BS: Where's the Global Warming

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.