and a minimum during the summer. There is also interannual variability. The authors attribute these to a combination of photosynthetic activity, air-sea exchange, and the mixing of different layers of water. The surface pH varied by as much as 0.01, largely as a result of diurnal heating and cooling. " (Ars Technica post)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 01:12 PM

Modellers predict doubly bad global warming

New findings predict that global temperature increases will be twice as high by the end of the century as previously forecast, unless international policy action is taken. That is the prediction of scientists using the Integrated Global Systems Model (IGSM), a project funded in part by the US Department of Energy.

IGSM is unique amongst climate predictors because it is underpinned by a flexible economic model that projects future changes in human activities such as trade between nations. Climate scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have used the model taking into account physical factors like the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions for the first time.

The researchers predict a 90 % probability that surface temperatures will be 3.5° to 7.4° higher by 2100, under a scenario involving no policies to specifically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These temperature increases are more than twice those predicted under the previous version of IGSM, which was run back in 2003. The model was also run for different scenarios involving "strong" policies to curb emissions, and the temperature never rose above 2.5°, which is relatively unchanged from the 2003 prediction.

The findings are published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.
Living with uncertainty

"4° is a very, very dangerous amount of warming - that's 8° Celsius of polar warming," said Ronald Prinn, one of the MIT modellers speaking earlier this year at the European Geosciences Union Conference in Copenhagen.

The standard international reference for climate predictions is the SRES scenarios of the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a body which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. However, whilst the IPCC make detailed predictions for the end of the 21st century, there is still a wide range of uncertainty within each prediction. What's more, the IPCC scenarios are deliberately independent of policy and projected human responses.

Frustrated by the continued lack of clarity in climate change predictions, Prinn and his colleagues set out to quantify the likelihoods for specific climate outcomes. For each climate scenario, they carried out 400 runs, where each run involved slight variations in the input parameters with each set of parameters equally likely. In this way they reduced the uncertainty of both input parameters and climate responses.
The new standard?

The MIT scientists find that a business-as-usual approach to greenhouse gas emissions will result in 1400 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2091-2100 leading to an 85 % chance of temperatures rising by more than 4°. However, in the case where carbon dioxide equivalent levels were stabilized at 552 parts per million, all 400 forecasts led to an increase of 4°. To further enhance the clarity of the results, Prinn and his colleagues conceptualize the scenarios as a game of roulette, in what they call the "climate gamble".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM

"WARD HUNT ISLAND, Nunavut (April 09)— New cracks in the largest remaining Arctic ice shelf suggest another polar landmark seems destined to break up and disappear.

Scientists discovered the extensive new cracks in the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf earlier this year and a patrol of Canadian Rangers got an up-close look at them last week.

"The map of Canada has changed," said Derek Mueller of Trent University, who was amazed to find how quickly the shelf has deteriorated since he discovered the first crack in 2002.

"These changes are happening in concert with other indicators of climate change."

Mr. Mueller and his fellow researchers were expected to release their findings on Saturday. But a patrol of Canadian Rangers travelling west last week from CFB Alert at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island saw the cracks first-hand.

"We're looking at the possible demise of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf," said Doug Stern, a Ranger and Parks Canada employee, who was on the patrol and has been helping Mueller with his research.

Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean's surface. Ellesmere Island was once ringed by one, but that enormous shelf broke up in the early 1900s.

At 443 square kilometres in size, the Ward Hunt shelf is the largest of those remnants — even bigger than the Antarctic shelf that collapsed late last month, and seven times the size of the Ayles Ice Shelf chunk that broke off in 2005 from Ellesmere's western coast. "

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:55 PM

"MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening."

Both from here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM

"MYTH: Global warming can't be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.

FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.

Between 1961 and 1997, the world's glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.

In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.

The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 08:52 AM

From LH on the human influence on climate:

"It will eventually either be confirmed with no remaining doubt..."

No, sorry. It won't. That's the point. There is *always* doubt is science. If there is no doubt, it is by definition, no longer science. We have reached the point where the scientific consensus is overwhelming. As overwhelming as the consensus that cigarettes are bad for you. Yet, as with cigarettes, the moneyed corporate interests are buying air time, and funding...and publicizing the hell out of, the lone (and sometimes loopy) "scientists" that may cast doubt on the consensus. And the people who are addicted buy in. And people without an understanding of science can't discern the hogwash and believe the popular media hype (generated intentionally by the big money), and see it as an actual scientific "debate" instead of a battle between science and the corporate propaganda (happily parroted by politicans and media commentators that they own) intended to preserve their profits - even at the expense of the future of humanity.

Remember, we are still not 100% certain that there is a link between smoking and lung cancer. So, why don't you keep smoking for another 10 years or so, and only quit when we are 100% sure?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 05:58 PM

Hell, doing what we can to clean up 'the human act' on Earth IS good sense, even if we're doomed to go the way of the dinos. I recall a line from "Enter the Dragon". One of the martial arts people was asked how he figured he'd do fighting overwhelming odds. He replied with words much like "I will be too busy lookin' good to worry about that."

AMEN

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSilentOne
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 05:47 PM

"Well, I might be onto something with my unconventional views on the current global warming craze too. Maybe. You're going to have to wait and see if I am, and that will take some time."

The thing is LH, if we do wait to see and it turns out that you're WRONG, then it's too late. If we act now to alleviate it and subsequently find we were wrong to do so, the consequences are potentially less catastrophic.

I don't see any point in contributing to the "is it man" argument, we most of us have entrenched positions either way by now. The fact is the vast majority of scientists in relevant specialisms think a considerable element of the warming is down to human intervention. Yeah they MAY be wrong. However even if informed opinion was split 50:50 I believe the above argument applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 04:04 PM

Little Hawk, I'm not attacking you or trying to pick a fight with you. My observations have to do with the observations you keep making about what you consider to be the attitudes of those involved in the discussion. Why do you feel you need to keep editorializing? That's what distracts from the topic of the thread.

I'm sorry, but whether you intend it or not, you do project an attitude of smug superiority. You might take what I (and others) have said to heart, and read a few of your own posts. It's as Robert Burns says, you might try to see yourself as others see you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 03:53 PM

"I've found that, with the exception of children raised in fundamentalist families (and quite disturbing to the families, I'm sure, only a percentage of them), the scales fall off the eyes of most kids and much of religious mythology goes the way of belief in Santa Claus, and at about the same age."

Yeah, so have I. No kidding.

And???

"By the way, Little Hawk, I'd like to know what's wrong with being emotionally involved in believing in and attempting to convey to others the truth?"

Absolutely nothing at all is wrong with it. It's quite natural for people to do that. (But they do it even when they're completely in error...and therein lies the problem.)

If you would stop trying to make this into another personal fight with me, Don, we could have an altogether more reasonable discussion here, and I would not be obliged to spend part of it defending my own character and proving (to whom?) that I'm not a person who is in favour of all kinds of reprehensible and stupid things you dream up for me to supposedly be in favour of. ;-) Let go of the personal chewbone you have against me, and stick to discussing the general subject itself, not trying to prove that I'm the bad guy you seem to imagine I am.

I have made no personal observations about you here, and I don't wish to, I'm simply asking that you stop making them about me.

I am passionately involved in a great many issues, just as you are. As you say, though, the question is not the degree of emotional involvement, but the validity of the information itself and the ethical nature of the cause.

Agreed again.

You have nothing really to argue with me about here, Don, except one thing: whether human-based CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. That's it, period.

We believe in the same ethical and rational approach to dealing with various issues, but you're trying once again to steer the discussion into some kind of personal catfight or battle for dominance between you and me that will prove finally (to someone?) that I'm "dispassionate", "colorless", that I "sit on the fence" or whatever other personally critical assertions like that which you can come up with.

You're wasting your time and mine when you do that. Please stop personally attacking me, Don. Discuss society. Discuss human behaviour and belief systems. Discuss scientific viewpoints. Discuss the nature of the mass media and the government. Don't discuss the picayune character flaws of Little Hawk. If you leave off personally attacking me then I won't have to spend a bunch of my time replying to those attacks, will I?

And we'll have more time then to talk about something which actually matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM

I've found that, with the exception of children raised in fundamentalist families (and quite disturbing to the families, I'm sure, only a percentage of them), the scales fall off the eyes of most kids and much of religious mythology goes the way of belief in Santa Claus, and at about the same age.

By the way, Little Hawk, I'd like to know what's wrong with being emotionally involved in believing in and attempting to convey to others the truth? Verifiable, scientific facts? You say "emotionally involved" as if that negates anything the person you are accusing of being emotionally involved says. I know, I know, that's not what you mean. So if not, why even bring it up? Of course a person is emotionally involved in what they are attempting to convey. I am very dubious of people who are not passionately involved in matters of importance, such as not destroying life on earth--or for that matter, the civil rights of oppressed minorities. The question is not their emotional involvement, but the validity of the information itself and the ethical nature of their cause.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 02:07 PM

Agreed, Don. There's nothing unique about my skepticism regarding Bible stories nor does it necessarily show any great insight.

But I was still the only kid in that Sunday school class who openly objected to the miraculous tales we were being told and who refused to accept them even though the teacher said they were true. The teacher was quite taken aback by my skeptical attitude, and certainly somewhat annoyed about it. Remember...this was at a very young age. I think it was before I was even in First Grade if I remember correctly. Most kids that age don't even worry about whether or not to question or reject such stories when they hear them from a teacher, but I got started on stuff like evolution and natural history books very early, so I had a different viewpoint.

Of course there are a great many Christians who are not literalists or fundamentalists and who realize that much of the Bible is allegories, metaphors, mythology, and folk tales! I am not in any way implying that all Christians are fundamentalist morons or something, and I am not denigrating the great value in Jesus' actual teachings. Anything but.   But these were kindergarten age kids I'm talking about, not adults, and they tended to accept what they were told. I was unusually skeptical for my age group, and it was probably because, like you, I had done a lot of reading. Science was also a hobby of mine from the time I was old enough to read, and I had learned to read at home before I ever went to school. I had been reading some books that showed (in pictorial form and text) the scientific viewpoint of the origins of life on this planet.

I'm well aware that we humans are ruining the oceans and fouling our planetary nest, Don. We have no argument there at all, you and I.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

There's nothing unique about your skepticism regarding Bible stories, Little Hawk. Nor does it necessarily show any great insight.

There are, indeed, Christians of the more fundamentalist nature who insist that the Bible is literal history, but it's not difficult at all to show that that position goes against all other evidence and simply defies common sense. This, of course, doesn't deter the "believers."

For every Christian I know who takes this literalist position, I know hundreds (yes, hundreds—some good friends, many just acquaintances) who hold that stories such as the Garden of Eden et al, Noah's Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea, and the whole repertoire, including such things as the virgin birth of Jesus and the physical ascent of Jesus to heaven are ALL allegories, metaphors, mythology, and folk tales. And this includes all the ministers, pastors, and a couple of bishops, whom I know personally. They base their Christianity on "What did Jesus say?"

Preachers on television? I give them about as much credence as people like Bill O'Reilly and others who have their heads up very dark places.

As to the subject of this thread (global warming), I read a lot of very bad astronomy on this thread. I'm appalled at the level of ignorance of things such as axial tilt, procession of the equinoxes, orbital mechanics, not to mention oceanography and meteorology and the other earth sciences, and the way people are blowing right past known facts to justify their skepticism, or simple refusal to consider global warming.

For example, variations in solar radiation and the increase in sunspot activity. The sun has an eleven year sunspot cycle. The cycle is approaching its maximum (2012), after which, it will ebb. The last maximum was in 2001. The next maximum will be in 2022. The sun has been doing this for billions of years. Nothing strange or unusual. And not related to global warming, which has a different cause.

I'm not a scientist, but science has been a hobby of mine since I was old enough to read, and I have taken a lot of science courses as electives in college. And I read a lot and stay current.

Years ago, the late Jacques Cousteau said that the plankton in the oceans is dying—being killed by pesticides washing into the oceans. Man made. And it may be of some interest that about 70% of the oxygen we breathe is made by the plankton in our oceans. That's only one of the detrimental effects that un-toilet-trained humans are having on the planet. We are fouling our nest.

The earth will survive. But will we?

That depends on what WE do. And within the next few decades.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 01:40 PM

The UV index today in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada is 8... which means I got my sunburn shortly after I started to sand and paint a garage door.

An index of 8, for me, being a blue eyed, red headed, half Irish, balding lad means, if yer gonna be in the sun for over 8 minutes... SPF 50 at least... and that is WITH a wide brimmed hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:39 PM

Rigs,

That's weather, not climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:25 PM

"Where's the Global Warming...?"

                      In Southern Oregon!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM

Interesting stuff, pdq.

By the way, I should clarify what I said about not believing the Bible stories in Sunday school, and be more specific. What I mean is, I didn't literally believe the more bizarre or miraculous tales, such as...

- the story about the Tower of Babel
- the story about Noah and his Ark and all the animals in pairs on it, etc.
- the story about the blowing of trumpets knocking down the walls of Jericho
- the story about Jesus walking on water
- the story about Moses parting the Red Sea (at God's command)

I didn't believe those sort of stories. We were told a number of them in my brief exposure to Sunday school, and I didn't believe for a moment that they could possibly be true, because my normal reasoning powers based on observation of present reality told me that they couldn't be true.

I did, however, believe that Moses had been an actual person who led a bunch of Israelites into Sinai, that Jesus had been an actual person who went around and preached in Judea, that Joshua's army had actually captured Jericho, and stuff life that. Why not? I just didn't believe the more dramatic miraculous events as told in the stories, because they didn't make sense in terms of what I already knew about what's possible and what isn't here in physical existence.

I suspected that the miraculous stories had either been made up by someone to give more drama to the overall story...or that they were maybe symbolic in nature. In any case, I could not accept them literally.

And the same went for Santa Claus. (grin) After giving it some thought, I concluded that it simply wasn't possible for a fat guy to travel around the world in an airborne sleigh pulled by reindeer and that he couldn't possibly come down our chimney even if he reached it! So I gave it some more thought and realized my parents were just telling me a story for some reason. What was the reason??? I was quite perplexed about it. I asked my Mother about it and she said, "Well, yes, it's just a nice story that people tell children so Christmas will be more fun for everybody...but don't tell your friends. You'll spoil it for them." So I kept mum about it. ;-) This was, needless to say, at a pretty young age. All kids eventually figure out the same thing I did at some point...or one of the other kids tells them.

Now, as to the global warming thing....sure, I might be wrong about it. And I know that. I have no way of being sure that I am right about it. As I say, we'll all have to wait 5 or 10 years and see what happens. It will eventually either be confirmed with no remaining doubt that the present global warming theories about the proportionate effects of CO2 on the situation and the ever-increasing warming of this planet are correct...or it will be discredited, dropped, fade away and be largely forgotten as so many past popular ideas of a similar sort have been, and then we'll be hearing about something else instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM

"I was, for instance, the only kid in my Sunday school class who did not believe the Bible stories from day 1. I went on not believing them. The others all just accepted what they were told. I complained about it to my Mother and she said I didn't have to go to Sunday school anymore, and that was the end of that.

"I was one of the very few kids in my classes in a small New York country town who totally opposed the US presence in Vietnam from Day 1. Most people there supported it wholeheartedly.

"I was the first kid I knew who stopped believing in Santa Claus." Little Hawk

Sheesh, Little Hawk. That is a rash of statements that is much less than insightful. Methinks you take on more credit than is due.

1. As the child of militantly atheistic parents, what were you doing in Sunday School?
2. As the child of atheists, do you consider it strange or precociously bright of you that you should question the Bible stories?
3. As the child of atheists, I am not at all surprised that your parents opposed the Viet Nam war. Even if sometimes atheists don't 'get it right',imo, they, generally speaking, are not blindly following the herd.
4."Santa Claus"? See #3

SUMMATION: Chalk it up to your parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 11:47 AM

...from website run by US Dept. of Commerce:


Astronomical Theory of Climate Change
   
The tilt of the earth relative to its plane of travel about the sun is what causes seasons. The hemisphere "pointing toward" the sun is in summer, while the opposite hemisphere is in winter. The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. The northern hemisphere is in summer in the left image, while 6 months later, the southern hemisphere has summer, as in the center image. If the earth's axis were "straight up and down" relative to the orbital plane, as in the right-hand image, there would be no seasons, since any given point at the top of the atmosphere would receive the same amount of sun each day of the year.

Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe seasons - cooler summers and milder winters. The earth wobbles in space so that its tilt changes between about 22 and 25 degrees on a cycle of about 41,000 years. It is the cool summers which are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year to year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling. In addition, it appears that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere falls as ice sheets grow, also adding to the cooling of the climate.

The earth's orbit around the sun is not quite circular, which means that the earth is slightly closer to the sun at some times of the year than others. The closest approach of the earth to the sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years. 11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today. The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter.

What is The Milankovitch Theory?

The Milankovitch or astronomical theory of climate change is an explanation for changes in the seasons which result from changes in the earth's orbit around the sun. The theory is named for Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch, who calculated the slow changes in the earth's orbit by careful measurements of the position of the stars, and through equations using the gravitational pull of other planets and stars. He determined that the earth "wobbles" in its orbit. The earth's "tilt" is what causes seasons, and changes in the tilt of the earth change the strength of the seasons. The seasons can also be accentuated or modified by the eccentricity (degree of roundness) of the orbital path around the sun, and the precession effect, the position of the solstices in the annual orbit.

What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?

Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 03:02 AM

I do usually resist grand popular bandwagons that are pushed by the mass media and accepted by almost everyone around me, Amos. ;-D No doubt about it. The reason I resist them is because they are usually based not so much on independent thinking in most cases, but upon many sheep willingly following the latest popular trend, the latest officially dispensed orthodoxy, just because it IS the latest trend and the apparently ruling orthodoxy. They feel certain it must be right, because all their peers seem to think so too, and the media has told them so.

I have my doubts. I have a natural born resistance toward following common popular trends of all kinds. I question them, and I have always done so.

I was, for instance, the only kid in my Sunday school class who did not believe the Bible stories from day 1. I went on not believing them. The others all just accepted what they were told. I complained about it to my Mother and she said I didn't have to go to Sunday school anymore, and that was the end of that.

I was one of the very few kids in my classes in a small New York country town who totally opposed the US presence in Vietnam from Day 1. Most people there supported it wholeheartedly.

I was the first kid I knew who stopped believing in Santa Claus.

You will have to admit that my judgement was pretty good in those 3 cases.... ;-)

Well, I might be onto something with my unconventional views on the current global warming craze too. Maybe. You're going to have to wait and see if I am, and that will take some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

Ach, LH, you love taking up arms against ay agreement, in the certainty it must be unreasoning, because there is agreement. But what agreement there is on the carbon emissions problem is hard one, one voice at a time, and supported by a lot of hard numbers, all of which you cheerfully ignore in your free-wheeling meta-process. I would add you did much the same thing in another contest on the subject of gay rights--roundly condemning those who had a consensus merely because ti was a consensus while voicing no position on the facts or the issues or the positions based thereon.

Good luck with a' that, mon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 07:12 PM

TIA - Neither do I deny that there is some level of human influence on climate change. I simply think that the role of atmospheric CO2 in contributing to global warming has been grossly exaggerated in recent years. I do think it is a factor (although it might be more an aftereffect OF significant levels of global warming than a direct cause of them). I also do think that humanity is to some extent contributing to global warming and climate change of different kinds in different areas...that is clearly so...but I think that the CO2 factor and the human factor are relatively minor ones and that the major ones are the natural cycles of the Sun and the Earth's ecosphere.

And, I say again: I AM in favour of reducing our level of carbon emissions.

It is an all-embracing recent popular orthodoxy I'm challenging here because I think it's become unrealistic...but I am NOT saying that we should not be reducing our carbon emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

"This is as true of you or me as it is of Amos, BB, TIA, or anyone else here."



No..it is not. I read all the sides...up to a point. Your very answer, LH, is a generalization which may...or may not..be accurate. Sometimes one can see the bad logic, bad research and bias involved. But *I* do NOT just parrot the views of those whom I 'like', or have $$$ interest in, or whose politics I agree with. I do not even claim that I am absolutely sure that the current science is infallible. But I DO take note of analyses like I posted from this page:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/more-on-the-polar-bears-fate/

reposting short excerpt:

"Regardless, population recoveries, where they have occurred, are irrelevant in light of the recent changes in the availability of sea ice for polar bears."

You see? This is about claims and indicates an awareness OF the other sides... and it gives details on who the authorities are in the matter instead of just tossing out 'data' which may be simply out-of-context numbers.
It is one thing to sift thru data, it is quite another to work out what data is relevant and and its age and source.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 06:44 PM

"he area of forest burnt by wildfires in the United States is set to increase by over 50% by 2050, according to research by climate scientists.

The study predicts that the worst affected areas will be the forests in the Pacific Northwest and the Rocky Mountains, where the area of forest destroyed by wildfire is predicted to increase by 78% and 175% respectively.
The research is based on a conservative temperature increase of 1.6 degrees Celsius over the next 40 years.

Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists also say that the increase in wildfires will lead to significant deterioration of the air quality in the western United States due to greater presence of smoke.

This graph shows the percentage increase in area burned by wildfires, from the present-day to the 2050s, as calculated by the model of Spracklen et al. [2009] for the May-October fire season. The model follows a scenario of moderately increasing emissions of greenhouse gas emissions and leads to average global warming of 1.6 oCelsius (3oFahrenheit ) by 2050. Warmer temperatures can dry out underbrush, leading to more serious conflagrations in the future climate. Credit: Loretta Mickley, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

"Wildfires, such as those in California earlier this year, are a serious problem in the United States and this research shows that climate change is going to make things significantly worse," says Dr Dominick Spracklen, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds who is the lead author of the research.
"Our research shows that wildfires are strongly influenced by temperature. Hotter temperatures lead to dryer forests resulting in larger and more serious fires," explains Spracklen.

"In the Rocky Mountains we are predicting that the area burnt by wildfires will almost triple by 2050."

Scientists used data documenting the area of forest burned on federal land since 1980 along with weather data from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, to construct a computer model that takes into account the factors that can best predict the area burned in each ecosystem in the western US."

(Phys.Org)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 05:42 PM

Ah heck, I will answer my own question.

The following societies acknowledge the phenomenon of global climate change, and the fact that human activities play some role, but are equivocal on the importance of that role.

American Association of State Climatologists
National Science Foundation
National Snow and Ice Data Center
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Polish Academy of Science Geological Committee
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
American Association Of Petroleum Geologists (1)

(1) AAPG was the lone "denier" organization until they formally revised their position in July 2007 to be neutral. Now there is not a single scientific organization or society that denies global climate change with some level of human influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 05:24 PM

It's normal for people to be emotionally wedded to any opinion they have, Bill. Their emotional bent is what drives them to look up stuff that agrees with their own viewpoint, and what causes them to spend very little time if any looking up things that don't agree with their viewpoint. ;-)

This is as true of you or me as it is of Amos, BB, TIA, or anyone else here. We all normally look up those sources which agree with our viewpoint, and then we enthusiastically point them out to our opponents here who aren't really interested at all, because their own enthusiasm leads them to look up those who agree with them, not those who don't!

And saying, "I've got more of the scientific authorities on my side than you do on yours" doesn't necessarily prove anything. You know why? There have been many, many junctures in past scientific history when the majority of authoritative scientific opinions at any given time turned out later to be: Dead wrong.

And a few radical voices in disagreement turned out to be absolutely right. It has happened again and again throughout history.

So either side could be right or wrong in this argument.

And we won't know until later.

Therefore I again suggest...contact me in 5 or 10 years from now, and the "loser" of this debate can buy the "winner" a beer or something... ;-)

In the meantime it's just a lot of hot air on Mudcat on the part of a whole bunch of us opinionated armchair intellectuals and psuedo-scientists who are emotionally wedded to our present opinion whatever the heck that may be. It won't change anything.

But I'm the only one here who seems to have gone from originally fully believing in Al Gore's theory to presently strongly doubting it. And I STILL like Al Gore. How about that, eh? Does that tell you anything?

I now provide a handy space for Amos's next clever and devastating wisecrack at my expense. ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

Bruce--

My apologies, you rat fink. I meant to say "the effect of..." and wrote "the cause of..." instead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

" The efforts to STOP the climate change proposed will also delay or prevent the adoptation of efforts to accomadate climate change."

This is what *I* object to. It does not need to be 'either or'.

"You can't reduce the transportation infrastructure and increase the movement of people."

People can WALK fast enough to avoid climate change....and who said we WILL "..." reduce the transportation infrastructure "?...we just need to alter the types.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:42 PM

" IF they are wrong, it will do less damage following their advice than it will ignoring it if they are right. "


THIS is what I object to- the statment has no support, and I have given reasons why it is NOT true. The efforts to STOP the climate change proposed will also delay or prevent the adoptation of efforts to accomadate climate change.

You can't reduce the transportation infrastructure and increase the movement of people.

You can't get people to take the steps needed to survive climate change while telling them you are going to stop it from happening.

But then, some here have already decided that whatever happens King Al can command the sun to cool off.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM

""Aahhh...never mind. You have decided."

Haven't you? ;-D"

Nope...I just agree with TIA's last post. Quite a list, huh? I have 'decided' to take seriously the studies of all those respected experts. IF they are wrong, it will do less damage following their advice than it will ignoring it if they are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM

Calm down, Amos. The nice young men in the white coats will be along shortly to help you into a nice new canvas jacket...



"Well, it is nice to know that the inordinate calving of state-size chunks of arctic ice shelves, the unprecedented softening of the permafrost in northern tundra, the accelerating retreat of icebergs, and other such macro-scale symptoms, are not, after all, the cause of climate change,"

When you learn the difference between cause and effect, please let us know what this statement was supposed to mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM

NOTE When somebody writes "global warming" are you not in actuality addressing human causes and contributions? Because if you are not, you are talking nonsense.

I don't think we have established how much humans are contributing to global warming but NO ONE can dispute that global warming is happening.

I don't care if you, personally, are having an extra cool summer, the indisputable fact is that ice is melting, land is reappearing that has not been visible for eons and permafrost in many places is becoming mush.

In the north it is especially striking. Villages in Alaska are facing the reality that they will have to relocate; take Shishmaref, for an extreme example.

In a documentary I watched recently, Inuit elders said that they used to hunt seals "right out there", less than five miles off shore - and the closest ice is now 50 miles away.

Scientiests are now projecting that we may have summertime ice-free waters above the Arctic Circle by the year 2030. As they say, the only thing they've gotten wrong is that it's happening much faster than they had previously projected.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM

Well, it is nice to know that the inordinate calving of state-size chunks of arctic ice shelves, the unprecedented softening of the permafrost in northern tundra, the accelerating retreat of icebergs, and other such macro-scale symptoms, are not, after all, the cause of climate change, nor anytning we can or even should do anything about; and it is comforting to know that the correlation in accelerated global temperatures and accelerated human-driven carbon emissions is just a minor coincidence in the Great Shake and Bake of existence.

But I think there is more to the climate change argument that you guys are taking into account, and I don't by the Sunspots THeory or the Aliens are Doing It theory, either.

(That was uncalled for, Amos!! I know. But I couldn't help it!! Shame on you!! Oh, shut up!)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM

Bill, you said, "if someone has a pet idea that is ultimately wrong and has an emotional interest in it, they will often defend it to the last"

Yes! Exactly. ;-) And that IS precisely what worries me about most of the more enthusiastic adherents to the recent popular theories of "Global Warming". They have rushed like lemmings to join in the popular and trendy theme of their day, and they have a very big emotional interest in maintaining their present state of belief. They defend it with the zealousness of priests defending Holy Scripture.

Now in my case, Bill....I initially was extremely impressed by Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and I became a strong believer in the Global Warming theories just as they were presented in that film. I also like Al Gore personally, I like him politically, I'm not against him in any way, and I have no axe to grind against Al Gore at all (unlike many conservative opponents of the Global Warming theory).

However....I have since gradually come to the conclusion that his global warming theories are far from correct, and that human-produced C02 concentrations are not a major cause of global warming.

So, Bill. Who has been unable to alter a past opinion due to their emotional attachment to it? Not me. I HAVE altered my past opinions on this subject. I've altered them radically.

And I still like Al Gore, but I think he's simply mistaken in his global warming theory. That doesn't make him a bad guy in my books, it just means he's probably in error about something, that's all.

And now if I may quote you again....

"Aahhh...never mind. You have decided."

Haven't you? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:28 PM

"All this flap is about a 1 degree F rise in average ambient air temperature as measured over land from 1845-2009."


Good grief, PDQ! No...that is NOT 'all' what it is about! There is MUCH more. If all we had was a 1° rise in 150 years and no other symptoms or issues, even Gore would not be wasting his time on it. A degree or 2 fluctuation in many years 'can' be quite
normal'....


ahhh...never mind. You have decided.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:22 PM

All this flap is about a 1 degree F rise in average ambient air temperature as measured over land from 1845-2009.

A scientist will be wary about the test methods as well as the results.

Seems that many weather stations that were in rural areas a century ago are now surrounded by urban sprawl.

The concrete and surrounding buildings has thermal mass and therefore heat retention, and keep minimum measured temperatures higher than they actually are.

This is supported by the fact that the 1 degree F of "average ambient air temperature" is derived from a two degree increase in measured minimum temperature and a zero degree change in daily maximum measured temperature.

Furthermore, even if the 1 degree F rise reflects reality, there is no reason to be alarmed. It is trivial. Hardly merits a special name like is has been given. So much for Global Warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

In science, truth is not judged by popular vote. In fact, the prevailing "truth" in any field of science regularly gets tossed out on its ear after a few decades (sometimes more). However, at any stage, humans would be fools to not base their behavior on the state-of-the-art in science (such as it is…see above). So, it is important to be clear about what the current consensus is, and the fact that there is one. It is always possible to find a curmudgeon to debate on TV the current state of any science. But how many are there really? The following scientific organizations have all either explicitly endorsed, or signed joint statements in support of the latest IPCC report.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

I would be curious to see a listing of the organizations that have opposed the findings…and political ThinkTanks and PACs don't count.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 02:25 PM

"I think I know which one I will pick."

Then you need to find out if anyone agrees with you, and work out some plan to ...ummmm.....expedite this great 'move' you advocate and convince places like Canada they they need to prepare to accept 23-30 million more folks.

What *I* said is, that if climate conditions change enough, moving WILL occur...gradually, and negotiations (both friendly & not) will happen....(and IF climate changes enough, some will die...whether King Al was ignored or not)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:57 PM

"We need to get it right as best we can. "

I agree with this- so why do you keep advocating action without getting it right?


If you are right, having "preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change" will be usefull, and attempting to stop it will be usefull.

If I am right ( and global warming occurs regardless) it is essential that we "prepare to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change", and all attempts to stop it are wasted effort.




So, which one is the side of caustion? If I am wrong, we have prepared for something that is not (immediately) occurring, and we live.

If King Al is wrong ( and we cannot stop Global warming) we have wasted the resources we need to survive.- And we die.


I think I know which one I will pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM

What the Global Warming barkers have on their side are the news outlets. They do not have have the facts on their side.


"The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with '2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'. In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is 'settled'.

A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a 'growing accumulation' of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the "science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation. 'More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists 'rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming' An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable presence" of scientific skeptics exists.

An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC "be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.' "

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

Iss da fookin seals eh wha?

All da seal huggin yuppies what gets da ban on da seal hunt is causin a spoike in da seal population. More seals eatin cod an salmon an shellfish ana loike an fartin, what den causes da roise in yer temperature a yer bay, see? Not ta mention yer green gas what fooks wit yer ozone. Now, dem cod and yer loike is after livin in cold water fer a long many years and dey don't spawn so good when da bay is warm. Less fer yer whole food chain ta eat, what stunts yer growth of yer under da water plant type life and den iss loike a dog chasin ees tail I tell ya.

True sure! Iss da fookin seals, buddy.

Well, iss da yuppies what gets sucked in ta donatin coin by yer global Mega-Beggers loike yer Green Pieces who use yer stunned as me arse neo-ecological old hippies loike yer McCartneys fer frontmen. Imagine da loikes a dat pair globe trottin in jets and cruise punts and couldn't even find Newfoundland on a fookin map!! Jaysus! Wonner Danny b'y didn't go out fer a wee chat wit his nibs in person and give n a smack.

At least get a fookin GPS so's ya knows where yer to eh, Pauly. I mean, it's nare loike ya can't afford one... and maybe a yuppie to read it for ya. Good ting dey weren't walkin, eh? Prob'ly woulda got lost sure... had ta club a baby seal fer sustinence eh wha? Nothin out on ta ice fer ta make a club with though. Wonder what dey coulda used?

Some folks is stunner n fookin seals. I mean, ya don't even have no never mind the roise in da level a da bay from yer global swarming… put a seal in yer washtub an see if yer floor gets wet.

Iss da fookin seals!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:19 PM

(some little heads only have room for facts that suit their preconceived opinions)

It saddens me to say that, but I see it everyday in various ways. *IF* some scientific idea is incorrect, science will eventually figure it out....if someone has a pet idea that it ultimately wrong and has an emotional interest in it, they will often defend it to the last.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

Did you guys actually look at the three charts up-thread?

1880 to 2008 Hemispheric Temperature Change in both hemispheres, moreso in the northern hemisphere: continuous, accelerating increase approaching exponential rampup in the last 80 years.

1880 to 2008 Global Temperature annual Mean and five-year Mean values showing temo anomalies from -.6 to +.8 deg. C: constant increase accelerating to nearly exponential in the last 60-80 years.

1880-2008 Global Land/Ocean Temperature Index anomalies -- same pattern.

The exponential increase of anthropogenic carbon, methane and water emissions is highly likely to follow the same pattern.

The other factor you seem to be ignoring is that CO2 emissions actually lower the ratio of oxygen in the atmospheric mix on land, making for unpleasant breathing.   I have no data on the quantities involved on this last point however.

Do you think these trends are fiction?????


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

I realize that Carl Sagan is dead and therefore needs no defense from me but W A Y   U P   T H E R E   I N   T H I S   T H R E A D, "Guest/Al" several times made the remark that Sagan had predicted that nuclear winter would follow the Gulf War oil well fires, and that therefore one could not trust "experts" opinions on global warming.

No one on this thread challenged the charge. The fact is that, wittingly or not, Guest/Al was wrong. I have found no such evidence that Sagan ever made such a prediction. Typical:

From Wiki

"Sagan erroneously predicted in January 1991 that so much smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia…" He acknowledged the error in The Demon-Haunted World: "as events transpired, it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6 °C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:28 PM

Mudcat quit last night while I was assembling my reply about bears...so:

"fact: the world's polar bear population has gone up dramatically since the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1972." ---from PDQ


PDQ... what you are doing is the age-old routine of repeating one mantra, and 'suggesting' that it covers all that needs to be said about the issue. You do not seem interested in any OTHER facts that may cast doubt on what you wish to believe.

read this: "http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/more-on-the-polar-bears-fate/

Here: I'll quote a small bit for you:
"Just because polar bear numbers might have increased in the previous three or four decades, we must not discount the evidence that they are now declining in some areas and are expected to soon decline in others."
...also
..."Dykstra (http://www.sej.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm) thoroughly examined media accounts that supposedly provided evidence of growing populations, and did a nice job verifying that they have no scientifically established basis. You might wish to refer to that document."

also

"Regardless, population recoveries, where they have occurred, are irrelevant in light of the recent changes in the availability of sea ice for polar bears. Because polar bears are entirely dependent upon the sea ice for their survival, any observed and projected reductions in preferred sea ice habitats can only result in declines."

There's a LOT more about the details of the studies of bear populations and how they have changed for 200,000 years and why they DO change. Some of the 'studies' were very cursory, and due to the difficulty of following any large % of the bears, simply declaring that "bear populations are fine" is a prima facie example of the 'wishful thinking' I was referring to.

The real importance of ANY of the facts is their bearing (no pun intended) on the overall issue of climate change and what such change portends for the environment in general, as WE are the only life form on Earth which can study it, reflect on it and do anything about it. We need to get it right as best we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Good post, TIA.

I am in favour of reducing our industrial emissions, as I've said several times. Yes, we should make efforts to protect ourselves against rapid changes in the climate (either of warming or cooling phases). And BB has also been saying that.

What has mainly drawn me into this discussion is simply that I think the present common idea about "global warming" that has been dominating the airwaves for at least 10 years now is based on faulty premises. It's become a sort of secular religion with all the authority of the kind of unquestioning faith that you find in the most doctrinaire religions, and that worries me, because I think it's based on incorrect assumptions and bad science. It's simply the desire to know the real truth here that concerns me...not the desire to defend some kind of big industries that want to spew pollutants into the atmosphere.

***

Doug R - Say, how far do you figure Hell is from Arizona??? (grin) I'd be thinking of moving if I had to put up with temperatures like you are facing there right now!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM

...this is from a normal citizen and was posted to a blog. He writes better than I do, so I will post his statement:


"Actually William, no I am not backing off.

I notice you did not answer my question either.

My position has not changed. It is that we don't know enough about climate feedbacks to restrict CO2 emissions.

Since some analyses point to 1998 as the hottest year and some to 2005, I think it's fair to say that in any event global warming is slowing. In that vein I pointed out further variability. There is no crisis in the immediate future (from global warming anyway) so we have better things to do with our resources, until we actually have a handle on feedbacks. One of those things is further research. There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers (some with no data or algorithm backup) that show anything anyone wants to prove. It's *all* cherry picking.

In particular, the concept that increased damages from tropical storms are primarily due to "global warming" is absolutely ludicrous and I don't understand how anyone who has seen the development in hurricane prone areas over the last few decades could say that. Of course, there are people who just sit in their labs and never get outside - to them it's plausible.

It's all part of the welfare state/lack of personal responsibility we have gotten ourselves into. CO2 is the base of the food chain, but despite the billion or so people on the edge of starvation there are selfish people who want to limit it, therefore food, with:

1. no reasoning remotely related to reality (e.g. clouds), or

2. The potential for them to make a lot of money off carbon trading or some other aspect of limiting fossil fuel use.


Posted by: Steve Hemphill at December 1, 2006 05:15 PM"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 11:14 AM

"We are expected to have a high of 115 degrees (F) today."

That ain't human. Doug, I will quit complaining about Montreal where it's in the 80s. I don't gel along too well with heat like that. Once spent three days in California (near SF) and the temp got to something like that(I remember 114, but my good friend who has a better memory than I ever did says it was 117). We sat around his basement for three days and drank a mixture of stuuf to keep ourselves hydrated. Well, the three days dragged on for a week, but we'd failed to recognize after the three days that it was cooling down substantially. Beats me why.

Sorry for the thread drift, bb. Trust you're well and behaving, buddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 10:28 AM

LH-
You are absolutely correct about the long history of dramatic climate change on planet Earth. And, life and Earth are absolutely not in peril. I am dead certain that, as has happened uncountable times over the last 3.5 billion years of life on Earth, climate will change, and the flora and fauna best suited to the new climate will thrive, while those that cannot adapt fast enough will not. So what is in peril is not life. It is human civilization. If we can slow the rate of climate change so that people can adapt, humans may survive. If not, they may disappear. Adaptation typically takes many, many generations. Dramatic climate change over a short period of time usually results in the extinction of the dominant genera.

One could argue that humans are in even greater danger from loss of potable water, ubiquity of potentially harmful chemicals, population crash due to disease or mass starvation from overpopulation, but that does not lessen the threat from too-rapid global climate change. If it is not human-driven, then we are all simply screwed anyhow, so we can whistle away on our summer days enjoying what we have left. But, if there is a chance that we can slow it enough to adapt, wouldn't that be smart? I have been one of the ones pointing out that CO2 is not the whole story. Methane and water vapor are more eficient greenhouse gasses. But we have leverage on CO2. Think of CO2 as a hand on the valve of climate change. If we can reduce CO2, which may reduce production of other gasses through limiting the positive feedback mechanisms (see my posts above), isn't opposing mitigation just sticking our heads in the sand and *hoping* for a good outcome?

And now for a sudden turn - perhaps the extinction of humans *is* a good outcome for planet Earth. Or (more likely) perhaps it just doesn't matter to planet Earth in the long run since the supernova of Sol will take it out eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 10:21 AM

I repeat:

"" our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.""



To err on the side of caution, when it takes resources away from the proper action, is still to err.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM

Article from:  The Australian

Christopher Pearson / March 22, 2008         

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

{shortened to fit space limit }

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:14 AM

I'm all for erring on the side of caution, Bill, but I'm also in favour of reducing our industrial emissions anyway...for a number of good reasons quite aside from global warming.

My point is that I just don't think our CO2 is a very significant factor behind what's causing present global warming, that's all. In fact it may BE the global warming itself which is and has been the primary cause OF greatly increased CO2 levels during many of the past warming phases in the planet's history, and our contribution may be negligible in comparison to that effect.   Therefore, I question the currently popular theories about that may be quite wrong...in that they have incorrectly identified the tail as wagging the dog.

I'm not against being cautious, Bill. I'm just looking for the truth, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 09:54 PM

Crowbar: Yes, Bush would be blamed.

Just a though: If any mudcatters crave some warm weather, you might amble on out to Arizona. We are expected to have a high of 115 degrees (F) today.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 07:24 PM

"facts trump opinions every time" ~ me

fact: the world's polar bear population has gone up dramatically since the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1972...same is true for wooping crane and bald eagle...there are about 25,000 polar bears now as opposed to about 5,000 in the late 1960s...steady increase every year for almost 30 years...good news

opinion: good news seldom sells books or gets you any federal grant money

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

Rather than 'just wait', my eternal and oft repeated suggestion is

err on the side of caution

If the sites *I* note are correct, it's gonna look stupid to have just trusted to luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM

Clearly we have two orthodoxies here battling with each other over who is right...and both can provide plently of links to authoritative sources to back up what they say.

Nothing terribly unusual about that. ;-)

We won't know for sure, guys, until we get there. When the Fat Lady Polar Bear sings, in other words. Like I said, check back with me in 5 or 10 years on this if we're both still here to talk about it, and then we can see who won.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM

PDQ...re:bears...which of the hundred sites/sources do you trust as much as these? Any of them?


National Wildlife Foundation

Wall Street Journal-2005

2007- UK paper...with images

March-2009 NY Times blog

NASA-2006

from the NASA site.

"According to scientists from NASA and the Canadian Wildlife Service, these increased Arctic polar bear sightings are probably related to retreating sea ice triggered by climate warming and not due to population increases as some may believe."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:47 PM

" our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change."



How often do I have to find peopel saying this before the "Carbon-cappers" will listen????

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM

"Stopping Climate Change
Putting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.

Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.

Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.

Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.

Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains:

" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."
"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:38 PM

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."


Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM

Now there are some interesting charts! Just what I had in mind, BB. We appear to be at the tail end of a relatively cold period..."the little ice age" that followed the medieval warm period.

I do not find that scary at all. The possibility that we might be entering another medieval warm period sounds pretty good to me.

I note too that the Earth had far higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during the very lengthy period when the dinosaurs were in their heyday, and it seems to have been teeming with plant and animal life at that time. Plants greatly benefit from increased atmostpheric CO2, and animals benefit from increased vegetation, so it's not surprising that they would both thrive under those conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:23 PM

FYI, CO2 is just noise, compared with other greenhouse gasses. But I guess asking people to reduce their water vapor just does not have political appeal.




"Carbon dioxide doesn't affect global warming

Saturday, October 7, 2000


In reading Dispatch Science Reporter David Lore's recent article "Evidence keeps mounting that Earth is warming up,'' it is difficult not to retort: So, what else is new?

I learned about global warming 50 years ago reading geology as one of my subjects in natural sciences at Cambridge University.

The "news'' at that time was that the ice sheets had been retreating since the early 1900s, and Earth warming had started about the middle to late 1600s.

This followed a 300- to 400-year cooling period, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, which came after the much hotter Medieval Warm Period, running roughly A.D. 900 to 1300, depending on the source. During that warm period, the Vikings had two settlements on the west coast of Greenland -- try that today -- which vanished with onset of the Little Ice Age.

And, the further point in the article that climatologist James Hansen gets so excited about is the contribution of carbon dioxide. What has carbon dioxide to do with all this?

Almost nothing, from what I have seen, looking at the numbers for the last 30 years, which raises major questions both about both the feasibility and the pointless cost to society of trying to control such emissions.

It is well-known and fully recognized, if one checks the relevant Web sites, that the two principal thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide.

However -- and this point is continually missed -- the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top limit, it is closer to 100-to-1.

This means that the carbon dioxide is simply "noise'' in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done.

So, if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving up the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide?

One can easily run the numbers by using the standard psychrometric chart as used by the friendly neighborhood air-conditioning man. This is a graph of the ratio of water to air in the atmosphere plotted against temperature, for different levels of relative humidity.

If one calculates the ratio of carbon dioxide to dry air and plots it on the same graph, one would see it is just above zero. In other words, at such a small relative concentration, how can carbon dioxide have any significant influence on the atmosphere? If anyone has an answer, I'm listening.

Robert H. Essenhigh
Professor of energy conservation
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Ohio State University"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:17 PM

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/temperatures.html


Posted before, but not noticed, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM

"heretical statements about global warming. "


Worse than that, you are putting forth the same ideas I posted some time back!

"You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses..."


( and the weiner dog got up and slowly walked away)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:10 PM

Yes, BB. ;-) I expect to be drawn and quartered or possibly excommunicated at any moment for my heretical statements about global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:06 PM

"One thing for sure. It had nothing much to do with human contributions to global warming. "


Be carefull- those who dare challange the religious assumptions of others run the risk of crucifiction ( unless you point out the fact that the decay gasses are more potent greenhouse gasses than CO2) or burning... ( unless you point out the carbon footprint).

Ok, go ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

Yes, TIA, that's exactly what I would expect there has been...an exponential rise in CO2 production since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Matter of fact, that's what I intended to convey in my previous post. I simply used the wrong words when I said "a fairly much steady increase".

We do not disagree at all when it comes to that.

Can you find similar climatic charts that go back 2 or 3 thousand years? I'd be interested to see what mean annual temperature ranges have been seen around the world in that peroid. For instance, what was going on when the Vikings were farming in Greenland? And why was Greenland so much warmer then than it is now?

One thing for sure. It had nothing much to do with human contributions to global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM

LH-
Good sensible questions:
Q
"Hasn't there been a fairly much steady increase in industrial and transportation-related CO2 emmissions ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution...in other words from the 1800s right up to now?"

A
Actually, there has been an exponential increase in CO2 production. That is, the production is not "steady" it is ever-increasing in both volume and rate (mirroring the exponential human population growth and energy consumption). In addition, there are tremendous positive feedback mechanisms. A little additional CO2 may increase temperature a little, which thaws just a little permafrost, which releases more CO2, as well as the more potent methane...and so on, accelerating the process.

Q
"If so, and if global warming is so much due to CO2 in the atmosphere, then why have we not seen the world getting steadily warmer throughout the entire history of our industrial revolution?"

A
We have!

graph 1

graph 2

graph 3

Sure, it's complicated and one can easily point to years where the temperature dropped a bit, but the long-term trend is very clear, and it is based on a multitude of both direct and proxy measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 04:10 PM

Bear with us, one might say:


"Excerpt from one of about 100 sources I found debunking the GW polar bear scare:

Indeed, since the 1970s -- all while the world was "warming" - polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today (higher than at anytime in the 20th century).

And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

Polar bears have thrived during warmer climates because they are omnivores just like their cousin's the Brown and Black bears.

Though Polar Bears eat seals more than any other food source at present, research shows that they have a varied diet when other foods are available including, fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds, the occasional beluga whale and musk ox and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses.

In addition, Dr. Mitchell Taylor , a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, pointed out in testimony to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that modest warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available .

Alaska's polar bear population is stable, and Taylor's research shows that the Canadian polar bear population has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.

Where polar bear weight and numbers are declining, Taylor thinks too many bears competing for food, rather than arctic warming, is the cause.

That's right, the problem confronting polar bears may overpopulation not extinction!

Posted by: Lorraine at May 7, 2007 10:00 PM"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 02:42 PM

"The entire Global Warming affair is based on two things..."

No..it is also based on the disappearing glaciers and starving polar bears. I do hope those facts are also accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 02:32 PM

I don't know much about climate change, but I do know it's been hotter than the hinges of hell in Montreal this past week.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 02:29 PM

The entire Global Warming affair is based on two things, generally accepted by all sides as "fact":

       1. there has been a 1 degree F rise in the average ambient air temperature as measured above land, since the great Irish Potato Famine (circa 1845)

       2. there has been an increase in atmospheric CO₂ during the same period of time, perhaps from 290 PPM to the present 361 PPM

All else is speculation. Anyone who says he knows what the average ambient air temperature will be in 2050 is guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 01:50 PM

TIA - Hasn't there been a fairly much steady increase in industrial and transportation-related CO2 emmissions ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution...in other words from the 1800s right up to now? If so, and if global warming is so much due to CO2 in the atmosphere, then why have we not seen the world getting steadily warmer throughout the entire history of our industrial revolution?

Instead, we have seen a number of warming and cooling phases during that historical period. There was a notable cooling phase in the 40's, during WWII and it was one of the reasons that the German Army got into big trouble in the severe Russian winter in '41-42. Why did that happen during an ever-increasing industrial output and burning of fossil fuels worldwide? I suspect it happened because of variations in the energy output of the sun. There was another notable cooling phase in the early 70s, and the papers at the time were printing scare stories about the possibility of a new Ice Age. Where'd that come from? You notice that they turned out to be dead wrong about it? ;-) Yet it was the popular trend of the time for some reason...maybe because "We're all doomed!" stories appeal to people's sense of drama and they sell copy.

I'm not saying that CO2 does not contribute some to global warming. It does. So does atmospheric water vapour, but to a much greater extent than CO2. The biggest influence, however, seems to be the varying behaviour of the sun itself. Scientists are presently noticing a historic minimum of sunspot activity...that means less energy coming to this planet from the sun...that will mean a cooling planet for awhile till the sun gets more active again.

I think that the role of atmospheric CO2 in this picture is a very minor one. I am in favor of reducing our CO2 emissions anyway...not because I think they're causing "global warming", but because I am in favour of cleaner air.

In that respect I fully agree with Bill D that we must "control our impact on the environment". For sure. It's only good sense to minimize our industrial CO2 emissions...but I think the present "global warming" scare is based upon false assumptions and has tried to pin the tail on the wrong donkey, as it were. I think it's a fad, built upon a faulty premise.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM

"...is related to the output of the sun..."

Is related to a number of things! You are emphasizing those reports and opinions that suit your own wishful thinking. The large majority of experts STILL agree that human impact is driving much of the climate change, and the changes in behavior they advocate will, in the long run, be better for everyone, no matter what the exact % we we are responsible for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk."

Your property & constitutional liberties won't mean much if we don't control our impact on the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 12:43 PM

The reference that nearly all Global Warming debunkers cite when saying that it is the sun is Usoskin et al., 2005.

Interestingly, their study does show a very, very strong correlation between solar activity and global mean temperature (~0.7 to 0.8 at >95% confidence) over the last 1150 years. Read carefully though, because this very paper also points out that temperature and solar activity strongly diverge starting in the 1970's. In fact the last sentence (never cited by the debunkers) says that the observed warming since 1975 *must* have a non-solar source.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 07:52 AM

"It has to do with the sun."

Thank you, LH. Now that someone other than myself has stated that the temperature on Earth is related to the output of the sun, perhaps there can be a reasonable discussion of what effort needs to be put into trying to stop something that will happen regardless of what Al Gore wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 09 - 09:35 AM

Amos, you said that Gore "is saying "Cut bachk significantly on carbon emissions." "

I had no idea that Al Gore knew some Klingon words. Fascinating! ;-D

I think that what we've got right now, folks, is a new global cooling phase, and it's due to a recent dramatic reduction in sunspot activity. Since the official cry of the media propaganda lemmings these days is "Global Warming!!!", there has been a profound resistance to recognizing that the warming phase of the early years of this century (when the sun was more active than now) is over. We're into another cooling cycle, and it has very little to do with CO2 levels. It has to do with the sun.

Now jump around, wave your arms wildly, and yell at me for awhile. Quote the official line. Go ballistic. ;-D

But remember, we'll all know for sure in a few years from now. And my prediction is that the present Hoo-Hah about "global warming" will by then have faded into the past and been mostly forgotten, and some new popular orthodoxy will have come into vogue instead and have been accepted by almost everyone, and no one will be talking anymore about global warming. No, they'll be spending new billions on some other mass panic attack.

Wait and see.

In fact, cut this post out, date it, and stick it on your stove...then check back with me in 5 to 10 years from now and we'll see if I was right. If I was, you can shake my hand and say "You were right.". If not, we'll do it the other way around. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM

Science and Technology News

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:



Ø      The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers' money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.



Ø      Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of "global warming" theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.



Ø      Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.



Ø      Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.



Ø      The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.



Ø      By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Ø      Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.



Says Nova, "For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It's time to start talking of "Monopolistic Science". It's time to expose the lie that those who claim "to save the planet" are the underdogs. And it's time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money."



Robert Ferguson, SPPI's president, says: "This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the 'global warming' non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own "group-think" scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State's near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.



"Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the "right" data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

It is extremely important to think about land ice and sea ice differently. Only land ice melt contributes to sea level rise. The GRACE satellite measurements have clearly shown that land ice is being lost rapidly. There is no debate about this.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:48 AM

I am sure, too, PDQ, that the melting tundra permafrost layer is just shifting its cold center a few miles to one side or the other, and refreezes when no-one is looking... I think your assertion about balanced ice masses is perhaps hogwash. Do you have any reference for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:09 AM

Not only is CO₂ an essential part of the Earth's atmosphere but there is very little of it. About 0.36 of 1%. Enough to supply the needs of plants but too little to have any effect on global temperatures.

A slight increase, even doubling, of CO₂ would have a huge beneficial affect on crop vigor and increase production. That will be needed if the Third World keeps attempting to overwhelm the world's food production capacity with absurd birth rates.

A slight increase in air temperature, perhaps 1 or 2 degrees would put us back to the temperature levels of 800-1000 years ago and would also bode very well for increased food production, especially in regions of Canada, Alaska and Greenland.

As far as glacier melt, it is only brought to the public's attention when a glacier gets smaller. There are just as many glaciers that are increasing in size. Net icepack is the same as it was 40 years ago, it is just in different places.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 10:40 AM

The issue of pollution in the meat packing industry and poultry and pig processing plants have been left out of the equation. Cattle causes pollution in the atmosphere that directly affects global warming. Just as much as cars. BB, the point it, as was stated above, not CO2 per se but too much of it.

Gore should talk about meat, poultry and pork as well as the excessive pollution in Agribusiness. And this ridiculous "clean coal" Orwellian sales point.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 07:02 AM

"what Gore proposes has not been shown to have any effect upon global warming"....... because it has not been implemented perhaps !?!?!?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Leadfingers
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM

400

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:29 PM

Where is Gore saying "give me your money"??? Are you that paranoid?? He is saying "Cut bachk significantly on carbon emissions." Why do YOU twist his words?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:14 PM

I guess we have to negotiate surrender terms....

"..., why have YOU ignored the fact that I have stated that what Gore proposes has not been shown to have any effect upon global warming..."

Ignored? Hardly....

The important phrase is "has not been shown...". Do you demand instant results? You don't turn a herd of stampeding cattle around by jumping up in front of them and yelling "BOO!" And, yeah...it will take some money....long term projects- like space exploration - do require funding. That's why you HAVE a job doing it.

As to 'factors'...Gore is not DOING a the research. There are many, many competent experts who can show you the details of WHY they assert that CO2 is a ***significant part*** of the problem.
In MY opinion, this warrants 'erring on the side of caution'. The changes Gore & others are asking for have many benefits even IF you believe they have little or no effect on climate change....just like buying a Prius might...☻

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Zen
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:10 PM

I'm not being confrontational on this point. I just want people to realize that CO2 is not correctly called a pollutant.

CO2 is an essential component of the Earth's atmosphere and all plant life would cease to exist without it.

This is just nitpicking and stating what is clearly obvious.

Plants are also an essential part of the biosphere but excess plants in unwanted places are still called weeds. The same argument applies to excess man-made CO2.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 11:42 AM

I accept your surrender.

Now, why have YOU ignored the fact that I have stated that what Gore proposes has not been shown to have any effect upon global warming, and (You) keep saying that he is "installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials?" I do not see that he is doing that- I see that he is saying "give me your money and everything will turn out OK. ( And when it does not, he complains we did not give him enough money)"


Given the past global climatic changes, and the long-term trends ( centuries, not decades) I see no reason to believe that the man-made CO2 has made a significant contribution to, and certainly is NOT the controlling factor to global warming.

Have you looked at recent volcanic activity ( part of my job in satellite Earth observations)?

And you think switching to a Prius will change the weather on Mars and Jupiter????? You must, if you believe that it is anthropomorphic CO2 causing the warming...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:10 PM

I surrender..... I explain why 'dealing' with it in that way is not relevant, and you repeat, in larger letters, that he should figure out how to 'deal with it'.

There is a big difference between explaining one's position and asserting one's position.

I can't debate single-minded repetition.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM

Serious question?

I have asked what Gore has proposed to DEAL WITH GLOBAL WARMING- the answer is still NOTHING- He is trying to stop it, not deal with it. Unlikely that he can, and sort of like throwing away the life preservers in order to lighten a sinking boat.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

"...what Gore is advocating is more like conting how many feet of hose are used rather than truning on the water."

piffle! He is advocating changing what we do to the environment! He **IS** advocating turning on the water! He is NOT advocating that everyone run as far from the fire as possible.

(sheesh...I use an admitted silly example and you make flawed commentary on that rather than deal with my serious questions...)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

Ken,
You can find the original hockey stick graph here, along with a very cogent discussion of it's controversial origin, as well as diminishing scientific importance and brief media stardom.
The hockey stick has data is now pretty irrelevant. There are numerous completely independent proxies that show the same thing. So, even if one concedes to the skeptics on the hockey stick. The game is not over - there's a lot lot more debunking to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:15 PM

BillD,

"So, you're saying that if firemen are getting burned fighting fire, they need to seek better salves & bandages, rather than worry about installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials? (I 'think' I have the format correct...☺)"

No, another logically flawed case. YOU are ignoring that what Gore is advocating is more like conting how many feet of hose are used rather than truning on the water. I would rather they put out the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM

See the reference link I posted a while back, Ken. Or go see "An Inconvenient Truth". It is in both places. Sheesh.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,ken mellor
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM

I want to see the IPPC "hockey shaped graph" showing (allegedly)
Global temperatue and CO2 plotted against time.
I want to see it wit "error bars"
That graph is the mainstay of the man - made global warming theory.
We never see the graph !!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

"

A new scientific study published today in Nature could serve to simplify the debate surrounding carbon targets, by warning that the world can only afford to burn another half a trillion tonnes of carbon if it is to prevent potentially catastrophic increases in average temperatures of more than 2°C.

The research calculated that the world has already burned about half a trillion tonnes of carbon since the industrial revolution, and that based on current projections it is on track to burn the next half a trillion tonnes within 40 years.

It warns that once a trillion tonnes of anthropogenic carbon has been burned, resulting in 3.67 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide being released, global warming of between 1.6°C and 2.6°C is likely, with a rise of 2°C "most likely".

The EU has set a target of limiting average temperature rises to 2°C as scientists fear that larger increases in temperature could trigger the collapse of natural carbon sinks that would lead to still higher levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and result in "runaway climate change".

The new research suggests that a target based on how much carbon can still be burned would be simpler to understand and enforce than targets based on the rate of emissions or concentrations in the atmosphere, which have been adopted by many businesses and governments.

Writing in Nature, the research team, which was led by Oxford University's Myles Allen, said that "policy targets based on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide are likely to be more robust to scientific uncertainty than emission-rate or concentration targets".

The research implies that access to fossil fuels will eventually have to be blocked, warning that only a third of economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves can be burned before 2100 if two-degree warming is to be avoided.

The scientists said that while the research framed carbon targets in a different way to those being discussed as part of the UN's climate change talks, they were broadly in line with current expectations that global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in about 2020."
(From here.

A

Bruce:

I am not finding instances of Gore pushing for adaptation measures, in a rapid search. Although he has pushed the cap and trade model, it is not the only remedial measure he has promoted. But I fail to see why you feel he is at fault for doing what he is doing, because there is something else that also needs doing. If he focuses on remedial measures, why don't you start an adaptation measures campaign instead of just being sarcastic about him doing what he does?


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Lemme see if I can get this in a form Bruce understands..

So, you're saying that if firemen are getting burned fighting fire, they need to seek better salves & bandages, rather than worry about installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials? (I 'think' I have the format correct...☺)





Yes...of course it's a silly example......that's the point.

   But a serious question is: Why is **Gore** supposed to focus on stuff like 'moving populations' rather than trying to prevent the need to do so? Don't we have official agencies to deal with logistics IF the need arises?
It 'feels' to me like you are trying to divert attention from the issue of whether we have a significant trend in warming, by ridiculing Gore's logic about response.

I just don't get it....as I said before, populations WILL try to move if this continues, and Gore is not the one to try to oversee that process.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM

"But he is not limiting his suggestions as you imply"

Fine. Show me a statement where he says to actully attempt to deal with climate change, instead of trying to prevent it.



I'll wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

Gore is beating the drum for action to be taken, Bruce, and among those actions, cutting back on human-driven CO2 emissions. But he is not limiting his suggestions as you imply, nor is he in a position to legislate one or another strategy. So I think you are mischaracterizing the man, perhaps out of bitterness. To the degree that anthrogenic factors are contributing to the climate curve, they should be considered a human risk factor and managed as possible, surely; and surely calling this to public attention is a public service.

Why not write your own gospel and put it out in PowerPoint, if you are so much the wiser than he?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

Solar could be made cost effective if there wasn't the opposition to carbon industries.
There is an analogy to the car makers. A decent car could be produced but the so-called
"market" values and the car industry militate against this.

Any excessive imbalance in the earth's atmosphere can have deleterious effects.
That's just common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"All we can do is adopt various measures to better cope with the effects of climate change."


Exactly! And this is what Gore et al are NOT doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:40 AM

Earth temperature and Solar activity have always been in lock-step. Until 1975. Now they are out of step, and increasingly so. A strong argument for anthropogenic climate change *not* driven by the sun. I put the link above, but I suspect that many in the discussion did not read it. I will repost later.

And yes, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than C02, but the CO2 is where we have leverage. If we slightly increase CO2, and it slightly increases warming at the poles which releases methane which causes huge warming, it seems very smart to attack the trigger over which we have control - CO2. It's not the whole story, but it is *something* we can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:32 AM

"Volcanic activity can also put a lot of C02 and various pollutants into the atmosphere..." ~ LH

I'm not being confrontational on this point. I just want people to realize that CO₂ is not correctly called a pollutant.

CO₂ is an essential component of the Earth's atmosphere and all plant life would cease to exist without it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:27 AM

If it were variations in the sun's behaviour that caused a whole lot of global warming during the PETM....how would we find physical evidence of that now?

Furthermore, could it be possible that an increase in solar energy during the PETM would have itself caused an increase in atmospheric C02? Quite possbily, I should think, because if the sun heats the surface of the Earth more than usual then you will have a greater incidence of drought over wide areas of geography, and that will cause a greater incidence of forest fires and brush fires to occur. More forest fires and brush fires means a lot more smoke and C02 going into the atmosphere. (Volcanic activity can also put a lot of C02 and various pollutants into the atmosphere...but that can cause global cooling for awhile by blocking sunlight.)

It's quite possible that the changing activity of the sun has been the major player in Earth's past heating and cooling phases...not greenhouse gases. An increase of decreans in greenhouse gases may itself be partially a biproduct of changing solar behaviour.

If so, well, we can't do anything about the sun. All we can do is adopt various measures to better cope with the effects of climate change.

There will always be climate change in one direction or another. What humanity needs to do is get better at anticipating a major climate change before it happens and taking measure to protect people from the worst effects of it. Preventive medicine, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:24 PM

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said.
"This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM." (Phys.org)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:15 PM

Oil Change International - Follow the Oil Money -

Google that, svp.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:10 PM

"WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

from

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:HPTfR6bjQD4J:www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html+oil+co

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:02 PM

Your excerpt from the WaPo was almost persuasive and I was going to acknowledge that when I took the trouble to go to the link you provided for the actual piece and found your excerpt had roundly altered the whole throust of the article. The whole point of the piece is that cap and trade to limit carbon emissions is not the best way to reduce greenhouse effects. I have no disagreement with that view--if solar were more costeffective than petroleum, we'd be miles ahead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

"This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.

These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems.

The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions. "

read the whole article- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:33 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:29 PM

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/posts


""I don't make climate predictions because I don't know what the Sun will do next," says S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia emeritus professor of environmental sciences and founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. "But analysis of the best data of the past 30 years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas."

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted that "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, more than 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris's Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the global-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

"The hypothesis that solar variability, and not human activity, is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not," explained Dr. David Wojick, co-founder of Carnegie-Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM

"If changes in the Sun's activities are part of it, there's not a lot we can do about that right now. "

We SHOULD be relocating coastal populations, and preparing for the change in climate: Instead, we bitch and moan about how everything would be just fine if ( insert hated country) would just comply with the Kyoto accords.

And NOTHING is being done to DEAL with the effects that WILL be coming along, regardless of what we "can" do about CO2 emmissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM

I understand the difference, Bruce. Your perspective that all the warming is just hidden in longterm trends which we have no effect on is possible but unlikely, IMO. And a good number of reputable scientists disagree with your analysis which you present as an absolute assertion.

I have no time for exchanging brassy, windy assertions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:16 PM

Sorry, Amos, not slurs- but fact. You have failed to consider that in natural warming, the methane frozen in artic regions would be released, having a far greater effect than CO2. Remember, water vapor and methane are far stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2. Once the ice caps melt, the water vapor that they release, along withg the methane, are more than enough to provide for the greenhouse effect as seen in past climactic changes.

The next ice age will not occur until either the sun ( a variable star, by about 4%) cools down, or the planet is hit by a large enough object to raise dust for several years. Or maybe another Krakatoa type event ( or several.

The only way that mankind is going to alter this climactic change is to have a major thermonuclear war, and let the dust clouds cool things down- refreezing tyhe ice caps, which then reflect more sunlight and capture the methane, etc.

So, to follow in Gore's parade, if you would rather stop the climate change than adjust to it, start a war. a BIG one.


I would rather move a few million people, like out of Florida. But that won't get Gore any votes for Saviour, now will it???




This is a natural cycle, seen to have happpened many times. It just happens that civilisation has occurred mostly during the post glacial period of the present ice age- which is now ending.

Look back at the old thread, where I presented graphs showing the temperature and CO2 for the last several million years- you criticise Doug for not being aware of the duifference between climate and weather, then make the same mistake yourself- it is the long term ( think centuries) trending that is significant- they show a warming, and the cause is NOT man-made CO2.


"private agenda of profit "

I see only that Gore would be unknown and ignored if he did not have this fairy tale to peddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM

Sorry, Amos, not slurs- but fact. You have failed to consider that in natural warming, the methane frozen in artic regions would be released, having a far greater effect than CO2. Remember, water vapor and methane are far stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2.

This is a natural cycle, seen to have happpened many times. It just happens that civilisation has occurred mostly during the post glacial period of the present ice age- which is now ending.

Look back at the old thread, where I presented graphs showing the temperature and CO2 for the last several million years- you criticise Doug for not being aware of the duifference between climate and weather, then make the same mistake yourself- it is the long term ( think centuries) trending that is significant- they show a warming, and the cause is NOT man-made CO2.


"private agenda of profit "

I see only that Gore would be unknown and ignored if he did not have this fairy tale to peddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

Well, it was only a few posts upthread, BB, that all warming was being roundly denied.

There are two arguments that support the greenhouse causation theory. One is the difference in the increase between day and night, which shows more pronounced warming at night because radiation is escaping less due to greenhouse gases.

A second is the difference in rate of the Arctic declines.

"...computer models predicted that greenhouse gases would cause a particular pattern of temperature change. It was different from what might be caused by other external influences, such as solar variations. The observed geographical pattern of change did in fact bear a rough resemblance to the computers' greenhouse effect maps. "It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities," the researchers concluded, "although many uncertainties remain."(43) Even before it was published, the finding impressed the community of climate scientists. In an important 1995 report, the world's leading experts offered the "fingerprint" as evidence that greenhouse warming was probably underway. The leader of the team at Lawrence Livermore Lab that found the "fingerprint," Benjamin Santer, helped write the summary of this report, and he was deeply hurt when a few skeptics attacked not only the statement but his personal scientific integrity. (By 2006, when the warming had progressed considerably farther and the computer models were much improved, his judgment was confirmed. A thorough analysis concluded that there was scarcely a 5% chance that anything but humans had brought the changes observed in many regions of the world.)(43a)"

Further:

Data from various locations in Alaska, published in 1986, showed that the top 100 meters of permafrost was anomalously warm compared with deeper layers. The only possible cause was a rise of average Arctic air temperature by a few degrees since the last century, with the heat gradually seeping down into the earth.(45) In a burst of enthusiasm during the 1990s, scientists took the temperature of hundreds of deep boreholes in rock layers around the planet. The averages gave a clear signal of a global warming over the last few centuries, accelerating in the 20th century. A still more important example of the far-flung efforts was a series of heroic expeditions that labored high into the thin air of the Andes and even Tibet, hauling drill rigs onto tropical ice caps. The hard-won data showed again that the warming in the last few decades exceeded anything seen for thousands of years before. The ice caps themselves, which had endured since the last ice age, were melting away faster than the scientists could measure them.(46)

FInallly, Gore is basing his information not on some private agenda of profit but on the reports from the Inter-Governmental Panal on Climate Change. You can look over the same historical and physical analysis data he is using here, for example.

You ad hominem slurs do not contribute to the discussion or clarify anything at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:01 PM

Amos,

there is warming- just as has occurred many times in the past, without mankind causing it ( and without mankind being able to stop it.

You keep supporting Gore's efforts, which are like telling the passangers of the Titanic to stop smoking, as it is bad for them. That may be true- but is not applicable to the situation. They need to either get in the boats or swim- and Gore is telling them "it will all be ok if you stop smoking."

We need to look at long term changes to where and how we live- NOT try to stop a climate change that we cannot alter. But Gore has made it entirely about man-made carbon contributions ( for his own profit and benefit) and does not allow any discussion of how to deal with it, like moving populations, and adjusting agriculture to the NEW climate.

You keep bringing up articles that say it is getting warmer- but nothing that says we a) are causing it or b) can do anything to stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:55 PM

This article discusses at length the observations and measurements and analyses on this topic since the 1900's. Two-thirds of the way down the page there is a graph of land and water surface temperatures from 1880 to 2008. These are quite contrary to the statements up thread about "no warming ever found". In addition the brief interlude of non-warming or even cooling in the Northern hemisphere from the 1940s to the 1960s is examined with some reasonable explanations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:44 PM

Furthermore, the solar flare cycle has been uncommonly LOW for the last few years, if my information is correct.

The air temperature data is not a complete index, since it is much less absorbent than water bodies and land masses. Satellites do not measure temperature in air directly; they infer it from measuring radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. "The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
To compare to the increase from the surface record (of approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is more appropriate to derive trends for the lower troposphere in which the stratospheric cooling is removed. Doing this, through June 2009:
RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.152 °C/decade.[3]
UAH analysis finds +0.12°C/decade.[4]
An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al. (2004)[5] finds trends (1979-2001) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set.[6] A less regularly updated analysis is that of Vinnikov and Grody with +0.20°C per decade (1978–2004).[7], although it must be noted that RSS also has a higher trend when taken only to 2004 (+0.186 °C/decade)
In 1996, Hurrell and Trenberth published in the Journal of Climate an analysis showing a warming trend of +0.18 °C/decade from 1979-1995.[8]
Using the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al. of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through March 2008) a trend of +0.110 °C/decade.[3] Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.050 °C/decade.[9]"

(Source article here

"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."[21][22]

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (2000). "Executive Summary". Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0309068916.
^ Llanos, Miguel (2000-01-13). "Panel weighs in on global warming: Earth's surface is warmer, they say, even if upper air isn't". MSNBC.

"he following figure shows a calculation of straight temperature averages for all of the reporting stations for 1950 to 2000 [http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html]. While a straight average is not meaningful for global temperature calculation (since areas with more stations would have higher weighting), it illustrates that the disappearance of so many stations may have introduced an upward temperature bias. As can be seen in the figure, the straight average of all global stations does not fluctuate much until 1990, at which point the average temperature jumps up. This observational bias can influence the calculation of area-weighted averages to some extent. A study by Willmott, Robeson and Feddema ("Influence of Spatially Variable Instrument Networks on Climatic Averages, Geophysical Research Letters vol 18 No. 12, pp2249-2251, Dec 1991) calculated a +0.2C bias in the global average due to pre-1990 station closures.


See graphs at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm.

This is not to say that a lot of the data cannot be argued. But the blunt denial of surface warming trends, melting icecaps, liquefying permafrost, and other plain evidence is really thick. The right answer is to try and get better quantifying values and clearer analysis, rather than railling and denying.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM

Princeton Physicist: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult'
Declares Congress has been 'badly misinformed' on global warming

Wednesday, July 08, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, warned Congress that it has been "badly misinformed" about man-made global warming fears.

"Congress has been getting bad intelligence," Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore's scientific views, declared in a July 6, 2009 interview.

"Congress has been badly misinformed about the so-called science that supports the claim that increasing CO2 levels will bring about catastrophic climate change," Happer explained to Newsmax.com. (Full audio of interview with Happer here.)

Happer did not mince words, calling the movement to promote man-made global warming fears a "climate change cult" and noted that "zealots" promoting climate fears "are actually extremely ignorant."

"The idea that Congress can stop climate change would be just hilarious if the actions they propose were not so damaging to the American people and even more [damaging] to the poorer people of the world," Happer said. [Editor's Note: President Obama and Energy Sec. Chu both believe they can control the Earth's thermostat. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now' ]

"The so-called facts they are getting are just not true," Happer explained. " This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. As our Congressmen learn more about the facts, they will change their minds" and reject man-made climate fears.

'CO2 is not a pollutant' - Earth in 'CO2 famine'

Happer noted that "CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is essential for life." He added that the Earth will "be a better place with more CO2."

Happer testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25, 2009 and noted that the Earth was currently in a "CO2 famine." Happer requested to be added to the U.S. Senate Report of over 700 dissenting scientists on December 22, 2008. Happer also co-authored an Open Letter to Congress with a team of scientists on July 1, 2009 warning: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years.'

In addition, Happer has led a group of 54 prominent physicists to request the American Physical Society (APS) revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today." (Note: Science magazine reportedly refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

In the July 6, 2009 interview, Happer noted that many are poised to benefit from the proposed Congressional carbon trading bill.


more

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

Amos,

So, there is warming. Please show where any of what you posted indicates it is due to man-made carbon emmissions, which is ALL that Gore is taliking about.


"I think it is probably solar cycles that are the key factor in the Earth's warming and cooling phases...not our civilization's carbon dioxide emmissions. I've been thinking so for some time. The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapour. C02 is only a very small part of the greenhouse gas situation around this planet, the greenhouse effect is almost all caused by water vapour.

The source of heat on the surface of the Earth is the sun. If the sun becomes more active (which is revealed through its increasing sunspot activity) then this planet goes into a warming phase. If the sun becomes less active then we go into a cooling phase. I believe we are in a cooling phase right now and it's been happening for at least a couple of years. We were indeed in a warming phase back around the early years of this decade when the sun's activity was considerably highter than it is now...there is presently an extraordinary minimum of sunspot activity occurring.

I think the Global Warming crusade has been turned into a giant political football and, as pdq suggests, it has become a matter of what amounts to religious faith for its proponents."



I think I said this a few years ago. Nice to know that someone else has a little sense.

What is Gore et all doing to DEAL WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING?????


Not a thing - ALL that he does is try top stop carbon emmisions: He is NOT advocating taking any action at all to help anyone survive the actual events.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:47 PM

There is a very good treatment of the solar variability issue here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

I mean here.

It says (in part):
"The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.

The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:50 PM

You are seeing now and will continue to see extreme weather conditions throughout the world. Global warming also causes some unusual freezing in certain areas as well.
If you are not aware of what the Arctic and parts of Antarctica are experiencing then the question you ask show a lack of information. Looking at the polar ice caps melting,
the polar bears swimming, and the rising of the water table ought to tell you something.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:58 PM

I watched a panel discussion on TV at a friend's house (I have no TV) in 2005.

The Global Warming enthusiasts were near clinical depression because all the objective scientific data showed no increase in ambient air temperature in the preceeding decade. None. Squat. Zip. Nada.

Earlier in this thread, bb linked to some DOD satellite-based (ultra accurate) temperature data. No change in ambient air temperatures anywhere on the planet, above land or sea, since 1990. That is close to 20 years of no temperature increase.

In fact, in the last 4 years or so, there may have been a very slight drop.

In the 1970 the story was that air pollution was blocking the Sun and causing Global Cooling. They said it would cause a New Ice Age if we didn't stop using so much fossil fuel. This whole scheme is just a way to keep the populace perpetually aggitated.They can be manpulated more easily it seems.

We have important things to worry about. GW ain't one of them

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:48 PM

I think it is probably solar cycles that are the key factor in the Earth's warming and cooling phases...not our civilization's carbon dioxide emmissions. I've been thinking so for some time. The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapour. C02 is only a very small part of the greenhouse gas situation around this planet, the greenhouse effect is almost all caused by water vapour.

The source of heat on the surface of the Earth is the sun. If the sun becomes more active (which is revealed through its increasing sunspot activity) then this planet goes into a warming phase. If the sun becomes less active then we go into a cooling phase. I believe we are in a cooling phase right now and it's been happening for at least a couple of years. We were indeed in a warming phase back around the early years of this decade when the sun's activity was considerably highter than it is now...there is presently an extraordinary minimum of sunspot activity occurring.

I think the Global Warming crusade has been turned into a giant political football and, as pdq suggests, it has become a matter of what amounts to religious faith for its proponents.

I may be mistaken too. Nevertheless, I have my suspicions that the present mainstream ideas about global warming are in error.

We'll see, won't we? In time it will become quite clear whether or not it is the human-based C02 emmissions that are causing global warming or whether that was a misperception.

If it turns out to have been a misperception, then people will be yelling about something else instead when that time comes. There's always something new to panic about, some new threat to life as we know it...and a little panic goes a long way toward providing employment and lucrative careers for a whole bunch of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

Well, I welcome the dissenting voice if there are good solid data behind them. The post PDQ added looks like it has some behind it, but it is hard to disentangle from the strongly partisan rhetoric.

Solar variability cycles--is there a source on their historical data ptterns and present values?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

If what you say about Greenland is true, Amos, the world may soon find itself in the horrible natural conditions that existed back when the Vikings had a thriving settlement in Greenland and farmed the fertile land!!!!!

This could be good news for latter day Vikings, though, because Greenland will once again be green.

Meanwhile, the temperatures remain unseasonably cool in Ontario, Canada...and it's a relief from the heat of high summer. So it's not all bad.

I wonder what the Gulf Stream is doing? Could that account for the cooler temperatures here? Could we be on the edge of a sudden tip into a min-Ice Age???? Will I find myself under a glacier in the next few years?

Worry! Worry! Fret! Fret!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:17 PM

It's Getting Cold Out There

A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders

No wonder skeptics consider the left's belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion -- last week in Italy, G8 leaders pledged to not allow the Earth's temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

For its next act, the G8 can part the Red Sea. The worst part is: These are the brainy swells who think of themselves as -- all bow -- Men of Science.

The funny part is: G8 leaders can't even decide the year from which emissions must be reduced. 1990? 2005? "This question is a mystery for everyone," an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.

And while President Obama led the charge for the G8 nations to agree to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrial nations by 2050, the same Russian aide dissed the standard as "likely unattainable."

No worries, the language was non-binding. Global-warming believers say that they are all about science, but their emphasis is not on results so much as declarations of belief.

Faith. Mystery. Promises to engage in pious acts. Global warming is a religion. While Obama was in Italy preaching big cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, he was losing some of his flock in Washington. The House may have passed the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill largely unread, but Senate Democrats are combing the fine print and not liking what they see. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said of the bill, "We need to be a leader in the world but we don't want to be a sucker."

Republicans who oppose the legislation are positively gleeful.

For some issues, it can be more fun being part of the opposition, as Democrats are discovering.

During the last administration, Senate Dems could slam President George W. Bush for not supporting the 1997 Kyoto global-warming treaty, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to vote yea or nay on a treaty that they knew could be poison for the coal industry and family checkbooks.

That's why the Senate in 1997 voted 95-0 against any global-warming treaty that exempted developing nations like China. Now China wants none of the G8's goal for it to halve its greenhouse gases -- and the Dems are stuck with a leader who wants to save the planet.

When the GOP was in the White House, Democrats got to play scientific martyrs. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, would go running to the New York Times or Washington Post with the lament that the Bushies were trying to muzzle his pro-global-warming science. No matter how many times he appeared on TV, the stories kept reporting on allegations that Bush was censoring science.

Now GOP senators have their own Hansen: Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Be it noted, Carlin is not a scientist.

He's an MIT-trained economist, albeit with a degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology, who has worked as an analyst at the EPA since 1974. In March, he co-wrote a 98-page paper that began, "We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming." He fears politics are steering what should be scientific research.

The analysis noted that global temperatures have declined over the last 11 years while carbon emissions have increased. It cited a 2009 paper that found "solar variability" may have had more to do with any warming over the last few decades than rising greenhouse gas levels. Carlin also wondered why the EPA bought into global-warming doom scenarios, when, despite increased greenhouse gas levels, U.S. crop yields are up, air quality is improved and Americans are living longer.

Did the EPA welcome a dissenting voice? Au contraire. According to e-mails released last month by Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, Carlin's supervisor told him not to "have any direct communication" with anyone in-house or elsewhere on the issue. And: "I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change."

Only later, Carlin told me, did the EPA grant him permission to post the paper on his personal website and talk to the media.

Kazman argues that the EPA's failure to post Carlin's paper officially violates court rulings that require agencies to disclose discarded evidence when making rules. And: "The bigger irony is that this administration has been touting its commitment to scientific integrity and agency transparency."

Now, you can argue that the Obama administration simply wanted to present a clear message on a policy on which it already had settled. But why is it muzzling science when Bush did it, but not worthy of a New York Times story when Obama does it?

Don't say that Obama has science on his side. As the Carlin paper noted, "We do not believe that science is writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular subject ... The question in our view is not what someone believes, but how what he or she believes corresponds with real world data."

The global-warming community's reaction to real-world data -- and the lack of warming in this century -- has been to remain true believers. Except now they call it "climate change."
    ©2008 Rasmussen Reports Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:15 PM

"From his trawler that motors along the Nuuk fjord, fisherman Johannes Heilmann has watched helplessly in recent years as climate change takes its toll on Greenland.
Ads by Google
Boat Donation Program - www.Cars4Causes.net
Turn Your Boat into Tax Deductible Charity Donation. Call 800-766-2273

Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world.
Heilmann, in his 60s with a craggy, rugged face from years of work in the outdoors, says he and his colleagues can no longer take their dogsleds out to the edge of the ice floes to fish because the ice isn't thick enough to carry the weight.
And yet the freezing waters with large chunks of ice are too difficult to navigate in their small fishing boats, making fishing near impossible.
"We can't use the sleds any more, the ice isn't thick enough," laments Heilmann, saying he now has to rely on bird hunting, and sometimes seal hunting, while waiting for the summer months to go fishing.
At Ilulissat, more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) north of the Arctic Circle, Emil Osterman tells local daily Sermitsiaq how "in 1968, when I was 13, we went fishing in December in the fjord and the ice was several metres thick."
Now, more than 40 years on, the ice at the very same location at the same time of year "is only 30 centimetres thick."
The head of Nuuk's fishing and hunting association, Leif Fontaine, explains how climate warming is also affecting the region's shrimp industry -- Greenland's main export and biggest industrial sector.
"When the water gets warmer, the shrimp become rarer as they move further north," he says."...
Phys Org, July 9 2009

---

(PhysOrg.com) -- Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).
Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Previously, scientists relied only on measurements of area to determine how much of the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice, but ICESat makes it possible to monitor ice thickness and volume changes over the entire Arctic Ocean for the first time. The results give scientists a better understanding of the regional distribution of ice and provide better insight into what is happening in the Arctic.

Ibid, July 7, 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:16 AM

"The plane faces some truly frightening prospects"

And so does the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:09 AM

It's not a Hobson's Choice we have here. We ALL live on Noah's Ark, it's just a little bigger than Noah ever knew. What ever we can do, no matter how seemingly trivial, to improve this planet is simply a good investment for our children, grand children and ggchildren. The plane faces some truly frightening prospects--and we will have to deal with them unless we clean up our act. The results will not be good to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:22 AM

You know, Bill, the funny thing is....most of the religious fundamentalists I've ever met struck me as pretty foolish or deluded or just not very well-informed people or even fanatics...and yet....

I have met so far in my life 2 Jehovah's Witnesses that are astonishingly bright people, among the brightest and finest people I've ever met, very capable, and of the best character as well. They're an extraordinary pair of young people (a married couple in late 20s, early 30s). I'd trust them with absolutely anything. I count them among my best friends.

Yet they believe that their Bible is the ultimate authority. ???

This does not in any way prevent them from being extremely modern and effective and useful citizens. One is a dental hygeinist, the other is a businessman who assists companies in improving their operations, trains people in administration, etc.

They're very well educated, they're very articulate, extremely intelligent, well travelled, cosmopolitan, and very well informed. They are also kind, forgiving, generous, spirited, and good people.

Man, I could only wish there were more around like these two!

And I cannot fathom how they can put so much faith in an ancient religous book like the Bible...but it has proven one thing to me, and it is this:

"Thou shalt not pre-judge others merely by their stated beliefs. No. Ye shall judge them only by their character, their works, and their actual behaviour."

So I never assume anymore that all the people in any particular group fit some common stereotype we've all heard about that group. It is not necessarily so. There are some brilliant and very good people where you may least expect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:10 AM

Yessir. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:08 AM

"We only differ about which sources ARE reliable.."

...and the 'we' that includes 'me' can only continue to point out the differences in definitions about what passes for credibility and reliability.


"...and there's not a darned thing you or I can do about it!"

...see above.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM

"The "...conservative fundamentalist Christians" got their opinions from some pretty odd 'sources'."


Definitely, Bill! As you and I would see it, that is. But you must remember one thing: they themselves do not consider their sources to be odd sources. ;-) They believe them to be 100% reliable sources, and there's not a darned thing you or I can do about it!

Everyone in the world gets his info from some sources which he considers reliable. We all do that. We only differ about which sources ARE reliable. And that's what's at the heart of most unresolvable political disputes...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM

The "...conservative fundamentalist Christians" got their opinions from some pretty odd 'sources'.

Mainstream environmentalists get their opinions from detailed & exhaustive, testable research and technical data.

If they are correct, it is important...in the meantime, I'd be curious who is saying they are "...a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness.." or any similar fates.

You wouldn't be slightly exaggerating the rhetoric, would you, Midchuck?

Strong opinions about important topics need not only vigorous promotion, but also detailed support in the details. Even a brief search will get many, many details of temperature changes, geologic research of historical precedent, graphs of human production of various gases compared to climate changes and the chemical/physical causes that we have learned to understand. (much as we gradually learned why smoking cigarettes was more than just a statistical anomaly)

Why wouldn't those who have **strong evidence** that we face a grave crisis state their conclusions with passion?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM

Exactly, Midchuck. I've noticed the same thing.

It's what's called "bigotry", the dictionary definition of which is "utter intolerance for beliefs, opinions, or creeds which differ from one's own".

And it is equally apparent among both conservative zealots and liberal/progressive zealots, both of whom are securely armoured by their self-righteous certainty that they hold the moral high ground...and THE TRUTH.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Midchuck
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:46 PM

I don't know if global warming is real or not; and if it is real, I don't know if its primary cause it human activity or something else.

I do know that the resemblance between the rhetoric of conservative fundamentalist Christians and that of liberal environmentalists is quite startling. In both cases, you are not only a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness if you disagree with them; you are a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness if you indicate that you don't think the evidence either way is solid enough for you to form an opinion.

But each group will say that their position is fully logical and the other group's position is ignorant fanaticism.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

Amos,

a. Gore states that global warming is real

b. Gore states that we should limit CO2 production to *prevent* global warming

c. Gore DOES NOT state that any action should be taken to deal with the effects of global warming, which he stated in a exists. In fact, when asked, he repeats his assertion that the right laws will stop global warming, with no evidence at all indicating that that is the case.


THIS failure is what I object to. Given that he advocates b., his failure of C. is reason enough to think poorly of him, and think he is more interested in political capital than in DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

"IF we started moving populations now..."

*grin*...who decides who gets moved?...and to where? You want to be the one who tells Canada they get Spanish as a 3rd national language?

It all reminds me of the interviewer asking Will Rogers back about 1940...(paraphrased)"What should we do about the German submarines?"

"Easy,", Will replied, "Boil the ocean!"

"But, how could they do that?"

"Oh, we have technical experts for that", Will explained...."I'm just the idea man."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:30 PM

It was mentioned above, so here is...


                                                         a website about the Great Barrier Reef


{BTW, in the late 1960s the same reef was "dying" due to pollution and DDT. Go figure.}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:27 PM

That's idiocy, BB, as he has not done anything to indicate he wants global warming or population moves. THis kind of bitter, senseless assertion is counter-productive in extremis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 PM

"I don't see you advocating the reduction in population necessary to allow EITHER moving OR staying put and coping. "

Great idea- who decides who gets to be reduced???


IF we started moving populations now, instead of wasting effort trying to stop what is happening, there would be less need for population reduction.

But as it stands, we can have a nuclear war, and there will be plenty of room for the (few) survivors.

I guess that is what Gore wants...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:00 PM

bruce...did you read:
"From: Bill D - PM
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM"?

IF the situation is as Gore says, populations WILL try to move...and weak attempts will be made to try to control the process. And conservatives will stomp their feet and say "there goes the government again, trying to tell us what to do!"

If you think immigration is awkward now, just wait until all of Mexico & Central America and half the US decides to move north.

I don't see you advocating the reduction in population necessary to allow EITHER moving OR staying put and coping.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:42 PM

"Let's investigate them further, shall we?"

They are in fact being investigated further. Quite a lot of effort goes into this.

However, the popular press and infotainers report on every anti-climate change person or paper, and sometimes (sometimes) provide equal time for the opposition. If the representation were proportional to the division of opinion within the scientific community world-wide, there should be 10,000 provided with equal time.

Now, don't get me wrong - the "anti" people need to do their work and publish it, and it needs to be read and criticized and tested. As do all testable assertions This is exactly how science works. And, there would be no scientific progress - ever - if people did not upset the current consensus. We would (e.g.) still be bled and leeched by physicians.

BUT, the unbalance in the popular press creates an impression of a giant controversy where none actually exists. Thus, we have politicians making decisions about the future of the planet based not on science, but on re-election strategizing which is itself based on ill- and mis-informed public opinion.

And here we are.

The proof is likely to be in future events. I probably won't see them (although I have watched - literally - the death of 70% of the world's coral reefs in my lifetime). My kids will live through the coming events, and I fear for their future. Everyone needs to honestly ask themselves "what is the risk of future cataclysmic climate change?" Let's say you think it is only 1:10000. Would you feed your kids food that had a 1:1000 chance of poisoning them? Of course not. Remember all the E. coli scares, tylenol, tainted formula?

So there is a huge disconnect. Driven exactly by politics and political talking heads who have no knowledge of the process and proper reading and use of science. If we wait until Global Climate Change is "100% proven", well.... that will never happen. It never, ever does in science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM

Ans Al Gore is telling us that if we don't kick and get overheated everything will be ok.

I do not have a problem with reducing pollution- but I do object to doing NOTHING to deal with the *** effects *** of climate change ( which IMO will happen regardless). By working so hard to reduce emmissions, we are taking effort away from moving those populations tha will have to be moved regardless. The implied point of Gore et al is that we will stop the warming, and there will be no need to make any changes in where we live, or the crops we grow, etc.

Has no-one here ever read about the Viking Greenland colony? Up until the mid 1100s, , it was a viable farming and grazing community, settled from Iceland. Guess what happened? There was a little ice age, ( from 1100 to now) and the colony basically died out. So now the climate has returned to what it was before 1000- and King Al is berating the tide for coming in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:08 PM

"...we won't know till we get there."

You mean like the frog in the kettle of water where we raise the heat gradually?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

I find all these various views and theories quite interesting, Amos...not necessarily "extreme"...just interesting. Let's investigate them further, shall we? What's the danger? Are you that worried that you might be proven wrong? If not, let's investigate further.

Regardless of what you or I think about global warming OR cooling, what's gonna happen is gonna happen anyway. And eventually we'll know. ;-) If we're still here, that is.

My angle on this debate is not driven by any dislike of Al Gore, by the way. I like Al Gore, and I always have liked him. I was very impressed on my first viewing of his film "An Inconvenient Truth". I have since begun to feel that some of his assumptions about global warming may be incorrect, although I think he's quite sincere in those assumptions.

In time we will all know...if, as I say, we're still here. Anyway, whoever is here will know. We can argue about it all we want in the meantime, but we won't know till we get there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

clicky thing

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

The only link you need to see the sunspot data (pro and con) is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:32 PM

LH:

That won't serve, man. A thing makes sense or it does not. If it does not, it is because the data is distorted, partial, misevaluated or false or incomplete.

Posting the assertions of the extreme views on either side is not likely to lead to understanding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:03 PM

This reminds me--the course of the thread and the various arguments about global warming--of a comment I heard many years back. Two 'hippies' were discussing war, etc. One said to the other, "Why do you like peace so much?" The reply was "Because it's peaceful."

Some things really ARE no brainers. A cleaner environment is better for our children than a dirty environment. Fewer auto emissions are better than more. Stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:55 PM

to quote ME:

'We MUST assume that it is possible to both limit warming AND reduce populations...the benefits will be great even **IF** warming is not serious...'

NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUTH, we will be better off if we act as if climate change is happening and try to reduce our part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:24 PM

I'm not here to argue about it, Amos. ;-) I'll leave that to the rest of you, cos I ain't stupid. (well, not this time anyway) I know better than to question Holy Writ when I'm standing in the rotunda of the Vatican, as it were. Hell, that can lead to torture and execution, dontcha know? Or even excommunication!

Nope, I'm just here to post some interesting links to some other science articles that some of you might not have taken into account, and I'll let the rest of you fight over it for the next 20,000 posts if you want to. No skin off my back. You'll probably all just keep believing whatever you want to regardless...and I know it.

I'll post more links later maybe. Enjoy!

(By the way, I AM in favour of reducing our industrial and auto emissions. Why? Well, because I like clean air, that's why.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:44 PM

QUOTE
"I don't believe this fire was caused by arsonists, it was started by a lightning strike. So don't let us do anything about trying to put it out."
UNQUOTE

... so wouldn't it be fun to throw on a 1000 gallons of aviation fuel and see what fun things happen....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:41 PM

Kendall summed it up for me. Thirty... twenty years ago, no birds around here looked like a canary. And some that used to winter here back then are gone.   gone

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM

I suppose your dwindling sunspots and planetary cooling claims also manage somehow to account for the thawing of the tundra and the melting of the ice-caps, Little Hawk?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:09 PM

And yet more....

Decline in sun activity means global cooling

It all makes for some fascinating reading.

I might mention that we have had the coldest and longest delayed spring and latest summer this year that I can remember in Canada. Really remarkable. It's been great for the lawn...still green and lush. I don't think it's been so great for the wild birds and the farmers, though.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched just because you already have a past opinion that you're fond of. Consider alternative information that's coming in now and give it some serious thought. Any past assumptions about climate change which you have taken for granted might just be wrong, partly wrong, or even entirely wrong.

We've always had climate change in the past, and it's been cyclical. The Earth warms up for awhile, then it cools down for awhile. Those changing cycles normally fall in line with the activities of the Sun...the one single biggest player in the ongoing fortunes of life on Planet Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:02 PM

As someone pointed out a few posts back 'there is a big difference between "climate" and "weather" ' - and the sunspot cycle is essentially a matter of solar weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM

And yet more...

Declining sunspots

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:56 PM

And....

More info on sunspots

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM

sunspot activity

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM

I agree that we should do whatever we reasonably can to prevent polluting our environment. That being said there are limits to what we can do to alter the forces of nature. Climate changes,it always has and always will. While the effect may be catostrophic there is probably little that can be done to create any great change. Far better for us to properly prepare for change, than follow a fools mission to contain nature. To use McGraths example, we should fight the fire if there is a hope of putting it out. If not it is best to gather our belongings and flee to a safer place.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:11 PM

I get puzzled by why some people seem to think that if there are signs that there are factors outside human control that are contributing to global warming, that is somehow a reason to give up on trying to do what we can to avoid making things worse.

It's a bit like saying "I don't believe this fire was caused by arsonists, it was started by a lightning strike. So don't let us do anything about trying to put it out."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 07:11 PM

Only what Rush and Sean tell him, clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 06:38 PM

Doug:

Do you know nothing at all about weather systems?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

Peace: For shame, for shame!

Foolstroupe: So the name change sounds a bit like CYA. Climate change could indicate that the problem is either that the earth is getting warmer, or, like in the 70's, fear that the earth is getting cooler.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 11:06 PM

It's been said before - "Global Warming" is an obsolete term, driven into derision by the ignorant/uneducated/bigoted.

The Correct Scientific term is Now "Climate Change".

The original use of the term was caused by the scientific concept that as a system warms, the energy increases, and turbulence increases.

However, those with a drum to beast, as well as uneducated laypeople, misunderstood the name.

As turbulence increases in the atmosphere, there WILL be areas or greater depths of both hotter AND COOLER observed temperature, as big volumes of warmer air swirl to the pole, causing big volumes of cooler air to swirl away from teh poles.

Have all the fun you want making fun of the term, just don't ask ME for help when you find out that your bigotedness/lack of understanding has cause you like the grasshopper, to ignore the warnings of the ants to make sensible preparations for the future... you will have killed us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM

There are geo-forming solutions which would address the solar aspect as well as the carbon. methane aspect, but they are huge efforts which, if they had unintended consequences, could really screw things up.

Bruce, although you raise good points, I am not clear on the reason for your hostility. The correlation with temperature versus human carbon injection is pretty close, and even though that does not prove we are a major contributing factor, it certainly suggests you should not throw the possibility out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 08:42 PM

"computer models"

Doug, behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 08:34 PM

Frost warnings tonight for parts of Atlantic Canada. Damn global warming.............................

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM

TIA...obviously, great minds DO think alike... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

"...move populations to where they will not be flooded out...."

Have you done THAT calculation? Where would you suggest Bangladesh go? The Himalayas?

And Florida? and New Orleans... and Singapore?

Would you like the job of sorting that out?

Well, the 'move' will be gradual, but even that will require **reduction** in population...and telling any groups they must limit their families is..... tricky.

We MUST assume that it is possible to both limit warming AND reduce populations...the benefits will be great even **IF** warming is not serious...(but don't bet on the basis of local fluctuations in Arizona)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Key word - leverage

Methane may be a more effective greenhouse gas, but if increasing atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature a little, which causes permafrost melting, which generates methane, which raises the temperature a *lot*. Where is the point in that chain where humans have (or maybe *had*) leverage on the whole phenomenon?

Due only partly to politically-motivated nay-saying, we may be well past the point where that leverage can do anything.

And wholesale moving of populations? Wow, talk about expensive and disruptive. Shall we move all of the Southeast Asians to your neighborhood?

I will take the Pacific Islanders.

Any volunteers for the Southern Europeans (yes Europe) where the climate may no longer be able to support even subsistence agriculture?

Oh yes, and Africa?.....

All maybe not in my lifetime, but surely in my kids'.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:19 PM

My point has been that the problem is to adapt to the global warming, and move populations to where they will not be flooded out, as opposed to the Gore method of standing there saying it should be stopped, so we should not adjust to it- rather we should destroy the world's economy to make a futile effort to stop what will happen regardless.

But I don't expect those here that are on the bandwagon to consider that...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:16 PM

"The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions."

So, you do not have full faith and allegiance in the Gospal according to Gore???


I pointed out that carbon ( dioxcide ) is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses, and efforts to eliminate global warming by dealing only, or even primarily with it would fail.

Water vapor and methane are far more significant as greehouse gasses, and all the efforts have been ignoring them.


Now, tell me again about why the polar ice cap on Mars is shrinking, and the atmosphere of Jupiter is changing significantly over a short time scale- Perhaps the sun really is the variable star that astrophysicists have said it was, and all of King Gore's orders will not keep the tide of global warming from rolling in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:08 PM

From New Scientist, March 09:

" AM shocked, truly shocked," says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them."
The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them

Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. "Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It's unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing."
No summer ice

The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.

Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of catastrophic.

Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that wasn't bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.
Runaway warming

The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost...."

---

That seems to answer the question, doesn't it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

DougR - there is a big difference between "climate" and "weather", and I think you are mixing the two in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM

Yes, Amos, I read the newspapers too.

Arizona had the coolest June since 1913. Our first 115 degree day is expected this coming weekend. There are other publicized reports that the earth has been cooling, not warming for past few years.

Have you "believers" ever considered the consequences that would result from the proponents of man caused global warming being wrong? Most of us won't know whether they are or not of course because they are projecting climate 30, 40, 50 years into the future. Meanwhile governments are forcing changes upon businesses and individuals that are very costly and might not be necessary.

When scientist can guarantee that six months from now, on any certain day, the temperature will be ___, the humidity will be ____ and it will, or will not rain, I'll be a bit more accepting of the current guesses. And that's all they are, guesses from computer models (of course computers are never wrong ...right?)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 11:34 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arctic sea ice has thinned dramatically since 2004, with the older, thicker ice giving way to a younger, thinner kind that melts in the northern summer, NASA scientists reported on Tuesday.

Researchers have known for years that ice covering in the Arctic Sea has been shrinking in area, but new satellite data that measure the thickness of ice show that the volume of sea ice is declining as well.

That is important because thicker ice is more resilient and can last from summer to summer. Without ice cover, the Arctic Sea's dark waters absorb the sun's heat more readily instead of reflecting it as the light-colored ice does, accelerating the heating effect.

Using NASA's ICESat spacecraft, scientists figured that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 7 inches a year since 2004, for a total of 2.2 feet over four winters. Their findings were reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The total area covered by thicker, older ice that has survived at least one summer shrank by 42 percent.

Beyond that, the new satellite data showed that the proportion of tough old ice is decreasing at the same time as the amount of young fragile ice is increasing, information that was hard to discern from earlier data.

LOSING THE OLD ICE

In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic's total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice and 38 percent in first-year seasonal ice. By last year, 68 percent was first-year ice and 32 percent the tougher multi-year ice.

The research team blamed these changes on recent warming and anomalies in sea ice circulation.

"We're losing a lot more of the old ice, and that's significant," said Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "Basically we knew how much the area (of ice) was shrinking, but we didn't know how thick it was."

To find the volume of ice, NASA's ICESat spacecraft measured how high the ice rose above sea level in the Arctic, Kwok said in a telephone interview.

"If we know how much is floating on top, we can use that to compute the rest of the ice thickness," Kwok said in a telephone interview. About nine-tenths of the ice is beneath the water, he said.

The ICESat measurements cover virtually the entire Arctic, and they tally with ice volume measurements made by submarines, which cover only a few passes across the area.

Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level last year, rising slightly from its all-time low in 2007, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic ice is a factor in global climate and weather patterns, because the difference between the cool air at the poles and the warm air around the Equator drives air and water currents, including the jet stream. (Scientific AMerican)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Art Thieme
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:06 PM

It went back to get more heat!

(A pparaphrase of Kendall's answer to the question, "So, where is the glacier now?" Answer: "It went back for more rocks!!"

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

"chili today and hot tomale"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:59 PM

OK. You got my attention. Y'eat it hot? As in HOT? Or just hot as in warm or mild?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

"You make REAL chili?"

Well, "yes" if you include the kind with beans.

Starts with...
          1 lb    dry red kidney beans (Wal*Mart, cheap)
          1 lb.    finely diced chuck steak (all fat removed)
          28 oz can of Hunt's diced stewed tomatoes
          some   Gebhardt's chili powder

After that, it varies.

Actually, Q is probably the top chili man on Mudcat, but did come from New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:40 PM

Indeed, McGrath,,, you can find a 'scientist' who will affirm that humans lived beside dinosaurs if you look a bit....



300!!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:30 PM

It seems that there are many other reputable scientists who also question the evidence too.

Well, by definition all scientists are committed to question evidence - that's what evidence is for, and that's what scientists do.

But the suggestion that, having questioned the evidence, "many reputable scientists" think that the case is not proved that there is already substantial climatic change with worse to come, and that human activity is contributing dangerously to this - well, it just is not true. It really isn't.

Remember how for years there were efforts to claim that smoking didn't cause cancer? There were always a few "reputable scientists" ready to back up that fallacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Zen
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM

Lecturing the knowledegeable folks in the science community is as silly as truck driver lecturing judge Stevens about constitutional law.

So why are you doing the same to some of us scientists pdq?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:12 PM

You make REAL chili?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

Right now, my stove has a pot of chili.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

I figure the global is warming on the stove.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

Alice: I googled the same site that you did. There were over 14,000 sites related to that subject. I'm a bit puzzled about why you chose the American Bar Association's website information. What am I missing? I saw nothing there that related to the information from the Wall Street Journal that I posted.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM

To make it more clear, 360 PPM (parts per million) means that "for each molecule of CO₂ there are 27 molecules of something else" in Earth's atmosphere.

Assume that we (people) are resposible for half the CO₂ (not really proven), then about 55 out of 56 molecules in Earth's atmosphere are not our responsibility.

If we cut CO₂ emissions by 10%, that would reduce anthropogenic CO₂ by "one molecule out of every 550". Of no concequence at all, except for the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:01 PM

...from the article Alice in Montana cited:


"If anyone is keeping a scorecard of the winners and losers in this case, without a doubt, the climatologists who have been trying to warn the general public and policymakers for years about the seriousness of global warming must feel vindicated. They are the big winners, as we all are. One can almost see Justice Stevens giving an approving nod to James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, when he begins the opinion:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a 'greenhouse gas.'"


John Paul Stevens is an 89 year old senile lawyer who has no background in this subject. Lecturing the knowledegeable folks in the science community is as silly as truck driver lecturing judge Stevens about constitutional law.

BTW, CO2 is about 370 parts per million in the atmosphere and is therefore of little consequence compared to H2O, another "greenhouse gas".

So, BAN WATER Mr. Stevens, as long as you are being so silly. Or at least declare it "pollution" it and be consistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM

btw, I googled "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic".
The American Bar Association link was on the 19th page of google results. Guess I'm just a news junkie, or inquiring minds want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Noreen
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Climate change is NOT a party political issue- it is an observed, recorded fact and has to be planned for and dealt with.

Scoring petty party political points merely produces more hot air (and CO2!) and signifies nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM

I don't know why you'd expect that, Doug. Most mudcatters seem to be people who search to find information and try to look at all sides.

I googled it, found chain emails referencing it, blogs linking to it, and this page on the American Bar Association web site.

http://www.abanet.org/statelocal/lawnews/summer07/mass.html


Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

  
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By Marc Morano

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. "They are cowards."

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused," according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM

Guest Old Fat Woody: Perhaps no one has posted that global warming does not exist, but this poster confesses to having doubts. At least I think it is questionable. It seems that there are many other reputable scientists who also question the evidence too.

The mainstream press (other than the Wall Street Journal) has kept the lid on the fact that one of the leading scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Carlin, (who holds a degree in physics from CalTech)along with another colleague at the EPA presented a 98 page analysis to the agency recently arguing that the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a "downward trend". It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA", the report read. Carlin and the report were blown off by his superiors at the EPA, who in my opinion, are bent on charging full speed ahead probably because the research money from the federal government and private foundations would dry up if the global warming scare was proven to be a hoax. One that would exceed even the scandal generated by Bernie Madoff.

Anyone interested can Google the WSJ and read the whole column titled, "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic," in the Friday/Saturday/Sunday edition of the Wallstreet Journal (July 3 -5, 2009)by staff writer, Kimberley A. Strassel.

I Expect few here will do so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 09:26 AM

Why did the EPA smother a scientific report that questioned global warming?

Why is the EPA suppressing this global-warming report?

EPA May Have Suppressed Anti-Global Warming Study

NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM

Whatever the Moderators want it to to be!

Oh no - did I say that?...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:26 PM

LOL. Wots the titul of this thred?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:24 PM

Will Dear Leader Greg Jong-il please point out where anyone here said global warming does not exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM

TIA, lol, thanks for making me smile!
Yup, that old Fox "programming", just program your thinking to make scary facts go away.
Such as, there can't be world hunger, those African babies on tv have round tummies.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:07 AM

It's not their fault anthropogenic is such a long and difficult word..

Questioning the causes of the current climate change is the only way they can make the case for doing nothing. It's such a complcated system, with so many feed-back loops, that any short( short enough for TV) and honest answer to 'What's happening' will have probably and we think scattered throughout it.

The enviromental records for the last few Glacial cycles (Not ice ages, we are in an ice age right now, which is composed of several glacial periods( much ice), and interglacials, like now (less ice)) is less than perfect, so trying to figure out what is happening to the satisfaction of scientists, let alone the absolute proof required to convince those who don't want to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM

Fanatics sez Fat Old Woody?

Ya gotta love this guy, dontcha?

Even most of the worst of the right wing loonies don't attempt to argue with the overwhelming scientific evidence that the phenomenon of "Global warming" is established fact.

What they choose to question, for ideological reasons, are the CAUSES of global warming, i.e. they like to deny (again in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence) that human activity and "greenhouse gasses" and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to it.

Poor Fat Old Woody doesn't even begin to comprehend the Party Line he's supposed to be spouting!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:17 AM

And, what's all this fuss about deforestation? I've got a whole bunch of trees right here in my yard.

My how much easier thought is now that I understand the way evidence works.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:28 PM

There is of course, Old Guy, DougR, no Global Warming locally where you are, yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:09 PM

DougR:

Be careful. You will get drawn and quartered by the fanatics here if you hint that there is no global warming.

Though out in Colorado, they had the earliest opening of the ski slopes ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 10:58 PM

TIA - you've been out-Foxed...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM

Got to thinking about the Global Warming/Buffalo snowstorm thing (and similar ideas way up thread). So, I watched a lot of FOX News last night, and darned if my method of thinking isn't starting to be corrected. Works like a dream. For instance, there is no world hunger problem -- I saw a whole bunch of chubby people on my way to work this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM

Always glad to be of help, Doug.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:04 PM

What? putting a bit of your own turbulence in there Doug?

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:54 PM

Gee, Don, whatever would I do without you to guide me in curbing my errant ways? I'm just so grateful.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 05:59 PM

Aw, c'mon, Don- that takes all the fun out of it for ol' Douggie.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM

I think we've already covered that, Doug. Read the thread before you post.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 AM

I don't know where it is, but it darn sure isn't in the Buffalo NY area where they endured one of the earliest snow storms in history this past week.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:12 AM

Credit for Taxpayers Who Purchase or Lease Hybrid Vehicles or Other Alternative Motor Vehicles

The tax credit for hybrid vehicles, which was enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, may be as much as $3,400 for those who purchase the most fuel-efficient passenger automobiles and light trucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 11:47 PM

Lot's of people, particularly polluting manufacturers and the politicians they buy off, say that a lot. "Don't worry about it. Advancing technology will save us." And then automobile manufacturers, for example, go right on making and and selling SUVs and other gas-guzzlers and complain that it would cost too much to try to procuce more fuel-efficient vehicles. No advancing technology from that quarter if they can help it.   

Sit back and wait for these things to happen? No, I think we should insist on it. It's called "consumer demand." Businesses are often responsive to that. especially if you make it plain that you won't buy their products unless they make something you want, you'll buy from someone who already does, or managed to make do with what you already have.

A tax on gas hogs sounds like a good idea to me. And how about a tax credit for buying a hybrid?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:48 PM

I think the CF bulbs should cost less than the incandescents. Either lower the CF or jack up the Incandescents.

Why not a tax on the gas hogs that makes the price of a hybrid look more attractive.

Some people would like to have a hybrid but they can't afford the extra cost.

"Where have we heard that before" I don't know Don, where have we heard that before? You know who will certainly not so you must you know who certainly is. So who is going to enforce those ways?

Also you can get 6 packs of 40 watt CFs for less than $10 at Home Depot. They use 9 watts of electricity.

Compact flourescents are a product of technology that will help the environment. I am willing to let that happen, Does Don have a different plan for us to follow?

The next technological step forward is Cold Cathode bulbs which are more efficient than CFs. Beyond that are LED bulbs. Is it OK if we just sit back and let these things happen Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:21 PM

"who is going to enforce those 'ways' to have a sufficient effect to reverse global warming"

Think Globally, Act Locally.

What have YOU done?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:12 PM

OG - I am truly (no sarcasm, honest) grateful that despite your rhetoric, you are actually doing things to alleviate climate change. Thank you. From me and my kids.

BTW, auto accident injuries HAVE been reduced thanks to seatbelt laws. And I, for one think that even if there are a few people who don't wear seatbelts, we should still all be required to wear them. Remember, some of us will try to save the drowning swimmer even if others stand around and watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

Seattle City Light gave bunches of those 14 watt bulbs free to any customer who wanted them. Seattle is a fairly (excuse the expression) progressive city.

And ". . . who is going to enforce those 'ways' to have a sufficient effect to reverse global warming[?]" Well, certainly not the Bush adminstration.

So--save a planet--work for regime change!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 05:02 PM

I know,i smelt it

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al Gore
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM

I blew a fart and started it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 03:10 PM

The light bulb bit IS one very good way you can help...and save money. I am doing that myself.

As to enforcement, most of us can do little but VOTE for those who promise to do the enforcement! Of course it is hard to get people to change long established habits..especially when $$$$ are in the way of sense..(pun intentional). Education will help....if enough people KNOW what needs to be done, the idiots who refuse to pay attention 'may' get out voted....if there's enough time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM

"there are LOTS of ways" All I want to know is who is going to enforce those "ways" to have a sufficient effect to reverse global warming.

There are lots of ways to prevent drug abuse, auto accidents etc. Have they been prevented? Have they even been reduced?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM

One thing I am doing to save energy is replacing my lightbulbs with Compact Florescents that use less than 1/4 of the electricity of incandescent bulbs.

You can buy a 6 pack of 60 watters for less than $10 at Home Depot. They consume only 14 Watts.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:44 PM

Well, at least Old Guy's continuing list of "Oh, yeahs?" is a good way to have all the usual complacent and stereotyped objections to the warnings in one place, so that some of us can answer them, leaving food for thought for those who wander in.

Ahem...the asteroid deflection ideas are WAY in the theory stage so far,(I hope they DO come up with a good one!) but there are LOTS of ways to reduce Ozone depletion and greenhouse gas emissions, etc. already.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM

Once again, if we can't get EVERYBODY to help, we might as well let the poor bastard drown.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM

So Old Guy is perfectly willing to sit back complacently and "let technology save us."

Where have we heard that before?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM

Who is going to stop cows from farting and force termites to retain their methane?

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/physical_science/chemistry/methane.html

...Although the concentration of methane in Earth's atmosphere is small (around 1.8 parts per million), it is an important greenhouse gas because it is such a potent heat absorber. The concentration of methane in our atmosphere has risen by about 150% since 1750, apparently largely due to human activities. Methane accounts for about 20% of the heating effects by all of the greenhouse gases combined. Both natural and human sources supply methane to Earth's atmosphere.

Major natural sources of methane include emissions from wetlands and oceans, and from the digestive processes of termites. Sources related to human activities include rice production, landfills, raising cattle and other ruminant animals (cow burps!), and energy generation....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:17 PM

"We can't do anything about an asteroid strike" Oh yeah?

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9063.html

...Various plans have been put forward to deflect incoming asteroids. For example, lasers or giant space mirrors could evaporate ices on their surfaces, creating jets that propel them away from Earth. And half-painting an asteroid could make it radiate heat differently on each side, slowly nudging the object off course...

Who is going to make the Barbara Striesands and John Travoltas of the world park their private jets (Travolta has 5) and drive a Civic?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:42 AM

The West, at the moment, is the only area that can afford to develop large scale clean energy sources that actually work. If we do so, and start using them, then not only do we cut our emmisions, we then have proven technology to sell to the developing world.

Lets take China as an example. The projected health care bills due to the air pollution from their dirty coal powered industry make the US national debt look sensible. How many million will have to die there before the pressure to switch to cleaner power becomes irresisitable? I don't know, but it will happen, and sooner than many people think.

Even if they rip off every patent on the clean technology, then the West still benefits, by having New York and London above sea level. So does Bangladesh...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM

This discussion is reminding me of the scene in "Life of Brian" where the committee needs to make a unanimous decision as to what action will be taken to help Brian, captured by the Romans, and on his way to be crucified.

They fart about for ages, then issue a 'strongly worded politically correct statement', but actually DO nothing...

this is the scene with "What have the Romans done for us?"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:41 AM

Yes, the non-efforts of some (typically second-world) countries do (or would) undercut the true efforts of those who care to try. But it makes me crazy to hear the argument that we in the first world should do nothing unless we can get everybody to help.

This crazy argument is like a crowd watching someone drown. Unless everybody helps, nobody should.

We can't do anything about an asteroid strike. We can do something about climate change.

Back to our drowning victim. People get hit by buses. He might get hit by a bus next week, so perhaps we should just let him drown.

I don't know if OG is a scientist of any type, but the overwhelming scientific consenus is that we are plenty far enough into it to know that it is real, and that human activites are contributing to some degree. We can still argue over the degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:24 AM

Well it don't really matter how it ends. When it's over it's over.

Personally I think mankind will figure out what is happening and manage to pull out of it in time but I worry about third world countries ofsetting any efforts by the most developed nations to curtail global warming.

The natural rise in the cost of energy will cause conservation anyway.

I think we are not far enough into it yet to determine if it is natural or manmade. I say this because I remember claims of global cooling in the past. A large volcanic explosion or an asteroid strike could turn global warming into global cooling real quick and they have done so in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:58 AM

Excerpt:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Or paraphrasing T. S. Eliot,

Not with a bang but a "business as usual."

The name of the poem, incidentally, is "The Hollow Men."

Apt, eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:50 PM

Hunh? How do you get that response out of a question?

Can you answer the question or are you only capable of reacting with a rhetorical question?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:18 PM

So, if we can't encourage everyone to help with the rescue, we should just drown the fucker, right?

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:05 PM

I am not aware of all that is happening in the world forrestwise but I think in the US we practice reforrestation. Do any other countries do this?

In Haiti they turned all of their trees into charcoal. The resultant runoff along the coast killed the reefs and the fishing which cut off that food supply. Who is going to turn this around?

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1103/Steber/Steber.html

...Later that evening, it rained long and hard. Soil mixed with huge stones washed down the hillsides. The roads. all of which lead to the harbor and slums lining the port, became impassable. People abandoned their cars and found them the next day crashed into the walls of' the national cemetery, where bodies had been washed out of their caskets. People walked gingerly around gaping graves to get a look at the decomposed corpses.

In the slums, people stood on their beds during the night of rain as it swelled the canals of sewage that run alongside their shanties. The mixture of rocks and mud and sewage flooded their dirt floors by nearly a foot. Babies cried and already-exhausted people who desperately needed sleep didn't get any. Rats swam where they could and otherwise drowned. Even after the water subsided, the mud remained and people sank into it up to their knees as they made their way to their jobs the next day.

Before the rainstorm was over, Haiti had lost tons of precious topsoil from the hills surrounding Port-au-Prince, along with thousands of gallons of water reserves. Some people drowned in the deluge. Here, as if in some evil pact, the problems of deforestation and lack of clean water played out their drama in which the Haitians were caught as unhappy victims.

No matter how many environmental, agriculture and forestry experts in American and international aid agencies one talks with, there are no illusions that even the best techniques available today can save Haiti....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM

Indonesia and other nearby island nations are rapidly destroying their forests for the timber and to grow palm oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:50 PM

Ok, I am all for these if only to screw the Arabs:
#1: Better Cars and Suv's
#2: Modernize America's Electricity System
#3: Increase Energy Efficiency
#4: Protect Threatened Forests
#5: Support American Ingenuity

I already follow a lot of energy saving measures.

How about the other contries in the world? If we conserve, are they going to do the same? Will the UN force them? The UN can't even stop the genocide in Sudan. Un should mean Unsucessful Nincompoops.

This chart shows oil comsumption in Asia more than doubling by 2030 so it almost equals US consumption.

Deforestation occurs mainly in Brazil and they have told us "screw you" more or less, we will cut our trees all we want to.

I am sorry to say I don't think the rest of the world will follow our example.

Yes we are the largest consumers of energy but cutting ours will not make a big dent in the world consumption. Not that we shouldn't try but in any event, we are toast.

We are headed for those domes over cities in the science fiction books.

It's easy for some niaeve idealist one to say we need to do this or that. It is the doing that is difficult.

"We need to eat less fattening unhealthy food and comsume more healthy food."

You can give the person that said that a Nobel peace prize but it won't get the job done.

To condense it all down, it is easier said than done.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM

Actually Old Guy, I would recommend you read

'Play Little Victims' by Kenneth Cook (an Aussie!) - published in late 70s or early 80s

If you can cope with this, you are capable of understanding the movie about Global Warming - it was pitched at such people as you.

a nice review is at http://kimbofo.typepad.com/readingmatters/2006/07/play_little_vic.html

Extract

It's basically a macabre satire about two mice that survive the end of the world. Adamus and Evemus (geddit?) start being fruitful and multiply -- and multiply and multiply -- until it's quite apparent there's an over-population problem.

An official governing body is set up, which then spends the rest of the book trying to work out ways of solving this problem. With the Word of Man to guide them -- a bible and 4,268 editions of the New York Times -- they systematically introduce wars, pollution, abortion, road-death, alcohol and cigarettes to stem the ever-increasing numbers of mice living in Earth's one remaining habitable valley.

When they stumble upon the final solution -- revealed on the very last page of this novella -- it is more horrifying than one could possibly imagine. It makes your skin crawl and your spine shudder.

The beauty of this charming and intelligent fable is its polished brevity. It's also laugh-out-loud funny in places, startling and morbidly dark in others. It says so much about the state of the world right now I find it amazing that Play Little Victims has never been reprinted: it would garner such an audience today. Perhaps because it is by an Australian, little known outside of his homeland, it just never gained the international attention it deserved. I'm sure that would not have been the case had he been a Brit or an American...

End Extract

Copyright Notice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. You must not copy and distribute any of the reviews on this site without giving Reading Matters credit. Click on the logo to view full details of the CC Commons Deed. Please contact the editor of this site if you have any queries.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

Right, Bill. The steps we should take right now are relatively easy compared to what they would be fifty years from now. If we wait until it's obvious to everyone, chances are it will be too late to do anything about it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:36 PM

"... what can be done about this global warming and how do we know it is man made?"

Lots can be done...and since there is some evidence that we humans are making it worse, the only prudent course is to assume that we are at least partially at fault! This is called 'caution'. I would rather err on the side of caution than wait until it is CLEAR that we needed to change our ways 50 years ago!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM

That global warming is an established scientific fact, and that human activity (wholesale pouring of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere from automobiles, coal-fired power plants, dozens of other sources) is either causing it, or is dangerously accelerating it, is also a scientifically established fact.

No, we are not "all doomed." But we will be if we keep doing what we're doing. That, too, is an established scientific fact.

Scientists say so. Auto manufacturers, power plants, and other businesses that might have to spend a little money to reduce or eliminate their contributions to atmospheric polution--and the politicians they own--say either that it isn't so, or "well, let's study it for a few more centuries."

Personally, I'll believe a scientist over a politician every time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:56 AM

Old Guy:

OVercome your reluctance, and see the movie. It won't hurt, and it may inform.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:42 AM

"Every time I ask what can be done, I get told "see the movie" I do not care to see the movie."

Actually, various people upthread (maybe you?) asked what can we do, and I posted a link to UCS's common sense solutions. Here it is again. Don't see the movie. Read this.

Practical Solutions to Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:46 AM

You have been advised to see the movie, cause it is well researched and well put together, far better than trying to get the answers thru a thread at Mudcat...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:17 AM

Nope. "Dumbass" was the personal attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM

What can be done? Try a few of these things, Old guy.

Drive a smaller car, that will do better gas milage. Try and do fewer miles in it, by combining trips and such like.

Insulate you house well, and get used to wearing a sweater indoors in the winter.

There are lots of others, but I don't know your circumstances. If you live in cabin in rural Alaska, it will be well insulated already, and you do need a four wheel drive out there.

It's not a question of going back to the stone age, it's simply producing electricity , and running cars in ways that don't produce Carbon dioxide. It wil take decades to get to that stage, so in the meantime, use ways that produce less.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:51 AM

First try using your voting power & help elect someone with an enviormentally friendly brain & continue from there.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 01:13 AM

"blind stupid allegiance to a political party"

An assertion, not a fact and a personal attack.

My point is, what can be done about this global warming and how do we know it is man made?

Every time I ask what can be done, I get told "see the movie" I do not care to see the movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:21 PM

". . . there is no way to turn it around unless we all go back to the pre-industrial era, voluntarily."

Untrue. There are plenty of things we can do to stop the trend and reverse it, things that would improve our lives immensely. But there are those who are afraid that it will impinge on there profits and others who think it will alter their way of life. Well, it will to that--but it will alter it for the better

And it will also help to insure that future generations (do you have children and grandchildren, Old Guy?) will have a decent world to live in.

But that's just too much trouble for some folks to even bother thinking about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:15 PM

Dumbass. There's a difference between being fried by a natural, unstoppable occurence, and actively doing it to yourself and your children because it is more important to you that you follow your blind stupid allegiance to a political party.

BTW, how soon will the Earth be swallowed by the sun? Any difference (that you know of) between the Earth biota now, and the biota at a comparable time in the past? Never mind. Just went way beyond you. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 10:56 PM

I hate to intrude on your "we are all doomed" club but the fact is that we are all doomed. It we don't wipe ourselves out, nature will do it for us.

Yellowstone could blow tonight and start a nuclear winter that could wipe out mankind. Even it that calamity and thousands of other possible calamities are somehow avoided, eventually the earth will be toasted by the sun.

If global warming is not a nautral occurance, a cycle like other cycles in history, is man made, there is no way to turn it around unless we all go back to the pre-industrial era, voluntarily.

Who wants to be the first in line?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM

"So the continets[sic] slide around but the climate stays the same until humans screw it up?"

. . . friggin' pathetic. . . .

Jaysus, Old Guy, Read a Book!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:14 AM

It is nice to see the hasty reactions to the troll post. But it was a fine trool post making fun of all the attempts to bring up personal experience as a proof of global warming. I wonder why some people who did react this time did not react the many times someone else used a particularly warm period or a sequence of hurricanes as proof for the other side.

The local effects of (real BTW) global warming are too variable and too small to be detectable by personal experience. But I do not think highly of those posters who first look for which opinion (man made global warming / global warming scepticism) a local personal experience is quoted and then either welcome it warmly or turn to science. Double standard posters!

(1) Never trust personal experience for so tiny effects (which could have large consequences, but that's something else, the effects are small compared to the standard deviation). Only trust good science for measuring these effects.

(2) Trust measurements much more than models.
We had the sad case reported just last weekend that the really big science global/local climate model (into which millions of Euros have flown) which did predict for Germany much more rain during winter, Mediterranean climate in summer, long periods ofdrought for some regions was found to be wrong. Not just a bit. Fatally wrong from the very onset. That means back to the start for the one big German model.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM

I think old guy has proven his ignorance is bliss to him and he will hold on to that ignorance against any attempt to educate him.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 07:52 AM

Those are not all time records, Old Guy. 21,000 years ago, at the peak of the last Glacial Period, Chicargo was under a mile of ice.

Climate change is not new, but normally happens slower than this, and factors such as variations in the Earths orbit are responsible, not man-made Carbon Dioxide.

Don, It is entirely possible that continenetial drift would not have been taught when Old Guy was at school. It was proposed as a theory in the 30's, but only proven in about 1965-67.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 07:18 AM

Exactly what the deniers are full of...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:48 PM

Flatulence!

Lots of stinky, hot air everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:11 PM

Turbulence!

In the full global picture, as you have been told before local relatively small local areas will give instances that appear to be the opposite of the real trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:04 PM

I am not saying global warming is not happening but here are some all time records:

In Chicago, the storm on Thursday caused brief white-out conditions and marked the earliest measurable snow on record.

SUMMIT COUNTY Colorado.
Friday's opening marked the earliest-ever start for A-Basin, and comes on the heels of a winter with banner snow that set a record for skier visits at The Legend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM

First, if you get off the plane in Mexico, little buggers come up to you and try to shine your tennis shoes for a penny. Then you notice it is warmer.

If you keep going and pass over the equator, you are upside down and the water draining out of a sink spins counter clockwise.

If you keep going, it gets real cold and the sink won't drain at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM

"things could get pretty damned nasty in other parts of the world. Droughts, crop failures, increased "desertification,""

Welcome to Australia! The wheat and rice crops are likely to be about 25% of last year...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:26 PM

Old Guy,

Have you ever flown south? Did you notice anything when you stepped off the plane? I can only believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, because nobody is that ignorant. ('til now?)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:15 PM

So the continets slide around but the climate stays the same until humans screw it up?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:13 PM

Palm trees, Old Guy? The Isle of Arran--off the west of Scotland, has palm trees galore. And far from a looming rise in temperature due to global warming, the temperature in the UK/Western Europe region is expected to DROP, due to the probable diversion of the Gulf Stream, which is the factor which makes palm trees a part of Scottish vegetation. Whether or not this drop in temperature has permanence is debatable; I imagine it will depend in the mid to long term on the degree of the general global warming trend. Does all this mean that Boab is a convinced "believer"? Itdoesn't. I think there is a probable warming trend, and if not, it's No thanks to the heedless career of humanity, which is HELLbent in ignoring calls for action which will reduce their contribution to such a dangerous trend. If there is even a slight possibility that we are responsible for all or any part of a warming trend we owe it to our kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids [and I have all of them] to take whatever action possible which will slow down or stop this situation from reaching a deadly stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:13 PM

Seashells in the Himalaya! Proves, yes PROVES that scientists don't know shit. Clams got no legs, let alone crampons.


What an F'in MOron.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:20 PM

Why it's the Model T Ford made the trouble
made the people wanna go, wanna get, wanna get up and go
seven eight , nine, ten, twelve, fourteen, twenty-two, twenty-three miles to the county seat.
Yes sir, yes sir

It's the model T ford made the global warming.
Yes sir, yes sir

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:16 PM

Old Guy, when you're boning up on the sciences, learn something about geology. Have you never heard of "continental drift?" What are now arctic regions were not always in the higher latitudes.

What the hell did they teach you in school? Or was that back when they still thought the earth was flat?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:55 PM

I wonder how coal got to be in Antarctica?

And Oil in the north slope of Alaska where no plants grow?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:43 PM

Gee, Old, sorry you were up at 4:18 AM. Hope the snow doesn't keep you up again.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:35 PM

". . . the area gets colder again and the ice cap rebuilds."

That's an essentially localized effect which would not take effect if the worldwide temperature continues to rise as a result of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

There's an old say about "not able to see the forest for the trees." You have to look at the overall picture, Old Guy. Global warming means global warming, and although it may have temporary localized effects that seem to indicated that it isn't taking effect in the short term, that doesn't meant that it isn't happening.

By the time it makes itself patently, obviously undeniable to people like you, it will be far too late. You, and everybody else, will soon be boiling in their own juices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:49 PM

If it was, then sevaral lying useless fools of posters here would have got it by now, and actually take it seriously as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM

It's not simple, Old Guy. If it was, then our lying useless fools of politicians esteemed leaders would have got it by now, and actually take it seriously....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

OK Amos, It was a troll but I sure got a lot of bites from the Kneejerk Liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM

OG:

Look -- go see "An Inconvenient Truth" and pay close attention to the math.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:06 PM

Im just asking. No need to get you drawers all in a bind.

Now the Greenland Ice cap. The gulfstream brings warm water northward into the area and the salt in the water makes if eventually sink and flow in reverse, bringing cooler water back to the gulf.

Am I right so far?

So when the cap melts and the water is less salty, it does not sink so much and the northerly flow slows down the warming effect, the area gets colder again and the ice cap rebuilds.

Is that why these palm trees were growing in england at one time?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:45 PM

Old Guy, get a clue! Global warming is a upward trend in the global temperature, and like all meteorological phenomena, an instance or two that seems to contradict the trend does not mean the trend isn't happening!

Some posts back I point out the matter of the Greenland ice cap melting (which it is doing at a rapid rate) and pouring enough cold, fresh water into the warm, salty Gulf Stream, potentially disturbing its flow and basically, shutting it down. With the cessation of the warm flow of the Gulf Stream, Northern Europe would experience a severe drop in temperature--a sort of mini-Ice Age (it's happened before). But that would only be temporary. The global temperature would continue to rise and the cold temperatures in Nothern Europe would end soon enough. In the meantime, things could get pretty damned nasty in other parts of the world. Droughts, crop failures, increased "desertification," and much more severe storms (hurricanes, tornadoes).

Learn something about meteorology. You might also take a look at planetology. We can see, by examining conditions on planets like Venus, just how dangerous to humanity--or all life on Earth--a runaway greenhouse effect can be.

Don't snort. It's possible!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:41 PM

Hang tough, Old Guy. The fact that you do not understand the science does not mean it isn't there, you know.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM

What happened to those terrible hurricanes this year? You know, the ones caused by global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM

One heavy snowfall doth not an Ice Age make.

One of the effects of global warming is that all weather tends to grow more extreme--but the temperature trend is upward.

A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture in suspension, so one effect of global warming is that when the temperature does cool (temporarily) and the moisture precipitates out, rainfall or snowfall tends to be heavier.

Basic meteorology.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:18 AM

The lake-effect snowfall was a record for October, with 14.3 inches falling on Friday at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Combined with 8.3 inches recorded on Thursday, there was about 22.6 inches measured at the airport as of 11 a.m.

The previous record was 6 inches on Oct. 31, 1917.

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/10/09/daily47.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM

Along with the fact that cold, fresh water in that quantity would alter the course of the Gulf Stream, which would, in turn, alter the climate of northern Europe. A regional Ice Age.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM

Once all the weight of an ice cap comes off, there is a chance that the extra buoyancy will cause that mass land to rise. It is even more likely that if this land is in an area of geological instability, that earth tremors may be induced. Possible land and water disruptions may then ensue.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:48 AM

The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up. Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004. If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet). Estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres (57.3 cubic miles) per year. This figure is about three times higher than an earlier estimate.
(BBC online)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 10:25 PM

You can get a hell of a buzz off of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:19 AM

Does putting acetone in your gas make it smell better?

Should we ask Spaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:07 AM

2 to 3 ounces of acetone per 10 gallons of gas gets an extra 2 mpg or more gas mileage for most people. It has something to do with better more complete burning of the gas. Works with diesels too.

Acetone is a comodity so it is not hype for a particular "wonder" product. It costs around $5 per quart or $15 per gallon.

Google it or go to

http://www.gasbuddy.com/Forum_MSG.aspx?master=1&category=1054&topic=153466&page_no=1

There are other gas saving topics there and they debunk rip offs like magnets on your gas line.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:09 AM

Well, let's put it this way:   I heard on the news a few days ago about a guy who took Viagra. Shortly thereafter he started having trouble with his eyes. He took some more and he lost all the sight in one of his eyes. Then he took another and he went stone blind. Think I'm making this up?

Clicky

Some folks are so focused on what they consider short term gains that they completely ignore the obvious signs and blunder—blindly—into disaster.

Have another tank of gas. What the hell! Buy yourself a new SUV!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:25 AM

Why do you add acetone to your gas?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:14 AM

The motivation is purely economic. I get these 43 watt CFs at Walmart for $8.44 that put off 200 watts of light. Great for the garage.

Same way with gas consumption. I drive as little as possible, combine trips. Search out the cheapest gas on gasbuddy.com, add acetone to my gas, blow my tires up to 40psi, whatever it takes to save money.

Yesterday I went to the land fill and got a huge yellow plastic trash can, not a bin, for recycleables. Not for civic duty but because it easier for me to keep them out of the garbage and put them in the big yellow can.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:54 PM

Sure...some folks with scientific expertise speculate on how we might "Terraform" Mars, but no one seriously expects to be doing that anytime soon....but certain experiments on the processes that would be needed to do it on Mars can be beneficial here first! It's the thinking that is important, not some narrow, distant goal.

So glad to hear you are now totally ecologically balanced....I have a way to go yet. I still have a few tungsten light bulbs, and can't afford the best insulation or solar panels or electric cars.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM

OK. I just stopped all my self destructive behavior.

Now it's your turn.

Before we emigrate to Mars, we have to get some global warming going on there and produce some greenhouse gasses.

I have seen Saganesque plans to send robotic atmosphere producing machines there to get it ready for human occupation and subsequent raping. Trees should grow good there with 92% CO2

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM

Carl Sagan didn't reckon on the ability of Red Adair and his cohorts to put those fires out so fast!

But that is not the point...Carl Sagan may not have been right, but it was still a good idea to put the fires out! And it makes little difference whether this warming is serious or minor...or whether we cause most of it or it is a natural cycle....the fact is, *WE* are making it worse, and it is a good idea to STOP a lot of our self-destructive behavior!

Where did we get this idea that we don't have to DO anything until all experts totally agree we have a problem, and we are out of resources, hungry and miserable? Does no one even consider that in our situation (Mars doesn't seem to available for emigration), it's best to err on the side of caution?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:34 PM

If Mars's atmosphere is 92% CO2, where's the global warming there? Venus's atmosphere is only 64% CO2.

How do you know an expert when you see one? Remember Carl Sagan, the Guru warning that we would have a nuclear winter because of the oil wells burning in Kuwait in '91?

I think the experts can't decide if it's global cooling or warming.

What is the procedure to ORDER countries to do something that is completely internal? Embargo them? Embargo Brazil and China will trade with them. Threaten them with war? Deny their sovereignty?

Only way I see is through the UN which in my opinion is dysfunctional and corrupt.

Oh by the way there is a dandy interactive map of mars at Google. You can see every pimple and pit. There are some places that look suspiciously like eroded riverbeds about 2/3rds of the way up just to the right if center.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:26 PM

It's not too smart to get into a tickle-fight with Tars Tarkas.

EEEK!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:03 PM

Wow! I guess they did have enough beer!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM

Sorry, Don. But I think you're making that up.
The proof is here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 08:20 PM

"How did Mars's atmosphere get the way it is?"

The diameter of Mars is slightly more than half that of Earth, and its mass is approximately 11% of that of Earth. It is probable that Mars doesn't have sufficient gravity to retain much of an atmosphere.

Statistics regarding the Martian atmosphere:

Atmospheric pressure – 0.7 – 0.9 kPa
Carbon dioxide – 95.32%
Nitrogen – 2.7%
Argon – 1.6%
Oxygen – 0.2%
Carbon monoxide – 0.07%
Water vapor – 0.03%
Nitric oxide – 0.01%
Neon – 2.5%
Krypton – 300ppb
Xenon – 80 ppb
Ozone – 30ppb
Methane – 10.5ppb

The high level of carbon dioxide (95.32%) probably comes from heavy volcanic activity in Mars' history. There is evidence that it was tectonically very active in the past. One of its features is Olympus Mons, the largest known volcano in the solar system. It's extinct now, and Mars seems to be tectonically dead. At one time it had substantial amounts of water, as witnessed by huge canyons and rills that couldn't have been cut out by anything but flowing water (at least as far as we know; it's doubtful that the Martians had enough beer to do all that). In any case, it's also probable that most of the water dissipated into space as vapor. However, it's hoped, for the sake of future explorers and/or settlers (assuming a lot of terraforming), that much of it is locked up underground as ice.

But before we try to turn Mars into a vacation resort planet, we'd probably better do a few things to try to keep this one from turning into a pizza oven.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM

Al, what you...and I...and everyone has to do is read, pay attention to the experts, then elect leaders who will also listen to the experts. We can do the individual stuff like light bulbs and insulation also, but some of the big stuff needs to be ORDERED done by someone in charge.

That's how we save the rainforest...we ORDER people to stop trashing it, and enforce the order. Brazil used to ISSUE chain saws to poor farmers, so they could hack out a new farm every 2-3 years...Japan and China are stripping Borneo and Indonesia for plywood and chopstick material.

We 'almost' stopped whaling, but logging is much harder. If we could get the U.N.s attention from petty squabbling over religious wars, we might make some headway!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:40 PM

OK Peace, turn that knob back about halfway.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:38 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:29 PM

"Also if anybody here knows what to do about this global warming let's hear it."

Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary. Cool it down a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:36 PM

Like what? Are they secret?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ is all bout increasing efficiencies. That will happen automatically when the price of oil and electricity get high enough.

We were threatens with a 75% elcetric bill hike here. I went arounf and replaced all the light bulbs with Compact Flourescents. I am putting Microfoil refelective insulation to my attic. There are even solar assisted AC systems. There are governmant rebates on various insulation and soalr powered upgrades that people can take advantage of.

All it takes is monetary incentives.

Now what the hell are you going to do to keep people from trashing the rainforrest?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM

Al:

I suggest you sneak into the film "An Inconvenient Truth", halfway through. I say this because I am guessing you wuldn't pay for it. But there are a number of very good suggestions therein.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:31 AM

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a gateway page to a whole pantload of "what to do's"...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/

Git Readin'!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM

How did Mars's atmosphere get the way it is?

Also if anybody here knows what to do about this global warming let's hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM

Why, of course they are edited by lawyers! We can't have scary scenarios being laid unvarnished before the public at large...why they might begin to worry and do something awkward....like demand their government curtail the way business interests run the world!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 08:06 PM

Climate reports sent to the White House are highly edited before they are released to Congress and to the public. They are not edited by a scientist, they are edited by a lawyer—a former lobbyist for the oil companies.

This is part of a story that was aired this past Sunday evening. Clicky. Then click on "Play" just below "Rewriting the Science." They may throw a 30 second commercial at you, but hang in there. This excerpt from the report only lasts for three minutes, but it gives you the gist of the longer story.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:55 PM

The dinosaurs walked the earth for 160 million years before they got wiped out when a piece of debris left over from the creation of the solar system collided with the planet, changing weather conditions so drastically that they couldn't survive. The disappearance of the great lizards allowed mammals, then, little squeaky things that hid in holes and scurried through the branches, to evolve and eventually take over. But no species, no matter how powerful—or how cunning—has a lease on the planet. No guarantees. Even humans, with the intelligence they are so proud of, can be wiped out the same way the dinosaurs were. Only a few weeks ago, a chunk of rock the size of Texas passed across earth's orbit, missing it by only a few hundred thousand miles. That's a very near miss, and it's my understanding (and I try to keep up on these things) that astronomers didn't even see it coming. A collision like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs could happen at any time. So we are no safer than the dinosaurs. But—unlike the dinosaurs, we have it within our power to alter our environment in a number of ways, any of which could be sufficient to cause our own extinction.

Anyone who knows anything about meteorology and other planetary sciences knows this. There have been examples in the past, when whole societies have wiped themselves off the map due to their lack of foresight. They caused their own Collapse.

And nowhere is it written that this kind of catastrophe cannot happen on a planetary scale. It has happened before. Venus, our "sister planet" is the way it is because of (and where have we heard this before?) a runaway greenhouse effect.

We are supposed to be an intelligent species. But if we continue in our dull-witted complacency and don't face the all-too-obvious facts and use that intelligence—and damned soon—humannity may not survive for many more centuries.

If, indeed, that long.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:26 PM

Yep.
It was hotter'n a wildcat's ass here today.
Feels just like summer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 05:59 PM

You are 100% correct SINSULL. It has happened many times in the history of the planet. The creatures that went extinct then couldn't see it coming, and if they were causing it (e.g. the oxygen-producing, but anaerobic, bacteria who poisoned themselves off in the Pre-Cambrian) could do nothing about it. We are different...aren't we?...maybe...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: SINSULL
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 05:32 PM

You are all missing the point. The earth will go on with or without us. Global Warming is a problem only to that ridiculously egotistical creature called man. Once he eliminates himself. time and nature will produce the next generation of earthlings, ones who can survive in the heat.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM

Good on, Ebbie! Perhaps you have now lived long enough to see a glass half full instead of one half empty. Congratulations!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 12:04 AM

That's because Rush and Sean and Ann and Britt are insisting that that the warmth they are distinctly feeling on their watertight asses is just more evil lib'rul media propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 07:57 PM

Some frogs refuse to believe that the water is starting to boil too, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:52 PM

Well, we had a cool spring and now it is payback time.

Looking at records in my neck of the woods:

Record high for July is 107 in 1936. Average high is 87 Today's high was 93. Tonight's low is supposed to be 76.

Record low for July was 55 Average low is 66

I don't know the date for the July low but the record low for January was -7F in 1984.

So dang, It looks like it was a lot warmer 70 years ago. Maybe there was a global cooling trend that bottomed out in 1984.

In searching for records I stumbled on this:

RECORD SNOWFALL in UPPER MIDWEST- DEC 2000

NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, OK1
Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison2

First cold December in years

After several mild winters, the upper Midwest experienced near record low temperatures and high snowfall during the month of December 2000.

For example, the mean temperature in Madison was 11.2 F as compared to the December average of 21.7 F. This was 0.4 F above the record low of 10.8 F.
The temperature was subfreezing continuously except for 2 brief periods on the 3rd and 4th when high temperatures reached 34 and 35 F respectively.
The mean minimum temperature was 2.0 F. The temperature fell below zero (-18 C) on 13 days with -21 F (-29.5 C) the coldest on the 25th.

Waterloo IA set a monthly minimum record with -29 F on 25 December..

Record snowfall in Madison

Measurable snow fell on 20 days giving a record total of 35" for the month. The heaviest was 8.2" on the 18th, followed by 5.0" on the 11th, 4.6" on the 20th.

Total liquid equivalent for the month was only 1.39" giving an average snow/liquid ratio of almost 30 to 1. Most snowfall occured when the temperature was between 5-15 F. In some cases the snow/liquid ratio was as high as 40 to 1.
The highest Madison snow depth of 17" tied for the greatest December snow depth.

Milwaukee set a new snowfall record of 49.5" in December. This broke the previous record of 27.9" by almost 22"!

Snowfall in Milwaukee was occasionally enhanced by northeasterly flow over Lake Michigan. The 13.6" on the 11th was the greatest December single-day snowfall. There was as much as 32" of snow on the ground at MKE late in the month.
Climate data from Wisconsin are available from the NWS MKE (Milwaukee/Sullivan) Web page.

   Iowa:

    By the 21st, the average snowfall from all stations across the state was 19.8" - already a new record for December Snow depth reached 31" across northeast Iowa (29 December at Tripoli).
      Other record Midwest snowfall for December:

    Marquette MI                89.5" *
    Grand Rapids MI             59.2 " *
    South Bend IN                   44.6 "
    Saginaw MI                         40.3 "
    Dubuque IA                         37.6"
    Rochester MN                     35.3" *
    Waterloo IA                         34.0"
    Rockford IL                         30.1" *
    Green Bay WI                     28.9"
    Des Moines IA                     26.9"
    Springfield MO                      18.0"
    Tulsa, OK                               11.4"
    Oklahoma City OK                8.2" (.8" short of record)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:46 PM

Please remember folks...Weather is not a synonymn for climate.
E.g. weather changes aren't a big deal, climate change another story...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 08:51 PM

Here in Brisbane, this winter has been weird - occasional nights right down to 6 deg C, with a lot of other nights anything up to nearly 10 deg C warmer than average winter temps for this time of year. And the rain pattern is disturbed - more overcast than normal, but it is not raining.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:31 PM

The relationship between current heat waves, which have caused multiple deaths across the Midwest and West of the US, and global warming, is explained here in an article headlined "Better Get Used to Killer Heat Waves".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 07:44 PM

here's the CNN link to the story

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:34 AM

Planet running the worst fever in centuries
By John Heilprin in Washington; Sydney Morning Herald
June 23, 2006

THE earth is the hottest it has been in at least four centuries and perhaps in thousands of years. The US National Academy of Sciences reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by the US Congress. In a report released on Wednesday it found the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

A panel of leading climate scientists said the earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming". Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere rose about half a degree Celsius during the 20th century. The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House of Representatives science committee, Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat. The Bush Administration also has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

The climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the northern hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2000 years. The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.
For all but the most recent 150 years, scientists from the academy relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years", the academy said. Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the past few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the past 1000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted about AD1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

Between AD1 and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said. The academy is a private organisation chartered by Congress to advise the government on science.

AP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM

so much depends upon

a red wheel barrow

glazed with rain water

beside the white chickens.

    -- William Carlos Williams

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 02:30 AM

I don't care. (That is a joke, OK?)

But do you see what I mean? Are we as a country going to go out sputtering and choking because those with the power so decree?

Some things do give me hope. I get more mail from people than I used to, mail that shows that there are people actively working and exploring ways and means. And I meet far more people who forthrightly agree with the idea that something must be done.

And there is the Mudcat. If the proportion of American Mudcatters who are working to make things better in the US to the Mudcatters who not only want the status quo preserved but resent and resist any call to wake up is indicative of what is going on in the US as a whole, the prognosis is brightening.

Guess I'm just in a low spot.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 11:39 PM

Ebbie:

If all you have is wheelbarrows, and your life depends on it, apathy is a pretty poor second choice, IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 10:06 PM

.....and were you aware that Custer was one of the first men to wear an Arrow shirt?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM

Yes, but Amos, how does an individual's efforts influence, finally, the nations'?

An analogy: You want to turn the creek on your property in to a different bed or course. You contract to get an earthmover to do the job but he is not available until September and this is only June. So do you take a wheelbarrow out there every day and haul water to the new bed, in order to do your part? And you got your neighbors to bring their own wheelbarrows to help?

Just seems pretty hopeless to me.

The other night at music the last four of us were sitting there singing one depressed song after another and our talk in between was no better. I think I may have outlived the era I want to live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:18 PM

In addition, because melting ice reduces the albedo of the surface (reflection of hear) and increases the absorption of heat by water (instead of the reflection of heat when it was ice) the warming accelerates from the increased absorption.

The "end" of the thread is reduction of carbon emissions by individuals, by groups, by companies, by cities, by states and by nations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:49 PM

Recently scientists have projected that as the warming thaws permafrost tons of carbon will be released into the atmosphere which will in turn hasten and exacerbate global warming.

The trick to combating the warming is to find and grasp the end of the thread... Until we can do that we'll just be dithering about.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:35 PM

Those bastards from 1910 did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 10:42 AM

Trolls don't taste nice people, so don't bite.

Andy, see here....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:50 AM

There may be oil under the glaciers and polar ice.

The tundra could be cultivated to grow food for the world.

Eskimos could cultivate a tan and go surfing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:44 AM

Currently record breaking US high temperatures are achieved on a daily basis about 70% if the time.

Have you noticed that the cable news weather reports don't show HOT on their maps anymore - they use "very warm" instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 12:11 AM

Obie:

There is a close correlation going back over hundreds of years between temperature and atmospheric carbon.

The oscillation of these coupled trends is clearly shown, when graphed over the long term, to be in a breakaway climb that begins around 1910.

The last ten to twenty years (I don't have tghe graphs in front of me) are exponentially ramping toward off-the-chart highs, in very close synchronization with each other.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:16 PM

"If somebody doesn't make money on it they don't want to do it."

That is the whole problem right there. That is the disease of our civilization. It's not sane. It's not reasonable. It is totally irresponsible, and it's everywhere...because our society revolves around money. And money is an artificial thing that people themselves once created...it isn't real...unless you and everyone else pretend it is, and end up believing it. Then it becomes real, by default, and people serve it and murder for it.

The Indians who killed Custer and his men were outside that system. They didn't value it. They found a lot of paper money on the dead soldiers, took it and used it for ornamentation and starting fires. They could see that it was just little pieces of paper. They had not yet been fooled by the collective dream that white society had enslaved itself to....but the white society was bigger and stronger, so the Indians had no chance. They now serve that same false dream, and they run casinos. Tragic!

We cannot have a healthy planet when vital decisions are made on the basis of someone earning more money.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:40 PM

TIA,I think that you have stated a truth in that news writers often do not comprehend what they write about and work from a point of view that a good story sells more papers than some rather dry facts. There are also scientists out there who present a dramatic forecast in the hope of attracting some research grants.
That worldwide temperatures are increasing can be a proven fact. Why they are rising can only be theory, but an educated guess based on research acceptable to the wider scientific community should carry considerable weight. There is no denying that a problem exists, but it is caused by many factors. Increasing CO2 levels is part of the problem and mankind must bear some blame for that, but methane and other hydro-carbons emitted from the earth are a larger problem and that is far beyond our control. If there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere more vegitation should grow to absorb it if the natural cycle is allowed to proceed. If we clear more and more vegitation the natural balance of nature is disrupted so that part is simple enough.
What mankind has put into the equation during this cycle is greed. If somebody dosen't make money on it they don't want to do it. Mother Nature can and will take care of herself but it may be at our peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 07:53 PM

Obie, it may certainly be bad wording (and I have a big beef with newspaper writer's imprecise, colloquial, or plain sloppy usage of words that have specific meanings in science ... e.g. theory, sinkhole, etc.), but that does not necessarily indicate bad science. Would you agree with Thomas Reichler (the author of the article in Science to which the newspaper writer was referring) if he stated it as "tropical climate is expanding towards the poles", or "tropical flora and fauna are expanding towards the poles"? He may simply be under the mistaken impression that "the tropics" are defined biologically or climatically, when, in fact as you point out, they are defined geographically or celestially.

As a corollary, not everyone who says "nukular" is a total dummy. Jimmy Carter had a degree in "nukular physics".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 04:35 PM

My point is mainly that many claims are based on bad science. Bad science may be true or false or any degree in between.
In a related thread on An Inconvenient Truth we are referred to a scientific article that claims that the tropics are expanding toward the poles. This is just another example of extreemly bad science. The tropics area or latitude has nothing to do with global warming and they do not expand or contract. They are the points where the sun's rays land at 90 degrees to the earth at least once a year. Any scientist should know this as fact and not make such stupid statements. When they do it calls to question anything else that they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:14 AM

People who argue against it do so mainly for the reason that their ego demands that they continue to hold the same position they have have held in the past...regardless...because if they didn't, then they would feel like they "lost". That they cannot bear and will not tolertate.

That is what fuels most of these endless arguments, as a matter of fact...merely people's sheer stubbornness in defending an already established position that they have made an emotional investment in. It's a matter of pride, not reason.

It's the "Vietnam" syndrome. "We can't admit we were wrong, and leave now, because it would be humiliating. It would make us look like losers. People might laugh at us! So...we're gonna stay right where we are, take more losses, and keep saying what we have always said...that we are right and our ideas are the only way to go."

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going." - Richard Nixon

(Or to put it another way: When the insecure are shown to be in error, the insecure go ever more deeply into denial.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM

It's as good science as you can get into a movie tagline though. And if it's explained and expanded on in the moive, then there's no problem with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:40 AM

Furthermore the ebb and flow of climate has been carefully plotted. What is happening now, and has been since the beginning of the 20th century, a complete break-away climbing trend fart above the climatic oscillation band in both carbon content of the atmosphere, measured precisely since the late 1950's thanks to Roger Revelle, and average temperature ranges.

2005 was, overall, the hottest year ever. Parts of India experienced 120-degree heat. Obviously steatements like this are generalized and abstracted -- they cannot be precise except as avaerages. But that does not make them unscientific.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:08 AM

Obie:

They know it for practical purposes because of analyzing ice-core segments that go back 65,000 years. Which in terms of human comparative history is "ever".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 05:53 AM

I make no denial that Earth is warming up because that is likely true. I also believe that it will have some catastrophic effects that we have to deal with. I agree that we pollute our world and we must make every effort to stop doing so.
When I read in the promo for An Inconvenient Truth that 2005 was "the worst year ever" I ask myself "How do they know that?" Ever is a very long time and climate ebbs and flows. It is not good science to gain attention with unscientific statements like that, and it casts doubt on follow-up theories. Our way of life is in trouble because we try to control nature rather than flowing with it. If the seas rise we must move. If drought causes starvation then populations will be reduced to a sustainable level. Some other areas will see improvements and some wasteland will become fertile. We now waste huge amounts of water creating golf courses in the desert, and are building more every day. Soon we may need that water to grow food so don't buy a new set of clubs just now.
          Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 09:03 PM

No. Now, there is a lot we can do about it right now, individual by individual, city by city, state by state.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM

Some suggestions here


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:55 PM

"Now what are we going to do about it? .."

why, turn up the AC and open the doors, of course!

Sadly, if the situation--natural OR man-made-- has gotten out of hand, the only thing we can do that makes sense is to gradually reduce the population over the next few generations so that the areas that are still tolerable to live in are not impossibly overcrowded.

Move over, you folks in Canada, Siberia, Finland...company's coming!

(I sure would like to be mistaken....I'd LOVE to look down from above in 100-200 years and see that it didn't get too bad....but....)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:44 PM

From a recent column by Ben Bova in Naples FL -- Bova was the editor of OMNI science mag for many years:

"nd now the bad news.

Global warming is real. Even the White House now admits it.

For years there's been a discrepancy between temperature measurements made on the surface of Earth and measurements made by satellites of the temperatures in the lower portion of the our planet's atmosphere.

The surface measurements showed that the global temperature is steadily rising. The satellite measurements didn't agree.

This led some scientists to downgrade or even dismiss completely the widespread fears of global warming. And such doubts by reputable scientists led others to believe that global warming is a sham perpetrated by Third World collectivists who want to cripple the industrialized world's economy.

The Bush White House was openly skeptical of global warming, although not entirely dismissive.

The Bush Administration commissioned a wide range of studies to examine the issue of global climate change. The first of these studies, released by the Climate Change Science Program, has resolved the discrepancies between surface and satellite measurements.

Thomas Karl, of the National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina, was chief editor of the report. He stated that a key element of the study was bringing together the scientists who disagreed about the temperature measurements and having them iron out their differences face-to-face.

The result? The scientists found subtle errors in earlier analyses and, once these were taken into account, the surface and satellite measurements agreed.

Global warming is real.

Now what are we going to do about it? ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:28 PM

Go see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It will show you the details, the pictures, the numbers, the trends and the projections.

Just go see it. THEN quibble.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 05:02 PM

Global Warming: It either is or isn't a reality. Either way, it is still prudent to

STOP POLLUTING THIS PLANET

Thank you for reading. We now return you to the regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 04:56 PM

" To believe every "Chicken Little" who cries "the sky is falling" is also the folly of fools,"

the point is, if a Chicken Little runs by squawking, it is prudent to at least look UP! Then, go spend a teeny bit of time asking the experts who just may have been where Chicken Little got his information.

This is not a rumor, nor is it a scare tactic...it is a deduction based on many, many factors.

Oh..Obie...".. the scientific lie is to foster a belief that we can really prevent things like polar melting. " ....the important point is whether we are exacerbating the natural processes, and by how much. You don't say how you got the info that 'we can't do much about it'.

Like I said before, and may say again until you are sick of hearing me say it, in matters like this, we need to err on the side of caution!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 02:56 PM

Also, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, since Norway has loosened its rules about marriage, it's only getting 6 months of sunshine per year.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 02:45 PM

Gosh, Andy, I would have agreed with you last week. It was quite cool here! But....today it's as hot as hell here, and a good deal more humid!

I guess global warming must be real after all, eh, Andy?

But what if it gets cool again? Then what?

It's all so confusing for those tiny minds out there...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 01:39 PM

Well, that clinches it, Andy--global warming is definitely a myth. Your scientific study has proven that it is. Thanks for all your hard work.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:52 AM

I almost had to turn on the AC yesterday. First time as long as I can remember not using AC this late in the year.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 04:21 AM

Nice rant, Obie. It's accurate in parts

If polar bears were to become extinct because of melting ice flows they would follow woolly mamoths that became extinct because of an earlier global warming.

Climate change alone wasn't sufficient to kill off the Mammoth, and several other large animal species. They had suvived similar changes between glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary( the last 2 million years).
The extra factor at the end of the last Glacial was people hunting them. There have been houses built of mammoth bones found in Eastern Europe, and mammoth skeletons with flint arrowheads in them found in the US. Where it took longer for people to get to them, the mammoths lasted longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 01:37 AM

Mankind and his activities are like a pimple on the Earth's arse. It may cause pain but other factors beyond his control cause greater health risks. Global warming is a natural cycle and human actions only play a small part in increasing its effect. The inverse being also true there is little that mankind can do to make any impact on this cycle to prevent warming up of Earth. That is not to say that we should not do what we can, but the scientific lie is to foster a belief that we can really prevent things like polar melting. Man is by nature a nomad who would change location with changing climate. Instead we build huge buildings on floodplains protected by earthen dams and expect nature to abide by our wishes. National but artificial borders prevent migration to more desireable areas and there are just too damn many of us in any case. If polar bears were to become extinct because of melting ice flows they would follow woolly mamoths that became extinct because of an earlier global warming.
We have changed from a species that goes with the flow of nature to one who stands in opposition, and that is the folly of fools. To believe every "Chicken Little" who cries "the sky is falling" is also the folly of fools, so I guess we are between that rock and a hard place.
         Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 04:55 PM

Al Gore probably isn't aware of your dislike of him, Doug. What can we do about that, I wonder? ;-)

I mean, hey, if he WAS aware of your opinion of him, he'd probably experience something akin to a revelation. He'd give up on all this "global warming" foolishness and admit he'd been wrong about everything else too. Wouldn't that be wonderful???

Hmmm. How are we going to make Al Gore aware of Doug's opinion? How?

Maybe we should see if we can get DougR to appear as a special guest on CNN or Larry King Live. Yeah, that'd probably do it. LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM

Yes, it is Bush's fault. Most of it is caused, though, by wind escaping from the mouth and rear of Al Gore.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 09:06 PM

people like 'guest' Andy appall me with stupid (yes, STUPID..) insights like "it was cool this weekend.." etc.

Yeah...it's cooler right now where I am than usual for this time of year, but anyone with any sense will realize that temporary local variations are irrelevant in the global average.

Anyone who doubts....go READ...go LISTEN...to the ones who are seriously doing the field work and collecting the data!!!! We have problems, guys....you WILL believe in a few years, and then you'll pretend that "no one really warned me", and you'll complain that "no one did anything about it"....and YOU are the ones re-electing the idiots who refuse to do anything about it, and who are buying the SUVs and who are cutting down fields & forests for more malls and highways......

   .....and yes, you are the ones who refuse to see the danger of overpopulation that casts the big shadow over ALL the other problems.

Go on...keep denying and avoiding and pretending; maybe you'll get thru your miserable lives before the worst begins to sink in...but your kids and grand kids will ask why you hid your head in the sand!

Who, me? Cynical? naaawwwww...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 06:22 PM

And just in case Guest Andy checks back, the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous which corresponds with the Yutacan impact probably took in the order of a million years.
What is currently accepted by most of the scientific community now is that the main cause of this extinction was huge volcanic eruptions in India, that formed the flood basalts know as the Deccan Traps. The meteor impact was just the icing on the cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 06:18 PM

Sorry Wolfgang, I have far more than "a little bit of knowledge" on the subject of Earth's history.

You are right, we have not yet wiped out 90% of species. Yet we have lost about 2/3 of species on the planet in just the last 150 years. Is the trend slowing? The extrapolation is quite easy.

For a specific example, we have lost 70% of Earth's living coral in the last decade. Again, is it slowing? What does extrapolation tell you?

Another - globally, 90% of large predatory fish have disappeared in the last hundred 50 years (not solely the result of global warming..overfishing is hugely involved, but if you're a large predatory fish, do you care?)

Another - again globally, 30% of amphibians are on the brink of extinction -- in some rainforests, 2/3 of frog species are already gone. Is this slowing? Is there a logical, sensical extrapolation to be made?

On a geologic time scale, ten years -- hell even 150 years -- is no time whatsoever. Not long ago, claiming that a mass extinction, or any big event, happened in anything less than a million years got you labelled a "catastrophist". Ten to 150 years certainly seems like a catastrophe to little old nonsensical me. And while I do now the difference between an upper limit and a mean (in fact I know the difference between mean, average, median, and mode as well!), it's a pedantic distinction at best in this case, and exactly the type of argument that climate change deniers (and creationists, and other anti-science people) use to discredit the opposition -- seize upon a small side issue where you sense weakness, and argue it as if it is the main point. I have never considered you to be one of these, and I hope you are not.

Time will certainly tell whether I am "outrageously wrong". If I am I will be happy (and alive) and will apologize to you (and everyone) for being alarmist. If I'm right, we might neither (none?) of us be here for the "I told you so's".

And you are correct, lies do not help a case. In fact, lies are what are keeping us from doing the right thing now for our children and grandchildren (and perhaps all future progeny).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 04:56 PM

There's a difference between what caused former mass extinctions & what's causing one now!
There is also a thinning layer of the top cold water layers that lie beneath polar ice. If or when these layer thins to far then the warmer bottom layers of water will slowly melt more ice (there's a cycle starting here) which will also cause changes in the gulf stream. Why can't we agree it's just to risky to leave it all up to chance, because that's the best we're doing since we're not listening to science. By the time more studies conclude no more than the past studies (the out come depends on who's doing the study & who's paying for it) will all be in the grave.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 04:31 PM

We are, in fact, in the midlle of the greatest and fastest mass extinction in the history of the planet. And here's a statement that will make the apologists howl, but... No reputable scientist disagrees with this. (TIA)

You are one of those people, TIA, who are giving environmentalism a bad name by making nonsense statements which are an easy prey for those who don't agree with environmentalist ideas. Former mass extinctions are estimated to heve eliminated up to 90% of all life forms. And how bad the present extinction is, it is still far from 90% of all life forms. Therefore it cannot be the greatest yet. Anyone with a bit of knowledge knows that.

And 'fastest' is dubitable as well. Former mass extinctions have been so far away in time that their time scale is fairly unknown. The data give an upper limit like for instance 100,000 years but it might as well have been a decade or two weeks. We only know it was faster than 100,000 years. You seem to be mixing up an upper limit with an estimate of a mean. These are two extremely different things.

What happens now is bad enough and there is no need to make nonsensical or outrageously wrong statements. Such statements do not help at all attempts to save the planet, they rather help those who see no need to act now. Lies never help any case.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:03 PM

How fast was the mass extinction after that asteroid hit the Yucatan peninsula?

Remember when Carl Sagan predicted an ice age because of the oil well fires that Saddam set in Kuwait?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM

Andy:

Yes it has. But not this fast. And when it has happened before, there were mass extinctions. We are, in fact, in the midlle of the greatest and fastest mass extinction in the history of the planet. And here's a statement that will make the apologists howl, but... No reputable scientist disagrees with this. Only the "think tank" scientists hired by Exxon, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:00 PM

Has this ever happened before?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:30 PM

QUOTE
'Terestial Warming' means that the total 'energy' is increasing - this increases 'turbulence', which means actually greater extremes, both of hot and cold temps in many places - the 'colder temps' mean actually that 'more cold is being swept away from the poles' to use the layman's term, actually using correct scientific terminology, 'more heat is flowing to the poles" - thus the 'warming' effects.

If the polar ice is melting, it is because more heat energy is reaching there...

"To the ignorant, all is bliss!"
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:16 AM

Damn it was cool this weekend. At one point I had to put on a long sleeve shirt.

I have not had to turn the AC on except over the Memorial day weekend.

So what gives with this global warming propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 11:03 AM

What the average citizen believes is a product of the media. Facts have very little to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 10:49 AM

Two data from a recent survey in Germany:

2/3 believe that a climate catastrophe is inevitable.
15% would accept higher gas prices to avoid it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:47 AM

'Terestial Warming' means that the total 'energy' is increasing - this increases 'turbulence', which means actually greater extremes, both of hot and cold temps in many places - the 'colder temps' mean actually that 'more cold is being swept away from the poles' to use the layman's term, actually using correct scientific terminology, 'more heat is flowing to the poles" - thus the 'warming' effects.

If the polar ice is melting, it is because more heat energy is reaching there...

"To the ignorant, all is bliss!"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 11:20 PM

Buttheads like Limbaugh and Hannity are quite fond of pointing out a particular snowstorm or cold spell as proof that global warming is a myth. Weather and climate are NOT the same. It's a bit like seeing an emaciated starving person eat a grape and claiming "see he's getting plenty to eat".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Bart
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:51 PM

Who is included in "we"

It sure was cool today. Below average for this time of year.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 07:08 AM

'Terestial Warming' is causing the snow line in Australia - in the Snowy Mountains! to elevate by a documented 150 metres a century. A certain tiny possum is in danger of extermination, because, paradoxically, it cannot hibernate for the normal length of time because the weather is too warm for that, but still too cold for it to find food, so it wakes too early, and then is in danger of starving at the altitudes it has lived in for ages.

When awake, it burns its food stores too fast to last until food becomes available.

When the snow line reaches the tops of the mountains...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 05:04 AM

Fact, we pump billions of tons of crap into our air and still there are those who either can't or wont see, and that moron in the White House is afraid doing something will cut into the huge profits of the polluters.
Don't believe the earth is warming? Ok, this is what I know of my own observation: 20 years ago there were certain species of critters that simply did not make it up to Maine. Some of them, the Possum, Mockingbirds and the Cardinal. Now they are everywhere, and there can only be one reason; they can now tolerate our weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 01:57 PM

No, Mr. T doesn't live in the US. My guess is that he lives in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:21 PM

Teribus states: "The point being made is that the US in general has complied with them and has reduced emmission and pollutents whereas the Europeans and Kyoto signatories who make a great show of action on behalf of the planet fail due mainly to the fact they only pay lip-servicve to their stated commitments."

Show me proof that the US in general has done anything of the kind. Bush has sabotaged the EPA and other government agencies so that they can't be relied upon to support substantive facts. Obviously, Teribus doesn't live in the US especially in the critical areas where emmissions and pollutents prevail.
I smell corporate propaganda.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:21 PM

Global warming 'the greatest atrocity'
By Xavier La Canna; June 04, 2006; the Australian

AUSTRALIAN actor Jack Thompson has said destruction of the environment is a worse atrocity than the September 11 terror attacks and the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Thompson, who will today address a Melbourne rally on the eve of World Environment Day, said measurably more people were affected by global warming than by the three catastrophic events. "That is not to diminish what happened on 9/11. That is probably the most awful and spectacular incident in my life since Nagasaki and Hiroshima," he said. "But Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 9/11 all together, when you look at the meltdown of the Greenland ice-cap and the flow-on of that alone, the numbers of people affected, it is measurably more."

The death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima was probably more than 100,000, possibly exceeding 200,000 within five years of the World War II bombings. An estimated 3,000 people died as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Thompson, who starred in films including Breaker Morant, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, The Sum of Us and My Brother Jack, said he was passionate about encouraging sustainable development. Thousands of people are set to join today's rally to push to protect Victoria's old growth forests.

Thompson most recently co-starred with Sean Penn in The Assassination of Richard Nixon.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 06 - 08:50 AM

The book "Play Little Victims" is about the day when God had finally had enough and waggled his finger, leaving the whole surface of the earth devoid of all human life, and under 100 feet of solid ice. In one corner, that apparently got overlooked, were 2 mice (fortunately one of each!), and another side effect of the finger waggling, was that their intelligence was massively advanced. However they found that their whole world was rather small, being basically a small town surrounded by solid ice walls.

The book then details what happens as Adamus, and Evemus (I'm not making this up you know!), with their rapidly expanding population, try to take advantage of their advanced intelligence and the local library....

It's very clever...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 08:20 PM

:-D !

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 06 - 07:22 PM

A few more insights . . . .

(Click on the cartoon and it'll become readable.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 06 - 07:19 PM

Another take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:50 PM

I am currently in southern Austria, staying in a little village in Carinthia. This afternoon I had coffee with an elderly couple from the village. They told me that the rising temperatures in the area have meant that if you want to see the edelweiss flower, you now have to climb higher up the mountains (this area is in the Alps) because rising temperatures make it too hot for the plant to grow in its previous habitats. The plant isnt "moving up" the mountains, its just only left in the higher regions.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:30 PM

Fans of 'global warming' should check this out...

                              here's the culprit

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:45 PM

well...I tend to agree that the absolute CORE problem **IS** the human population. Solving any of the other problems are just bandaids and delaying if we don't stop and reverse population growth. If we produce food out of thin air and find cheap, non-polluting energy sources, we still cannot keep expanding......Did no one ever read about the rats in the cage experiments?

Do we REALLY want to find out what the absolute maximum possible population density is? It's like wondering how many weak sleeping pills you can take and still wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:03 PM

"So...essentially, the only way to truly fix the whole thing is to reduce the human population, right?"

That's a bit disingenuous, gnu. True, that would probably help, but you're hypothesizing a draconian solution, postulating the horns of a non-existent dilemma. If a sufficiently large portion of the existing population economized, that would help fix the problem.

However, a drop in the birth-rate wouldn't be a bad idea.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:54 PM

Useful link: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html. *That's* where the warming is, and it's happening all around the globe...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:30 PM

Ever read "Play Little Victims"? (short novellette by Kenneth Cook)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 27 May 06 - 05:57 PM

So... essentially, the only way to truly fix the whole thing is to reduce the human population, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 05:47 PM

100+ years ago there was a guy advocating the more efficient use of coal, thinking that it would help with pollution, etc. Unfortunately, being dysnomic at times, I can't remember his name, but am sure someone here will know.

The effect of his work was that he noticed that although coal usage became more efficient, in fact, MORE coal was used as a result (it now being a cheaper to use) thus pollution increased.

This IS what human behaviour is...


Excuse me, I've got Chicken Little on the other phone...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:10 PM

What we are trying to do is curtail so much wasting of resources as is going on right now. We are trying to do so through such efforts as pushing for better fuel economy. It's good to know that you need no such incentive as the threat of global warming to do the right thing--which is to support such efforts. However there are people who are unwilling to sacrifice anything--including multiple gas-guzzling SUV's in one family. If the threat of global warming can force government--even, through public pressure, the benighted Bush maladministration, to support better fuel economy, it is worth publicizing.

2 other small illustrations about wasting resources in the US--

1) gas-powered leaf blowers--why does every person with a yard seem to think they are necessary? They are a classic waste of resources.

2) "cigarette boats"--big article in the WSJ yesterday, stating among other things that "owners say that gasoline for a single day of racing (these boats) can cost up to $5,000".

The fact is that those who deny global warming are frequently those who refuse to take any steps at all toward conservation--and fight all attempts to do so.

You may or may not believe that global warming is heavily influenced by human activity--but I hope you are not opposing conservation measures on the basis that they are not necessary since global warming is not a proven fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:55 PM

It is 'likely' that there is a natural cycle entering a warmer phase, but exacerbated by human activity. CO², Ozone, 'heat sinks' over cities, rain forest reduction, etc..are all PROVEN causes of various changes.

The real point is that, with the stakes being as high as they are, we cannot afford to wait until the worst happens, then analyze a lot of data and nod wisely and say "so THAT's why we are in trouble!"

When it is LIFE we are dealing with, the only sane way is to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately, that's not a popular business model.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:34 PM

Ron,

"You are assuming that human activity is not a main cause of global warming."

Nope.

I assume nothing. I am looking for facts. Then we can all make the conclusions. That is step two. The third step is to look for solutions. Again,   facts > conclusions > solutions.

Reducing polution is a worthy goal in it's own right. So is energy conservation. I have never seen a single statement by anyone advocating pollution or wasting resources. If you have seen such articles, please post . Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:22 PM

PDQ--

You are assuming that human activity is not a main cause of global warming.

As I have indicated, if you are right, and we needlessly try to curtail human contributions to global warming, it will do little harm.

If you are wrong, and we do not try to curtail human contributions to global warming, it means world disaster--not in your lifetime, but I would hope you would have some concern for the world we leave behind.

And there are indications--not a certainty, but many indications--you may well be wrong.

If we wait until it is clear to all that human activity is worsening the problem--and it will not resolve itself---it will be far too late for the world.

It seems clear the prudent--therefore conservative--thing to do--is to do something--starting now about the human contributions to global warming.

Not to do so is a reckless gamble--with the wellbeing of the entire world. That is not a conservative approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:08 AM

"It is concluded that temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming."

Tell that to the Polar bears who are losing cubs to broken up ice floes and not finding seals at the usual times. Tell that to the scientists who are WATCHING glaciers melt & recede. Tell that to the Inuit who have centuries of experience with the Polar weather, and find many aspects of their life changing.

I don't know what this guy from New Zealand is measuring, but most scientists who do LOTS of this work are, in fact, finding rising temps.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:06 AM

Where's the Global Warming? Well, have a look at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro or have a look at what's happening to the ice packs and glaciers, and you will see where it is quite plainly.

It is of some comfort to me to realize that all the hot air blown off on these ludicrous internet debates is not contributing to it, however...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:18 AM

Global warming is a phrase that should be forgotton. Climate change is more accurate.

We know the climate is changing, as it has been doing for a very long time, but it would seem to be changing fast, and we seem to be involved. Anything more than that is little better than a Wild Ass Guess. But lets hope someone in charge notices London and Washington are at sea level before they end up under it....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:37 AM

OK, Ron, but how can you solve a problem if you blame it on the wrong causes?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:30 AM

2 possibilities:

1) global warming is a part of a natural cycle--and will therefore eventually solve itself.

2) global warming is in large part a human-generated phenomenon. It will therefore continue worsening as long as drastic change by humans is not made.


Exactly why is it the prudent course to assume the first possibility when the second both means world disaster and is something humans can in fact do something about?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:16 AM

Maybe we can discuss 'global warming" and leave out the Algorerhythms.

Most discussions cover the period from around 1860 to date. About 140-150 years. One reason is that the methods of measuring thempertature were primative before that time.

Here is a statement from a New Zealand scientist:

"...surface measurement at weather stations, gives an averaged mean global rise of a mere 0.6°C over 140 years, but is intermittent and irregular. Individual records are highly variable, regional, and sometimes, particularly in remote areas, show no change, or even a fall in temperature.

It is concluded that temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming.

The small and irregular rise shown by many surface stations must therefore be caused by changes in their thermal environment over long periods of time, such as better heating, larger buildings, darkening of surfaces, sealing of roads, increases in vehicles and aircraft, increased shielding from the atmosphere and deterioration of painted surfaces."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 04:43 PM

Who saved the animals and the waterfront the last time sea levels and C02 spiked?

How does the emissions and fuel consumption of Barbara Striesand's personal jet or John Travolta's 707 compare to a Hummer?

Even dumb assed Ralph Nader realized he could not own a car while bazhing auto makers.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 01:01 PM

Here is a bit of the article to which John Rouse has linked:


"It may be that the ocean is warming and that's causing the ice to melt, but there may be other reasons as well; for example, there's lots of volcanism in that area and so that could change how much heat is delivered to the underside of the ice sheet."


I have posted several articles on ocean warming on other Mudcat threads about Global Warming. No proponents of that theory have answered this question: By Global warming, do you mean warming of the Earth's land, oceans, atmosphere or all three? Anybody want to attempt to answer it now?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: danensis
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM

Here's a nice balanced view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 10:13 AM

Heat could kill delicate coral; January 8, 2006

RECORD temperatures last year could kill up to 40 per cent of Australia's coral. The University of Queensland has warned that above-average sea temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef were causing coral bleaching, which could make much of the famous coral die within a month. The university's researchers have designed a protection system that involves placing huge sun shades over the coral in summer.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said his team wanted to avoid a repeat of 2002, where more than half of the reef was bleached and 5 to 10 per cent died. "Bleaching events usually occur about four to six weeks after the high temperature anomalies begin," he said. "This year we are worried because we have higher [temperature] anomalies, which may result in greater damage."

Source: The Sun-Herald

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM

The polar ice cap has shrunk by half
If it is a lie it doesn't matter
I have never been there and have no plans to go.

Ethelene dibromide billows out of jet engines
covering the sky with thick spreading trails many miles wide.
If it is a lie it doesn't matter.
Its up there, I'm down here.

The land is deforested by 5% every year.
If it is a lie it doesn't matter
I see trees everyday.

They say we are making our military bullets, shells and bombs out of deadly uranium.
True or not, our enemy should have thought of that before they attacked us during the prememptive invasion.

I heard that my neighbor's daughter was killed in Iraq last weekend.
True or not I best not go over and ask, she might be touchy.
My kids are fine.

The bird flu has killed a few people in Asia and Turkey
in such small numbers its just like the numbers who died of bird flu in 1917.
If 70 million died in 1918 of bird flu it doesn't matter.
That was then, this is now.

Suicide bombers do not value human life, just like the Emperor worshipping Japs who made suicide charges or smashed the skulls of their mothers and sisters rather than surrender.
True or not it doesn't matter.
At least we still value human life.

People who leak so called truth are being investigated and are sent to jail.
True or not, I'm outraged by ranting Bush bashers like Cindy Shehan who are a disgrace to this great nation of faith.

They changed the broadcast times of American Idol.
If it is true it doesn't matter,
but its still pure torture to reprogram a TIVO.






http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/BLISS.jpg

(Message edited by Don Hakman on January 06, 2006)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:14 AM

Absolutely the Earth goes through natural cycles.

BUT:

a) what if this is not a natural cycle? if 95% of scientists were to say that some product is potentially dangerous to our children, it would be yanked from the shelves immediately. But our president (and his crowbar supporters) say we need to wait for the other 5% before we act.

b) "natural cycles" have led to many mass extinctions. If we are contributing in even a very small way, shouldn't we do something? Or are we willing to take a chance that we will be among the 5 to 30 percent (based on past mass extinction numbers) of species that survive? Hmmm, let's see, is the Hummer worth it to me.....

Hummer, children's survival
Hummer, children's survival
Hummer, children's survival

Damn, this is a tough call.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 05:55 AM

I suspect that Bush and his cronies DO know about global warming and are fully aware of its consequences. They just don't care, that's all! They figure that they'll all be dead before it has any effect. In the meantime they just want to go on appropriating as much as possible of what remains of the planet's resources. Let future generations sort out the mess. I predict that this will go on happening until there are no future generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:53 AM

The smart thing to do is to wait, do nothing, then ask & then wait again on answers that won't come, at least not soon enough then walk out on a world summit meeting where 129 other nations are trying to figure what to do & then ask for more time & money for research & then fire the government funded researchers that say the doomsday word. Ask a polor bear if something's wrong. All the new waterfont property will be up for grabs, real cheap, the remaining animals, if there'll be any, won't need to compete with us frail humans, either.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:19 AM

So what's your point Peace?

What caused the CO2 to spike 150,000 years ago? Where was the industry to cause it then?

Could it possibly be that the planet goes through cycles?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:54 AM

And the warming of the Arctic Ocean (undisputed even by the wing nuts) shuts down the deep Atlantic thermohaline return flow - which means no more Gulf Stream, which means a northern Europe deep-freeze with mass displacements of populations... a scenario that the US Pentagon is already gaming.

Believe It.


But don't worry. Crowbar's got his chart.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 06:41 AM

Re Crowbar's chart.
CO2 not been higher for 120 000 years.

The dangerous increase due to industrialisation has only occurred over last 100 years and can not be seen on the chart because the time scale is so large.

There is now no scientific dispute about the reality of global warming due to human activity.

The fear now is of reaching a tipping point wherafter reduction in emmissions will not prevent a runaway catastrophic change. The Amazon forest becomes savannah and millions of tons of methane are released by melting permafrost.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,just a guest
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:38 PM

I predict that when we run out of oil in about five years, global warming will no longer be a problem. I wonder if we will survive as a nation without oil. Others might. The USA may not. Perhaps we will witness something like Mad Max...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 07:35 PM

I don't wish to side-track a thread as important as this one, but I have had it to here with serious for today. You folks better get a grip. OK, so maybe global warming is going to make life on Earth extinct. Well, SHIT HAPPENS.

There is a fellow in England who figures that global warming is screwing up his three-minute eggs. That would piss me off, too. FYI.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM

the corporate party line

there is no global warming
CO2 is fine
hole in the Ozone, nope
there is no mass atmospheric spraying going on
Whatever we do is fine, God and the sun control the weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:59 AM

SOS call as island nations go under; By Cynthia Banham and Richard Macey; January 5, 2006 Sydney Morning Herald

AUSTRALIA is being pressed to come to the rescue of drowning Pacific islands which face a homeless crisis due to rising sea levels caused by global warming. With predictions sea levels could rise by up to 32 centimetres by 2050, a number of Pacific islands could be rendered uninhabitable within a decade. The Federal Government, which has twice refused requests from Tuvalu to resettle its population, could risk isolation in the region if it does not take a more proactive stance on Pacific climate change. New Zealand and Canada have already responded to the environmental crisis afflicting many Pacific Islands countries. New Zealand has agreed to accept migrants from Tuvalu, which experts believe will be completely submerged by mid-century, and Canada is funding the relocation of residents of parts of Vanuatu affected by global warming.

The alarm bells were rung as Australia experienced its hottest year on record. Temperatures were so far above normal last year that it was as if many towns had been moved more than 100 kilometres north, the Bureau of Meteorology said yesterday. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM

True to that, d'van. However, there have been natural rises and falls over the millenia (sp?), and it seems to be about to drop again. Or am I interpreting the chart incorrectly?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM

The important thing about that chart is that it shows when the CO2 levels rise; so does the temperature and the water levels.

That is a very good argument for reducing CO2.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:36 PM

Here's a link to Crowbar's chart, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM

I feel it getting hotter in here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

And your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:02 PM

Look at this chart of global temperatures, CO2 levels and seaa levels.

The CO2 level is not higher than it has ever been.

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/nswmanual/images/b12-1.gif

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:25 AM

Depends which part of Canada you're talking about. Yesterday the temperature on the southern part of Vancouver Island was 13 C or over 55 F and this evening a passing thunder storm caused a small fire when the local Wal-Mart was struck by lightning. Thunder storms are not common in Victoria, particularly in December.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM

"RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming"

Not in Canada right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:00 PM

Ahhhhh, not to beat the dead horse (Bush) yet agian but I umderstand that he has sought out the "scientists" who have the the greatest level of "Don't worry, be happy" thinking when it comes to global warming...

This is a disgrace to our nation... He, as everyone's president, should be more interested in a cross section of scientific thought...

Yes, we've seen piccures of the polar ice caps and they have been shrinking remarkably fast... Their melting I would surmise has something to do with keeping the temperatures from rising quickly, especially along coastal regions...

What I am most concerened about is that under the crrent administartaion, the Earth has lost perhaps 8 precious years where scientists could feel supported in trying to figure out where the Erath is and waht man can do to preserve it for future generations...

Hiring a bunch of yes-scientists, then openly ridiculing other scientists has not been helpfull...

I mean, where did mankind ever get this idea that there's always time to solve alot of the problems that mankind is creating here on this Earth???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:37 PM

This line of reasoning goes all the way back to mid-2004:

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3589662.stm)

-snip-

Professor Andreae, of the Max Planck Institute in Mainz, Germany, told the 13th World Clean Air and Environmental Protection Congress that the overall cooling effect was, in his view, currently dominant and offsetting the warming brought about by greenhouse gases.

"We've been in an accelerating car with one foot on the brake and one foot on the gas," he told the BBC.

The scientist said the "climate protection" provided by aerosols was likely to diminish in the future.

"The aerosol particles don't stay in the atmosphere for very long, so we don't expect their concentration - their effect - to grow over the next century.

"The greenhouse gases, on the other hand - carbon dioxide and methane - they keep accumulating in the atmosphere because they have long lifetimes.

"Whether we want it or not, the warming forces are going to overpower the cooling forces and the big question now is just how strong that effect is going to be."

Predictions of the rise in global temperatures may therefore have to be revised upwards, Professor Andreae argued.

The US space agency's Aura satellite was recently sent into orbit with a specific task to unravel aerosols' precise impact on the global climate."

-snip-

So particulate pollution may be masking the true extent of the effect of greenhouse gas pollution... and the good news is what? Shall we counteract global warming by pumping soot into the atmosphere?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:49 PM

...please don't read this if you already have a headache...


Pollution is protecting us from harsh rays of the sun
By Ian Sample in London
December 23, 2005

CUTTING air pollution could trigger a greater surge in global warming than previously thought, suggesting future rises in sea level and other environmental consequences have been underestimated.

Scientists have issued the warning after investigating the effect of aerosols on climate. Aerosols - particles smaller than 100th of a millimetre - are churned out from factories, the burning of fossil fuels and forest fires, although sea salt and dust particles from desert storms add to them.

Because the particles are so light they remain aloft for long periods, where they cool the earth by reflecting radiation from the sun back out to space. Higher levels of aerosols lead to the formation of clouds made up of smaller water droplets, which reflect still more of the sun's radiation. Cutting down on aerosols by improving air quality means the earth will be less shielded against the sun's rays.

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists at the British Meteorological Office and the US Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that climate models used to predict future global warming have badly underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols.

"We found that aerosols actually have twice the cooling effect we thought," said Nicolas Bellouin, a climate modeller at the British Meteorological Office. "The consequence is that as air quality improves and aerosol levels drop, future warming may be greater than we currently think."

Scientists had assumed that the amount of sunlight reflected by aerosols from human activity was tiny compared with the extra reflective cloud cover they caused, but Bellouin's research suggests they are equally important. Scientists will have to feed the new information into their models before they can be sure of the implications for global warming.

One possibility is that while the latest study shows scientists have underestimated the direct effect of aerosols reflecting the sun's rays, they may have overestimated the indirect effect they have on cloud cover, meaning the overall error of climate models would not be serious.

Earlier this year, Peter Cox at England's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Winfrith, Dorset, warned that if the cooling effect of aerosols turned out to be greater, it could trigger faster global warming.

"It's quite a bizarre thing, because the last thing you want to suggest is that it would be a good idea to have dirty air, but as far as climate change is concerned, that's right. Everyone would be getting asthma, but the environment would be cooler," said Professor Cox.

"That said, the direct effects of air quality, particularly in urban areas, are so important to human health that it would be crazy to think of anything other than health damage."

If the Met Office calculations are right, they suggest the atmosphere's temperature is more responsive to carbon dioxide than scientists believed.

"If the cooling influence of aerosols is larger, it implies that the warming from the carbon dioxide must be larger than we think to match the warming we've seen in the past 100 years," Professor Cox said.

"And if that's the case, future climate change will be more than we have expected with air quality improvements."

The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:46 PM

I guess the hottest year on record and the fact that polar ice caps are melting mean nothing.

And maybe that is so. But can we afford to ignore it??

What would be the harm of instituting measures to cut down on emissions that cause greenhouse gases compared to the possible harm that might result if we don't?

Well, it takes some money out of the pockets of shamelessly rich CEOs and it is Bush's job to cut them as much slack as possible. Hence, in his mind, there isn't global warming and he's the president--so there!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:33 PM

village flees for safer ground

A small island in Vanuatu is claimed to be the first in the world to have to move its community because of rising sea levels. Ben Bohane visits Tegua island.The sea has its own ways. We can't control it," says Chief Reuben Selwyn as he stands on a thin wall of coral which is all that now separates his little village from the invading sea.
The destiny of Tegua island, home to 64 people in the remote Torres group of islands in far north Vanuatu, has always rested on the sea.

The sea brought its first settlers at least 3000 years ago on bamboo rafts, its raiding enemies from nearby islands, the first beche-de-mer traders from Europe, "blackbirders" and Anglican missionaries. It brings bright rainbow-coloured reef fish and leatherback turtles, who build nests along a windswept coast, as well as colonies of football-sized coconut crabs, prized by the restaurants of the Vanuatuan capital of Port Vila. But for some years, the sea has been literally eating away this pristine coral island.

Chief Reuben, paramount head of the island and father of six boys and six girls, claims that at least once a year a combination of king tides and a surging sea whipped up by strong winds floods his village of Loteu. He remembers as a young boy he could walk 30 metres from his house and fish from a rocky beach platform. Now the platform is submerged and he has been forced to abandon his childhood home. "I'd say the sea has come up 10 or 20 metres [horizontally] since I was a boy," he says. "I can't say if it's because of humans or because nature has its own power. But for us here we have no choice; early next year we will move into a new village further inland."

seas rising across Island under global warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM

I thought the Caribou herd increased 300% since the Alaska pipeline was buiilt? (in its' vicinity)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM

"1000 years ago North America was warm enough that Lief Erikson found wild grapes growing on the Northern tip of Newfoundland."

Probably didn't, the evidence from the l'Anse aux Meadows site suggests that it's not Vinland, which was probably further south, perhaps as far as New York. And they don't have to be very big grapes to impress a Viking, who had mostly never seen them before- IIRC they didn't know what they were until someone who'd been to Germany identified them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

Teribus: 'And it does not necessarily follow that, "If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much."'

Not NECESSARILY, but:
In the last 1/3 century there has been no significant change in the efficiency of heat engines generating energy (and unless there's a change in the laws of thermodynamics there won't be one in the future). So a 45% increase in fossil fuel generated energy would give pro rata a 45% increase in CO2 emissions. I said "nearly as much" to cover changes in the balance of fossil-fuel to non-emission energy sources. Since the US hasn't exactly led the world in replacing fossil-fuel with renewables, and I haven't spotted a major increase in nuclear generation since 3-Mile Island, I don't think the balance has moved much in that 1/3 century.

I stand by my original comment

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:09 PM

Pat, my interest in science is as an amateur with no great degree of formal training other than perhaps, some common sense. I do not dispute the theory , but I feel that the obvious is often overlooked in seeking the abstract. Between catostrophic climatic events such as volcanic eruptions and cosmic collisions there are climatic cycles and cycles within cycles. Changes occur for many reasons and human pollution is certainly a factor. When I hear a comment from a leading scientist that "last year was the warmest on record" I tend to question both his expertese and his motive. I can still recall the fable of Chicken Little and the falling sky. I do not wish to belittle the subject; only to state that we should concentrate our resources where they will do the most good.
Man by nature is a nomad and up until the last ice age we would migrate as nature dictated. 25 thousand years later we have boxed ourselves in with national borders and a society that tries to control nature. In the long term this will not work. We are driven by economics and greed and I am afraid that old mother nature will prove us all to be fools!
                              Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: patmc
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:22 PM

Obie
I agree with TIA- as well as a background in geophysics I've spent the last decade in dynamics research- particularly paleoclimate. We need to be real careful using statistics- as they throw away a lot of the time order that things happened in stats tend to obscure dynamics.

Dynamically, systems do a weird thing called bifurcation (the Russians call it perestroika btw). Anyway at these bifurcations a system 'jumps' state. The way the system works at each side of the jump is utterly different. A topologist Rene Thom called these jumps 'catastrophes' back in the 70s. Funnily enough there are only 7 kinds of jump (they have weird/beautiful names). The reason climate warming might be very very nasty is that there is reason to believe that our present state is quite delicate- the ocean conveyor belt is totally interconnected. It didn't used to be. During the most recent glaciation (ended 9000 years back) Ireland and Britain were mostly iced over. However Florida was considerably hotter. Turtles that lived there then have died out due to the temperature drop. If the system goes back to the way it was (which has happened several times) the earth doesn't care but our arable land area drops big time. Figuring out exactly what these alternative climates are is the challenge.
So the earth does have different states (cycles is a rubbish word- they don't cycle- more jog). The worry is that we jog it into a nasty state- most of the other states that we have recovered are much tougher on living systems than the present very nice temperate one.

This stuff is not rocket science- rocket science is dead easy in comparison. I've yet to meet a politician with the requisite background to even follow the science and it gets WAY more complicated when the whole thing moves from the physics, chem and dynamics to the world of computer modeling the setup. This is where the action is- especially in Japan at the moment.

Personally I have mapped out some areas that survived with ecosystems relatively unchanged during the big shifts and bought some real estate there. I'm not the only one either. I don't think many of us modelers believe any of the governments can deal with this. They can't agree on farming!!!

Keep to the high ground ;-)

Pat

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:43 PM

Yes TIA but if our focus is in the wrong direction it will be of little help. As an example, some of the best and most fertile farmland in Canada is in the Toronto area. Every year many thousands of acres are bulldozed over to make room for condos. If we starve in the future it may be more of a result of losing arible land than a changing climate. My point is that we should concentrate most on the areas that we can enact the greatest change, and I remain unconvinced that climate is where it's at.
          Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM

As a geologist with a very long view of time, I agree with much of what you say Obie. However, I believe that our power to change nature has become immense. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet, and it is due primarily to human activity.

A good analogy for our current behavior might be the self-destruction of Earth's early anaerobic biota that generated so much oxygen that they extinguished themselves.

If we continue to alter our environment, life will certainly go on, but we may not be here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:39 PM

My intent is not to argue that global warming is real but to question the cause. I offer no defence for environment polution and I support any possible reduction of any crap that we put into our living space.
That being said we must pause and take a (cough, cough) deep breath:
   We are being bamboozled by bad science that is ignoring many facts.
The Earth has been undergoing climate changes ever since its creation and it will continue to do so as long as time itself exists. To say a certain summer was the hottest on record means nothing if that record only goes back 100 years. We know that climate changes follow cycles that are far beyond our control. 25 thousand years ago most of North America was under a glacial blanket and woolly mammoths roamed it's perimiter. 1000 years ago North America was warm enough that Lief Erikson found wild grapes growing on the Northern tip of Newfoundland.
Today there are neither woolly mammoth or Newfoundland grapes. Tomorrow there may be neither polar bear or mankind. We must do what we can but before we take too big a guilt trip we must also understand that our power to change nature is limited.
                            Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:57 PM

This chart shows that the CO2 level was higher 150 thousand years ago.

I guess there was a Bush administration back then and all history of it has been lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:11 PM

the US report was from a conveniently chosen period between 2001-2003
when there was an economic downturn - so emissions were down slightly but certainly not because of any policy of the Bush WHite House
(who so called Clear skies act actually allowed more pollution than before)
also the way the emissions are calculated is misleading. The 20% increase in Canadian oil & gas exports to the US since 1990 is added to Canadas emissions - not the US's, go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Raptor
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

And Bush wants to drill in the Allaska wildlife refuge for oil to fund his war against the poor. Killing the last Carabou.
But youre right Terribus Bush is a friggin Saint!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:14 AM

Sorry Teribus, "greenhouse gasses" and "air pollutants" are not interchangable terms. While your statistics on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions reductions may be true, they are completely irrelevant to global warming. Greenhouse gasses are up 16% since 1990.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:50 AM

GUEST,Redhorse at work, 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM:

As pointed out by John Heilprin (article quoted above)
"Greenhouse gases act like a see-through blanket, letting sunlight in but trapping heat and warming the planet."

Air pollutants behave exactly as described above, apparently in the period given they have declined by 29 per cent.

What are your grounds for stating that "None of these are Global Warming contributors" And it does not necessarily follow that, "If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much."

Rapaire, I am not really too fussed about when the EPA rules and the Clean Air Act were put in place. The point being made is that the US in general has complied with them and has reduced emmission and pollutents whereas the Europeans and Kyoto signatories who make a great show of action on behalf of the planet fail due mainly to the fact they only pay lip-servicve to their stated commitments.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM

Yes, absolutely there are cyclical climate changes. If you really want to see true scientists discussing them, and their relation to the late 20th century trend, go here.

Bottom line (agreed to by ~95% of scientists): "the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia."

Wally Broecker of Lamont-Doherty said nearly 20 years ago - "...if we wait until it is 100% proven that humans are affecting Earth's climate, it will probably be too late to do anything about it..."

And 20 years later, 95% isn't high enough for the politically-driven fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:08 AM

Naw, not Clintons fault.

I am still wondering if anyone knows if there is sufficient historical to ascertain if this could be cyclical.

Just as a side note, with most complaining about heating oil and propane costs, maybe a little warming would help. It averaged 4 - 7 degrees here last Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:55 AM

And when, Teribus, were the EPA rules and the Clean Air Act put into place? Just about 30 years back, I seem to remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:52 AM

From the AP yesterday:

"U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose 2 Percent in 2005
By John Heilprin
Associated Press
posted: 20 December 2005
10:03 am ET


WASHINGTON (AP) —Emissions of gases blamed for warming the atmosphere grew by 2 percent in the United States last year, the Energy Department reported Monday. The report came just nine days after a United Nations conference where the United States and China refused to join any talks for imposing binding limits on emissions of those gases.
The so-called greenhouse gases, led by carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, rose to 7.12 million metric tons, up from 6.98 million metric tons in 2003, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said.

That's 16 percent higher than in 1990, and an average annual increase of 1.1 percent.

Greenhouse gases act like a see-through blanket, letting sunlight in but trapping heat and warming the planet. A study last month found that the gases are at a 650,000-year high in Earth's atmosphere.

About 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases last year was carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels —coal, petroleum and natural gas —for electricity, transportation, manufacturing and other industrial processes..."



So in the latest measure, the specific gasses that create warming are up. And that's according to the US DOE. And since 1990, they're up 16%.

That's gotta be Clinton's fault, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,a
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Do we have enough historical data to ascertain whether this is cyclical or not. Remember the Ice Age?
I am not making excuses, just wondering.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM

"During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. "

None of these are Global Warming contributors, so why mention them?.

If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much.

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:29 AM

For those who wished to know:

From an article by Mark Steyn dated 6th December, 2005:

"In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent.

During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent.

Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM

Yeah, Bill, seems that with every degree change upwards the average I.Q. drops about 10 points... Hate to come back in 50 years... Special Ed will no longer be special... It will be the kids with I.Q."s in the hundred range that will be the special kids... The rest... Jus Epsilons...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

...and then either not read it, or not comprehend it.

But I can't make the specific allegation that he is dishonest or dumb. There is evidence that I am not at liberty to disclose that would support these contentions, but it is as yet unconfirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Actually, there was an AP story in today's paper about how greenhouse gas emissions rose 2% in the USA this year. I'll get a clicky, 'cause I know good ol' T will demand one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM

too bad the average intelligence doesn't rise at the same rate the average temperature does! How DO people so thoroughly misunderstand the information they are given?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:24 PM

Hmmmmm???

Polar ice caps meltin'... Not an opinion...

Yet Bush has hires a bunch of so-called "scientists" (???) who won't be hired if they have so much as think that global warming might be a real scientific possibility...

Meanwhile, any polluter with enough dough to funnel to Bush thru his Ranger and Pioneer "protection thugs" get tp pollute as much as they like...

Hey, I got freinds at EPA... They're all within a few years of retirement so they ain't going public but they all know what's going down...

Bottom line, you got cash, dump that sh*t anywhwere you want... Just don't tell nobody I said so...

Guess the Bushites will get it when D.C. is under water... BUt maybe not even then... They'll blame it on Clinton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM

Yeah, but it also produces more than 50% of the orld's good ideas. Who else would come up with Sesame Street, air-walks, the video iPod and the Pet Rock? Huh? Answer me that, wise guy!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM

bovine waste product teribus..

sure a recent US report claimed that CO2 emmissions went down over
over 2001-2003 but that just happened to coincide with the downturn of the US
economy.

the way co2 emissions are calculated also dont help, since 1990 Canadian oil and gas exports to the US increased 20%. (however that increase is counted on the Canadian side, not on the US where it actually gets used).

it is true that some US industry and many US cities have started to deal with greenhouse gas emissions - all done in spite of Bush's policies, because they know the writings on the wall, the change is inevitable.

Kyoto was only a step, but it has spurred investment in wind generation as well as other
greener energy options.

also the US is 5% of the worlds population but causes 25% of the worlds pollution.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

Permafrost may nearly disappear by 2100
Space and Earth science : December 20, 2005
   
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming may destroy most permafrost across the Northern Hemisphere.

Researchers said warming may decimate the top 10 feet or more of perennially frozen soil, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia.

New simulations from NCAR show more than half of the area covered by the topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff into the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

The study is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing.

The research appears online in the Dec. 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM

The most recent summit on climate change, & the most important since Kyoto, was just held in Montreal & labeled the Montreal Summit, about 2 weeks ago(where was the US news coverage of this event?). Of the 130 attending nations only the US walked out, again unwilling as at Kyoto to seriously acknowledge the problems & that not only are we a big part of the problem by first our contributions to the causes in climate change but by also hindering, by not trying to get on board & assist with agreeing to a solution instead of fighting a solution. The other nations did not walk out of the summit quacking about ducks, like some spoiled child as the US did (thanks Canada for buying the US delegate a flock of plastic duckies). We are not standing up to these problems as some would like to suggest. We are preparing to find a way to open the Gulf of Mexico & the Alaskan Wilderness to exploration & development no matter what studies say & no matter the environmental cost. Our fuel plants have newer & better laws & more tax benefits that would encourage less efficiency & safety in lieu of productivity. Seeing as how much oil we import we could probably raise the bar in world wide shipping policy standards. Have we required all ships that import oil to the US be doubled hulled? Could we see that ships are properly manned by a reasonably sized crew? Has Bush taken any positive actions when it comes to our environment & if he has, pray tell, what are they & how will they weight in comparison to his negative actions?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: MMario
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650,000 years. actually this is not true - levels were higher for periods of years after several major volcanic events.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

If 95% of scientists agreed that something (you fill in the blank) was harmful to children, how long would it take for it to be banned or regulated by every civilized nation? Would we wait for the other 5% of scientists to agree before we conceded that something should be done? Would we decide that several more years of study are warranted before we act rashly? Why is the Bush administration treating this threat to our children so differently? Bush didn't cause it, but he's sure in a position to do something about it, and he has consistently (and conveniently) recommended further study, and said "let's wait for the other 5%".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:35 AM

Why? the word of a drowning Polar bear not good enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:35 AM

Don't forget that statistics do not deal with a particular event, but all events. You could toss "heads" seventeen times in a row, but in the overall scheme of things it's still a 50-50 chance you'll toss tails.

The same thing is true of "grading on the curve." The "bell-shaped curve" of probabilies is based upon a huge population, and to apply it to a population of the 20 people in a classroom is wrong. The classs could all be "A" quality just as likely as they could all be "F" quality.

Statistics deals with populations, not discrete events. Thus this year could be the coldest in the last 450,000 and still not be any indication one way or the other about "global warming."

More pragmatically, go ask the Arctic peoples what they think.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:43 AM

Big difference between weather and climate.

Teribus, exactly what has Bush done to ease global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Pied Piper
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:57 AM

What a stupid question.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:58 AM

2005 Costliest Year for Extreme Weather
by Jim Lobe; December 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec (IPS) - The world has suffered more than 200 billion dollars in economic losses as a result of weather-related natural disasters over the past year, making 2005 the costliest year on record, according to preliminary estimates released Tuesday by the Munich Re Foundation at the international climate conference in Montreal. These damages significantly exceeded the previous record of 145 billion dollars set in 2004, according to the Foundation, which is part of Munich Re, one of several leading re-insurance companies that have warned repeatedly over the past decade that global warming posed serious threats to the world's economy.

Of the more than 200 billion dollars in losses this year, more than 70 billion dollars was covered by insurance companies, compared to some 45 billion dollars in damages last year, according to the Foundation.

It said most losses resulted from the unprecedented number and intensity of hurricanes in 2005, particularly Wilma, which hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula; and Katrina, which overwhelmed New Orleans and other coastal areas in the U.S. states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Alabama. Wilma, the strongest-ever hurricane, according to records dating back to 1850, caused an estimated 15 billion dollars in economic losses, of which about 10 billion dollars was insured, according to the Foundation.

Damages caused by Katrina, the sixth strongest hurricane on record, were significantly greater, however. Estimated losses come to more than 125 billion, of which more than 30 billion dollars was insured, the Foundation said. "There is a powerful indication from these figures that we are moving from predictions of the likely impacts of climate change to proof that it is already fully underway," said Thomas Loster, the Foundation's director, who added that policy-makers should not only be concerned about the staggering economic loss.

"Above all, these are humanitarian tragedies that show us that, as a result of our impacts on the climate, we are making people and communities everywhere more vulnerable to weather-related natural disasters," he said. Loster released the Foundation's report at the ongoing 11th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Climate Change Convention, which is addressing what the international community should do after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement by the world's industrialised countries, with the exception of the United States and Australia, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Most scientists believe that emissions are the main cause of global warming and that they will have to be reduced by 60 percent or more in order to stabilise the atmosphere. While scientists insist that the increases in financial losses caused by storms may not necessarily be linked to global warming -- increasing populations and economic development in vulnerable coastal areas may be far more important -- a growing number agree that warming is becoming an increasingly significant factor.

Such a notion is bolstered by the occurrence of other highly unusual or even unprecedented weather events recorded during the past year. These suggest the Earth's climate is changing in ways that are generally consistent with predictions by sophisticated computer models about the likely impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have been pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Hurricane Vince, for example, was the first hurricane on record to approach Europe, making landfall in Spain in October. It was the easternmost and northernmost appearance of an Atlantic hurricane on record, effectively mirroring the appearance of Hurricane Catarina off Brazil in March 2004. Catarina was the first hurricane in the South Atlantic on record.

Similarly, at the end of November, Tropical Storm Delta hit the Canary Islands to devastating effect. It was the first tropical storm to ever hit the islands. And in July, a weather station in Mumbai recorded 944 mm of rain in 24 hours, the greatest and most intense precipitation event ever recorded in India. The number of tropical storms broke all records in 2005, according to the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi. As of last week, there had been 26 storms, or five more than the previous record of 21. Of the 26, 16 reached hurricane force.

Scientific models have predicted an increase in the intensity of storms as the atmosphere -- and the temperatures of the seas -- became warmer. Tropical storms and hurricanes derive most of their energy from warm waters. While scientists agree that it is impossible to link global warming to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes over a one- or two-year period, recent studies have shown that storms have indeed become more intense over the past several decades.

In August, for example, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published a paper in the British scientific weekly Nature which found that hurricanes in the Atlantic and North Pacific had roughly doubled in power over 30 years. In September, a group of meteorologists published a study in Science weekly which found that, while the frequency of hurricanes had significantly increased over the past 35 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes -- the most powerful -- had increased by 80 percent over that period.

To many scientists, these studies provide additional evidence of a link between warming seas, to which warmer atmospheric temperatures contribute, and hurricane intensity. Others insist, however, that the 35-year period is still too short a time period to reach any conclusion, because such changes may be tied to other natural "oscillations" involving currents or salinity. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, hurricane activity was significantly greater than in the three decades that followed.

In his remarks to the climate conference, Loster stressed that economic losses attributable to weather-related disasters have risen much more steeply than those caused by earthquakes, according to records since 1950. "We do not want to estimate the human tragedy of earthquakes like the recent one in Pakistan which can kill tens of thousands of people a year," he said. "But our findings indicate that it is the toll of weather-related disasters that are the ones on the rise."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:53 AM

You are wrong Ebbie (20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM)

"where did you read that Bush caused global warming? It is just that he is taking no steps to ameliorate the causes and the effects."

He is doing a damn sight more and being a damn sight more effective than all those who signed up to the absolutely useless Kyoto Agreement. If you doubt that just ask any Kyoto supporter how many, or if any, of the signatories are going to make their targets. The US under Bush, on the other hand, in the same time span has managed to reduce it's harmful emmisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:49 AM

As evidence of global warming mounts, response is slow; Associated Press, December 18, 2005

In Geneva on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization reported that 2005 thus far is the second-warmest year on record, extending a trend climatologists attribute at least partly to heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" accumulating in the atmosphere.

• The WMO said Thursday that in the Arctic Sea, where average winter temperatures have risen as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit over 50 years, the ice cap this summer was 20 percent smaller than the 1979-2004 average.

• British oceanographers reported this month that Atlantic currents carrying warm water toward northern Europe have slowed. Freshwater from melting northern ice caps and glaciers is believed to be interfering with saltwater currents. Ultimately such a change could cool the European climate.

• In southern Africa, beset by four years of drought, average temperatures during the 12-month period ending in July were the warmest on record, British scientists said. The mercury stood more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit above a recent 40-year average.

• In Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea in the southwest Pacific, rising seas are forcing hundreds of islanders to abandon vulnerable coastal homes for higher ground, according to U.N. and news reports.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.warming18dec18,1,5727241.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:41 AM

Hysteresis.

The 'catastrophe point' at which a change becomes no longer easily reversible at the original energy level

That's what triggered the rapid changes in temperature testified to by frozen mammoths.

The recent movie got it partly right, just left out a lot of science, some of which is still being discovered. And there is no way that goddam statue would still be standing!

If you add up ALL of the individual causations, insignificant in each of themselves, you get a SYNERGISTIC response, where the total effect is much greater that the simple um of all the individual effects - a sort of multiplication, rather than an addition.

At least in the movie, the USA got thinned out, I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:40 AM

it is in the Siberian perma frost that is now melting and poised to release BILLIONS of tons of methane.

it is in the loss/recession of hundreds of Alaskan glaciers.

it is in the melting of the Artic sea.

..........

I do not know and wonder if OZ has the chemtrail short term solution to reflect solar heat the same as the US.

You have to be at least 20 to see the difference between jet trails that used to dissipate in 15 minutes compared to the ones that now continue to billow and spread over they sky for hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:38 AM

TEN YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING
16.12.2005, www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=126351®ion=3

A pattern of more intense global warming over the past decade has been confirmed by temperatures over the past twelve months that confirm that 2005 was one of the hottest years on record. According to data released by the United Nation's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) this year is the second warmest ever, with an increase of 0.48 degrees Celsius. The WMO uses 1961-1990 annual average surface temperature as the benchmark for climate change measurements.

In a year marked by record hurricanes in the Caribbean and melting ice floes in the Arctic, the WMO said the world experienced the warmest months of June and October ever, surpassing those recorded in 1998 and 2004 respectively. Gaps in data and outstanding readings for the final weeks of 2005 mean that this year overall could vary from being the warmest ever to being the eighth warmest when the final figure is released next February. "It could well be that this ranking could be modified but we are very confident that it will end up in the four warmest years," said WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud.

"In the northern hemisphere it will be the warmest year on record and in the southern hemisphere we anticipate that it will be the fourth warmest on record," he said. The WMO emphasised in its statement on the global climate in 2005 that "the last ten years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record." "Areas of significant warmth were widespread, with large areas of Australia, Africa, Brazil, China and the United States showing significantly above-average temperatures," the statement said. Sea surface temperatures in the north Atlantic, where scientists recently warned that warm waters were melting ice floes in the Arctic Circle, are likely to be the warmest on record, said the WMO.

The agency said the extent of sea ice in the Arctic dropped by 20 percent compared to average and reached the lowest coverage observed since satellite observation began in 1979. Mr Jarraud confirmed that the hurricane season in the United States, Caribbean and Central America "was exceptional by any measure" this year, although there were fewer typhoons in the Pacific Ocean than usual. The 26 named storms in the Atlantic exceeded the previous high of 21 in 1993 and included the strongest ever recorded, Hurricane Wilma.


2005 is likely to be the hottest year in Australia since records began in 1910, while several parts of south Asia experienced extreme heatwaves or heavier than usual monsoons. East Africa was blighted by continuing long term drought extending from Kenya south to Mozambique and Zimbabwe, which left several million people exposed to hunger. Scientists fear that those extreme weather conditions are signs of climate change caused by growing emissions of greenhouse gases by industry, transport and households. "At this stage the honest scientific answer for hurricanes is that we don't know," the global met chief said, although he highlighted evidence that the Caribbean Sea was warming and producing more frequent, intense hurricanes.

"What we feel more confident with, is that global warming will lead to more frequent heatwaves." "Conversely there's also a risk of higher precipitation in regions where floods can be a problem," Mr Jarraud added. Global average temperatures over land have risen since the beginning of the 20th century, but meteorologists observed sharper rises from the late 1970s.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:31 AM

Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost to Thaw by 2100
PRESS RELEASE Date Released: Monday, December 19, 2005
Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research

BOULDER- Global warming may decimate the top 10 feet (3 meters) or more of perennially frozen soil across the Northern Hemisphere, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia. New simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half of the area covered by this topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff to the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The study, using the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM), is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing. Results appear online in the December 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. About a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost, defined as soil that remains below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) for at least two years. Permafrost is typically characterized by an active surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the winter. The deeper permafrost layer remains frozen. The active layer responds to changes in climate, expanding downward as surface air temperatures rise. Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global warming in the coming century, says Lawrence.

Recent warming has degraded large sections of permafrost across central Alaska, with pockets of soil collapsing as the ice within it melts. The results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken forests"--trees that lean at wild angles. In Siberia, some industrial facilities have reported significant damage. Further loss of permafrost could threaten migration patterns of animals such as reindeer and caribou. The CCSM simulations are based on high and low projections of greenhouse-gas emissions for the 21st century, as constructed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In both cases, the CCSM determined which land areas would retain permafrost at each of 10 soil depths extending down to 11.2 feet (3.43 meters).

For the high-emission scenario, the area with permafrost in any of these layers shrinks from 4 million to just over 1 million square miles by the year 2050 and decreases further to about 400,000 square miles (1 million square kilometers) by 2100. In the low-emission scenario, which assumes major advances in conservation and alternative energy, the permafrost area shrinks to about 1.5 million square miles by 2100. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. In the high-emission simulation, runoff grows by another 28 percent by the year 2100. That increase includes contributions from enhanced rainfall and snowfall as well as the water from ice melting within soil.

The new study highlights concern about emissions of greenhouse gases from thawing soils. Permafrost may hold 30% or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide. As the permafrost thaws, it could lead to large-scale emissions of methane or carbon dioxide beyond those produced by fossil fuels. "There's a lot of carbon stored in the soil," says Lawrence. "If the permafrost does thaw, as our model predicts, it could have a major influence on climate." To address this and other questions, Lawrence and colleagues are now working to develop a more advanced model with interactive carbon. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR'S primary sponsor, and the U.S. Department of Energy. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. For more information about NSIDC, please visit http://nsidc.org

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:23 AM

Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?

By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005; Page B1

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning. Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes. In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys. But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

If the Gulf Stream shuts down, there'll be no two ways about it - the Thames has frozen over in living memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:11 AM

Gulf Stream down by 30% so they say. All that heat has to go somewhere- the best bet is into bigger and better storms. And polar bears are drowning. Don't know what's happening to the Cartesian bears (linear, log or log/lin).

Apparently it's even chance for the British isles to get hotter (because of overall warming), colder (because of losing the Gulf Stream) or stay the same, the two effects cancelling out.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Rumncoke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 05:48 AM

Forget global warming and think climate change.

There is a heating effect - but that just gets things on the go in the places most susceptible to heating - then there are changes due to, for instance, the melting of ice, the drying out of vegetation - movements of air currents, water currents, droughts, floods, and then hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and all things revolving at speed are affected by the alterations.

There are always variations in climate due to changes in the orbit of the Earth, the vigour of the Sun, Humans changing the forest into farmland, even that blasted butterfly - but usually it is a fairly liveable with slow pendulum swing.

What the people who think about these things have been saying is that we might just have kicked the climate pendulum into swinging further, and faster than is safe, and it might just swing back and knock our silly heads off. They might be yelling 'Down!!'and there is no need - or perhaps we'd all be better off closer to the Earth, where we could see the damage being done so much easier.

Anne

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Noddy
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 04:59 AM

Bush is adding to Global Warming!

Every time he opens his mouth all we get is crap and a load of HOT AIR!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Crowbar, where did you read that Bush caused global warming? It is just that he is taking no steps to ameliorate the causes and the effects. We can and do blame the GWuB for lots of things, and with good reason. If he took notice of the phenomenon and instated measures meant to begin rolling back some of the causes, he could still improve some of the labels that will eventually be attached to his presidency. But he's evidently too dumb and too stubborn in his stupidity to be aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM

Those who are scientifically uneducated think that 'Global Warming' just means 'everything gets hotter'.

Wrong!

'Global Warming' refers to the increase in the total heat energy in the system. As this increases, TURBULENCE increases. This means that things get BOTH hotter AND colder in different places. Also, while the NUMBER of storms stays about the same, the INTENSITY of them increases.

I'm sure others here can give more lengthy technical explanations, with all the maths, but I ascribe to the KISS school.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:28 AM

2005 is the hottest year in Australia since records have been kept..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:03 AM

R U Lon Lee 2nite?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:56 AM

The year 2005 has been the warmest year in recorded history except for 1998 when there was a major league El Nino event. Eighteen of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last twenty years. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650,000 years.

That's where it is.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:36 AM

I hear all of this grousing about Bush causing global warming. How come temperature in most of the US are way below normal for this time of year?

If we have Global Cooling will that be his fault too?