BS: Where's the Global Warming

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.