BS: Global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:50 PM

"Jakobshavn Glacier has doubled its speed in the past 15 years, draining increasing amounts of ice from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean, and Holland, an oceanographer at New York University, has been trying to find out why. Scientists like him are more than a little astonished at the rate at which our planet's frozen frontiers seem to be responding to global warming. The crucial question, though, is what will happen over the next few decades and centuries.

That's because the fate of the planet's ice, from relatively small ice caps in places like the Canadian Arctic, the Andes and the Himalayas, to the immense ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, will largely determine the speed and extent of sea level rise. At stake are the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, not to mention millions of square kilometres of cities and coastal land, and trillions of dollars in economic terms.

In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a sea level rise of between 19 and 59 centimetres by 2100, but this excluded "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow". Crudely speaking, these estimates assume ice sheets are a bit like vast ice cubes sitting on a flat surface, which will stay in place as they slowly melt. But what if some ice sheets are more like ice cubes sitting on an upside-down bowl, which could suddenly slide off into the sea as conditions get slippery? "Larger rises cannot be excluded but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood," the IPCC report stated.

Even before it was released, the report was outdated. Researchers now know far more. And while we still don't understand the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers well enough to make precise predictions, we are narrowing down the possibilities. The good news is that some of the scarier scenarios, such as a sudden collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, now appear less likely. The bad news is that there is a growing consensus that the IPCC estimates are wildly optimistic.

The oceans are already rising. Global average sea level rose about 17 centimetres in the 20th century, and the rate of rise is increasing. The biggest uncertainty for those trying to predict future changes is how humanity will behave. Will we start to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases sometime soon, or will we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere?

Even if all emissions stopped today, sea level would continue to rise. "The current rate of rise would continue for centuries if temperatures are constant, and that would add about 30 centimetres per century to global sea level," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. "If we burn all fossil fuels, we are likely to end up with many metres of sea level rise in the long run, very likely more than 10 metres in my view."

This might sound dramatic, but we know sea level has swung from 120 metres lower than today during ice ages to more than 70 metres higher during hot periods. There is no doubt at all that if the planet warms, the sea will rise. The key questions are, by how much and how soon?"


From this article on sea level rise in New Scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 07:57 AM

Selling The Green Economy
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, April 27, 2009

Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global-warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

"For about a dime a day [per person], we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."

This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas -- which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.


Re-engineering the world energy system seems an almost impossible undertaking. Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.

But the EIA also assumes greater conservation and use of renewables. From 2007 to 2030, solar power grows 18 times, wind six times. New cars and light trucks get 50 percent better gas mileage. Light bulbs and washing machines become more efficient. Higher energy prices discourage use; by 2030, oil is $130 a barrel in today's dollars. For all that, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 6.2 billion metric tons, 4 percent higher than in 2007. As an example, solar and wind together would still supply only about 5 percent of electricity, because they must expand from a tiny base.

To comply with the House bill, CO2 emissions would have to be about 3.5 billion tons. The claims of the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by "general equilibrium" models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that's roughly 11 cents a day per person.

The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: There are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global-warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.

There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. Half the nation's electricity comes from coal. The costs of "carbon capture and sequestration" -- storing CO2 underground -- are uncertain, and if the technology can't be commercialized, coal plants will continue to emit or might need to be replaced by nuclear plants. Will Americans support a doubling or tripling of nuclear power? Could technical and construction obstacles be overcome in a timely way? Paralysis might lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which would penalize economic growth.

Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today's fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require "500 million acres of U.S. land -- more than the total of current U.S. cropland." America would have to become a net food importer.

In truth, models have a dismal record of predicting major economic upheavals or their consequences. They didn't anticipate the present economic crisis. They didn't predict the run-up in oil prices to almost $150 a barrel last year. In the 1970s, they didn't foresee runaway inflation. "General equilibrium" models can help evaluate different policy proposals by comparing them against a common baseline. But these models can't tell us how the economy will look in 10 or 20 years because so much is assumed or ignored -- growth rates; financial and geopolitical crises; major bottlenecks; crippling inflation or unemployment.

The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases -- they also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:43 AM

The statistical evidence relating to planetary temperatures over the last thousand years derived from measurements, core comparisons, tree ring comparison, etc, in PDF form.

Essentially the long term trend up to around 1750 had a constant high and low limit; the most recent centuries have broken out of the upper limit in a sharp peaking climb.

But don't take my word for it, please.

A summary article from the National Academy of Sciences lists a great many references as well.

A graph of the last 150 years can be found here.

And here's an interesting very recent article which suggests we may be seeing a combination of anthropogenic climate heating combined with a shifting base climate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:13 AM

"The London Accord is a unique collaboration between investment banks, research houses, academics and NGOs. The London Accord has produced the first 'open source' research resource for investors in climate change solutions. The CD and website (www.london-accord.co.uk) set out the context for investments in climate change solutions, analyse individual opportunities and discuss the implications for the construction of investment portfolios.

Background

The IPCC shows that the world needs to act to avoid disastrous climate change, and act now1.
The Stern review shows that the overall cost of strong early action is much less than the cost of inaction2.
The International Energy Agency shows the changes in fuel mix and energy usage that are necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a safe level3.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change shows how much money is required by region and by technology to realise a scenario that achieves stabilisation4.
The UNFCCC report shows further that 86% of that investment has to come from the private sector. That equates to private sector investment through 2030 in excess of $600bn per year.
The London Accord report shows investors and policy makers by technology how attractive that private investment is, at the end of 2007.
The papers in section A (the Review of the Content and this Executive Summary) give the overview. The papers in section B discuss the context, from public opinion to energy policy. In section C teams from leading investment banks and research houses present reports on individual technologies as investment opportunities. Section D deals with adaptation, and the impact of climate change on investments in the existing economy. Here we also present the legal aspects of investment in low carbon technology. Last but not least Forum for the Future discusses the wider sustainability considerations for investments. Section E is where we present commentary on more advanced issues, from the need for an international standard for the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions at Product-Level, to the role of philanthropic investors and the arguments for and against cap-and-trade and carbon taxes as ways for governments to create economic incentives to encourage investment in low carbon solutions.

The remainder of this executive summary makes the case that investors should pay attention to the changing views of society about climate change, that they need to have a view about the likelihood and timing of changes, and that they need to be realistic about the implications for investments. We show that picking winners and losers is complicated, and fraught with uncertainty, but that it can be done. When investors are ready to take action, we show how to use modern portfolio analysis to generate attractive and robust portfolios. We show how portfolio construction is affected by strong assumptions about an individual technology. We consider the policy implications briefly before closing with the inevitable conclusion that more work is required as the science evolves, and as society responds. There is enough clarity to act now and put CASH IN a portfolio of investments to take CARBON OUT of the economy.

Pay Attention

In B2: The Forces of Change in the Energy Market, Nick Butler states that "If we are fortunate the combination of security concerns, prices and technical progress will come together to offer viable answers to the challenge of climate change. The answer will not be simple, nor, in all probability, will it be singular." At the London Accord's launch conference in March 2007, the Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP warned that real solutions would be 'messy. In B1: Climate Change: the State of the Debate, Alex Evans and David Steven write: "[...]while climate change may have reached a tipping point of sorts in 2006 as far as perceptions of the problem are concerned, the same cannot be said for perceptions of the solution." In D4: Investment in Low-Carbon Technology - the Legal Issues, Lewis McDonald concludes that "low-carbon technology is an area of intense activity and regulations to promote and control these technologies are developing at a fast pace."

These quotes represent a widely held belief that there is an emerging consensus that the world faces a serious problem that requires action now, but that there is no consensus about what to do. The London Accord report attempts to provide some clarity about the options for investors and how to express one's view and beliefs about the public and political will to act, the current and future solutions, and practical steps to react to both the risks and opportunities.

Have a view

If one believes the following three things, then climate change will materially affect future investment opportunities and returns:

population growth is predictable: current demographic predictions are valid and imply a global population of approximately 9-10bn in 2050;
energy intensity is predictable: that the long-term relationship between GDP per capita and energy demand holds true. This relationship, in turn, depends upon assumptions of lifestyle, consumerism and economic structure, e.g. the ratio of services to manufacturing. The London Accord's energy demand numbers are based on the IEA's, which extrapolate from the present on population and economic growth, and assume no discontinuities or unexpected large reductions in population growth;
carbon emissions will cost emitters €30 to €40 per tonne: most economic scenarios seem to arrive at a similar range for the cost per tonne. Any cost per tonne above this range merely intensifies the argument. A cost per tonne below this range definitely softens investment decisions based on climate change. Current ETS trading is around €23, and the average over the past 12 months has been around €20."

(Excerpted from the Executive Summary of the London Accord linked upthread).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:41 PM

Oh... and if we want real, serious testimony, why not just invite Rep. Michelle Bachman of Minn. to explain it all for us.
She just clarified the issues with CO₂ today, explaining that it is 'natural'...produced by the Earth, and thus presents "no danger" to us! (She also said it is 'only' 3-4% of the atmosphere. *grin*...) (it's actually about 300 parts per million)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:31 PM

Note: it was Monckton who claimed that Democrats "...don't want Gore humiliated.."
And it was Monckton who claimed that "..."Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling."

I doubt that Waxman 'knows' any such thing...and I'm sure that he (Monckton).. is glad that no Polar bears will be able to testify directly about the "global cooling".

There is a guy who claims that oil is not a product of biomass from ancient forests/jungles, but rather is 'produced' deep in the earth, and will in time renew itself. Should we let him testify on a conference for Solar & wind power?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:18 PM

That's a bit like raising a flap because a flat-earther was not allowed to speak at a conference of astronomers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:08 PM

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Thursday, April 23, 2009
By Marc Morano

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'


Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. "They are cowards."

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused," according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:34 AM

Yes, when dealing with weather, its not small changes in the average conditions that get you, its fact that the extremes are more extreme. My take on global warming is that you are putting more energy into the whole weather system, so that hot days are hotter, cold days colder, windy days blow a gale, 500 year floods come along every 10 year etc. In the case of the Maldives it would be a combination of tidal surge with extreme weather that would do the damage I suspect.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM

The quoted distance of 'rise' tends to make people overlook the fact that the real damage is done by tidal surges.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:56 PM

Many scientists believe that, given enough political will, humanity can still manage to avoid catastrophic climate change. But the president-elect of the Maldives isn't taking any chances.

Mohamed Nasheed, who was sworn in Tuesday as the Maldives' first democratically elected president, says that rising sea levels threaten to inundate the tiny Indian Ocean island nation. He has announced plans for a fund to buy land elsewhere in the region, where the country's population, estimated to be about 386,000, could rebuild their lives.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr. Nasheed said that he is preparing for the worst:

"We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It's an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome. . . We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades," he said.

Nasheed said that he is looking at land in India and Sri Lanka, because they have climates, cultures, and cuisines similar to that of the Maldives. He is also considering Australia, which has land to spare.

To pay for it, Nasheed says his government will set up a sovereign wealth fund, with revenues coming from tourism, the country's most lucrative industry. The Guardian notes that 467,154 people visited the country, which is famed for its placid beaches, in 2006.

According to the CIA World Factbook, some 80 percent of the 1,192 coral islets that make up the Maldives are one meter or less above sea level, making it the world's lowest country. The UN climate panel predicts that, unless greenhouse emissions are curbed, sea levels could rise by 25 to 58 centimeters by the end of the century. More recent studies, such as this one published in the journal Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise, to as high as two meters.

If this happens, the Maldives would be uninhabitable. But Maldivians wouldn't be the first population displaced by global warming.

That distinction probably belongs to the half million residents of Bangladesh's Bhola Island whose homes were swallowed in 1995 by rising sea levels. In 2005, the 1,600 residents of Papua New Guinea's Carteret Islands began evacuation, as the advancing sea contunued to destroy gardens, sink homes, and contaminate freshwater supplies. Also that year, 100 residents of Vanuatu's island of Tegua had to be evacuated as their homes became permanently flooded.

Other low-lying Pacific islands that could disappear in this century include those in Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Fiji.

Christian Science Monitor

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Kevin Parker
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:58 AM

Hi all
Some of you may be interested in the link (pdf) on this page:

http://www.london-accord.co.uk/accord_2007/reports/b1.htm

It covers the state of the climate change debate from 1827 onwards. One salient quote:
'Business Week called 2006 "the year global warming went from controversial to conventional for much of the corporate world".'

Its part of a larger study by a consortium of London City financial people looking at the costs and opportunities of Global Warming abatement. Beardedbruce, its perhaps an attempt to extend and deepen the work done at Copenhagen, so you may find it interesting to see the way some business people are starting to think. Lots more links on the site

cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:56 PM

Amos - Nothing in your post suggests that man has anything to do with it. Even a sock for Rush Limbaugh wouldn't help!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:52 PM

"sea water appears to be leaking into the deep earth"

Ah! Proof that the Earth is hollow! The water is filling up the centre...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:28 PM

"Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today (Wednesday 10 September 2008). Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today

(Wednesday 10 September 2008).

(Media-Newswire.com) - Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today ( Wednesday 10 September 2008 ).
Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today ( Wednesday 10 September 2008 ).

Research conducted by earth scientists at The University of Manchester in conjunction with other institutions, challenges the conventional belief of scientists that the earth's earliest atmosphere came from solar nebular gases attracted and trapped by gravitational pull.

Gases are trapped in the deep earth and only released when rock is melted and volcanic eruptions and fire fountains occur, driven by the explosive expansion of these gases.

But putting gas into rock in the first place is hard and requires extreme conditions.

Researchers say a clue to how this actually happens is the release of 'light' helium – or the 3He isotope - from mid ocean ridges. Light helium is not produced on earth and somehow became trapped when the earth formed.

Scientists have previously argued that to put enough light helium into the deep earth to explain the volcanic emissions, the early earth was completely molten and surrounded by a dense atmosphere more like that around Jupiter than anything we see today.

But new research on neon gas led by Prof Chris Ballentine, Professor of Isotope Geochemistry in The School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, casts serious doubt on this.

He said: "We have shown that the neon gas fingerprint expected for the captured solar nebula model is not matched.

"Instead we have found a meteorite signature, which suggests the massive early atmosphere is not trapped by gravitational attraction as originally thought but a result of meteorites spewing out gas on impact.

The research being presented at The BA Festival by Prof Ballentine also suggests that sea water appears to be leaking into the deep earth, with half of the water in the earth's mantle – the region of the earth between the crust and the core – estimated to come from this source."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:11 PM

I am unsure if it relates, but I found this new tscience throry interesting:

http://media-newswire.com/release_1072594.html


If the link does not get you there, try Meteorites "behind volcanic eruptions' say scientists at http://media-newswire.com/release_1072594.html

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:31 PM

Rig:

His output is much less hot air than Palin's, or McCain's, and certainly far less than the Bushies.... perhaps you are choosing the wrong target.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:18 PM

"Global warming?"

                Maybe the most constructive thing to do about global warming would be to stuff a sock in Barack Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth (computer still in the shop)
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 04:20 PM

Yep, Charlie B., that's it. I notice they also had Life After People there too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:52 AM

Today's news from Australia

Greens air coastal development fears

The New South Wales Greens says not enough is being done to ensure coastal development in the Illawarra accounts for the effects of rising sea levels caused by climate change.

A Victorian Court has overruled a council approval for six coastal homes on the grounds they could be threatened by storms and rising sea levels.

The recent decision comes after a similar NSW Land and Environment Court challenge to a housing development and retirement village at Sandon Point, north of Wollongong.

Greens' MP Lee Rhiannon says the State Government needs to be more prescriptive about coastal development and climate change.

"The impact of climate change needs to be taken into account at the start of the planning process, it can no longer be an afterthought," she said.

"That's quite clearly the direction that this decision is taking us."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:34 AM

Just in:

'Witch' attacked for causing PNG floods: report

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:28 AM

Climate change 'causing extreme waves'


Climate change 'causing extreme waves'

September 10, 2008 06:03pm

CLIMATE change has caused an increase in weather events and extreme waves being generated off the southern coast of Australia, researchers have found.

In a report released today, researchers from the CSIRO said they had found a link between climate change and extreme weather off the southern coast.

An analysis of available data shows significant increases in wave heights in the Southern Ocean over the past 45 years, particularly during the southern hemisphere autumn and winter months, the report said.

The frequency of large wave events has also increased.

"Extreme wave conditions are greatest south of the Australian continent, associated with the passage of extra-tropical storms along Australia's southern margin," the report said.

The researchers also discovered a connection between an increase in the power of waves in northern Australia and the length and strength of monsoon seasons.

"Variability of wave power in northern Australia is potentially related to variability in the length and strength of the monsoon season," the report said.

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the research would improve understanding of how global warming might affect offshore waves and the potential impact on coastal zones.

"This study will help increase our understanding of the potential impacts to the coastal zone, as well as providing valuable information for those seeking to generate electricity from wave energy," Senator Wong said.

The report would also provide critical information for coastal zone managers to help them plan for the potential impacts of climate change, Senator Wong said.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Charlie B
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 08:16 PM

is this it?

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 07:42 PM

Patience, sinky. The planet may be your rotisserie soon enough.

I saw THIS recently on the History Channel. Absolutely fascinating!

The earth has gone through a lot of changes over the past 4.5 billion years. Life got started a number of times, only to be wiped out by some planet-wide catastrophe or other, some sudden, like a meteor strike or a massive volcanic eruption, some slow, like a drastic climate change—although not all climate changes were slow—some happened with startling rapidity.

Example: when plate tectonics brought what we now call the North and South American continents together (Central America bridging the two), it cut off the warm current from the (now) Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic (basically separated one ocean into two) and the result was an ice age about as severe as one can get:   the entire planet was covered by a deep coating of ice.

The meteor strike 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs allowed the chittering little mammals inhabiting the trees to grow beyond being mere lizard snacks and evolve into us.

If we manage to kill ourselves off by precipitating a runaway greenhouse effect and leaving the earth with a Venus-like atmosphere, not to worry. There are organisms right now living around volcanic vents in the oceans' floors, thriving in water temperatures of 700 degrees (water pressure at those depths allow the temperature to go way above what we regard as the boiling point of water). They derive their energy from the heat surrounding the vents, not photosynthesis or necessarily from eating each other. They may evolve, eventually find they can live on land in the Venus-like atmosphere, and continue to evolve to become. . . ?

Life on earth would continue. In the Grand Scheme of things, we would not be missed.

Don Firth

P. S. The History Channel had yet another show that tends to make one think a bit more long range that folks normally do. CLICKY

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,sinky
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 07:17 PM

global warming my arse,england is wet and freezing,more chance of a sun tan in alaska

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 06:45 PM

"Why has your country not accepted the Kyoto Protocol?"

Because those politicians are ignorant wankers - or corruptly bribed.

Little Fascist Johnny wouldn't sign, but blathered on about how 'we are ahead of our Kyoto targets anyway'. I think many people finally had enough of him when he babbled on about 'solar cannot provide baseload power', when it was already doing so in some parts of the world. He was one of the very few sitting Aussie Prime Ministers to ever lose his seat - such pollies usually hold 'safe seats' which require massive voter swings. The new Govt had campaigned on signing Kyoto - one of the first official acts they did. Many here think it was only Johnny sucking up to Bush is why he wouldn't sign.


"the 5 feet some goofballs are suggesting cannot happen"

Ah! - but you are thinking of a Canute like gentle ebb - recent storm surges have already been on the order of 18 feet... :-P and when your house and contents are totally stuffed by one inundation, it doesn't really matter if the tide goes out...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Charlie B
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 05:15 PM

Touché!

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:00 PM

"Your Government has a two pronged attack plan for its people. It is to do with taxing you, peak oil production and the introduction of hydrogen based energy technology. I cannot go into more detail here because the truth I will write will cause this thread to be terminated. Censorship applied in the same way as your government censors you."

Phil, I've learned not to waste my time arguing with conspiracy theorists. You folks live in a your own paranoid world, and the more I try to reason with folks like you, the more you insist that I'm in on the conspiracy.

Bye bye.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:00 PM

Ok Don…. Here are my replies.. An eleven year sunspot cycle, though unproven will not cycle continuously and simultaneously and its strength will vary. The same is true with Milankovich cycles. You need to worry about the sun's intensity because it may have reached Gaia's tipping point. It is this tipping point that is of relevance: not the sun's intensity; per se.

Nasa receives your government's funding. Your Government has a two pronged attack plan for its people. It is to do with taxing you, peak oil production and the introduction of hydrogen based energy technology. I cannot go into more detail here because the truth I will write will cause this thread to be terminated. Censorship applied in the same way as your government censors you.

These agencies are, in fact, toeing your governments line.. Look deeper Mr. Firth.. Try thinking more about the prime directive of all or any government.

I note you have studied Geologic science. Then please answer the following questions because they are central to the warming debate...yet are never disclosed...

What is the relevance to climate of the Tibetan plateau?

Temperature led warming is shadowed by atmospheric gaseous flux; this is an example of positive feedback. Do you know the implied and resultant negative feed back mechanisms of Gaia?

Please tell me about delta oxygen 18 values and also about delta carbon 13 values over geologic time.

Please quote the accepted value of the Earths albedo and its link to Hadley cells with specific reference to a warming planet.


Why has your country not accepted the Kyoto Protocol?

Please explain your statement "humans to keep accelerating the process by continuously pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere"… specifically what greenhouse gases are you talking about and which greenhouse gas is in the ascendance?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 06:27 PM

I found this and wondered if it is relenvant... I quote...


"What is one to make of a recent press release and submitted preprint blaming global warming on the Tunguska meteor event in 1908? Well, although it is not unknown for impact events to affect climate (the K/T boundary event springs to mind) there are a number of hurdles for any such theory to overcome before it moves into the mainstream from the wilder shores of unsubstantiated speculation.

Firstly, one would anticipate that immediate effects of the impact on climate would be strongest near the time of the impact (allowing for some inertia in the system) and decay away subsequently. Secondly, the timescales for any mechanism associated with the impact (in this case disruption of the atmopsheric water vapour) would need to be in line with the change one hopes to explain. And thirdly, one has to show that this explanation is better than the alternatives. Unfortunately, none of of these requirements are met by this hypothesis.

An impact hypothesis is usefully contrasted to the impacts of a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in 1991. There was a very clear dip in temperatures a year or so after the eruption and a subsequent relaxation back to normal. No such event (warming or cooling) is recorded in 1908 to 1910. The timescales for water vapour in the lower atmosphere is on the order of days (see our previous post on the subject), while in the stratosphere it is a a few years. But there are no reservoirs of climatically important water vapour amounts that could still be causing the impact effect to be felt (and to accelerate!) almost 100 years later. And finally, current theories based on greenhouse gas increases, changes in solar, volcanic, ozone , land use and aerosol forcing do a pretty good job of explaining the temperature changes over the 20th Century. It's very hard to see what this idea has to add to that.

In an additional twist, it is suggested that atmospheric nuclear tests from 1940s to the 1970s masked out the effects of the impact due to the supposed mixing up of tropospheric water vapour into the stratosphere after every explosion. This is even odder since stratospheric water vapour is actually quite a significant greenhouse gas, and had this occured to any large extent, it would have been a warming factor, not a cooling one.

So while the physics being invoked here is barely worth discussing, a more interesting question might be why the University of Leicester thought that this was worthy of a press release in the first place, and why this got any traction in the media at all. True, it didn't get much attention, so maybe there is some hope for science journalism after all…"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth (wife's computer, mine's in the sh
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:12 PM

Okay, Phil, if you're "well educated in earth sciences," then you should know better.

Yes, it is the earth we are concerned with. And, yes, it is true that the sun gets hotter as it grows older, but this is a process that takes place over millions of years, and in the brief period of time we are talking about, the effect is negligible to the point of non-existent. The eleven year sunspot cycle affects us far more than this does. Our descendants (should we survive our own shortsightedness) will not have to worry about increases in the sun's temperature for a few billion years yet, and much can happen between now and then.

And yes, NASA receives government funding, but if what you imply is true (that they would cobble the science to keep their funding), then how do you explain the fact that what NASA is saying regarding global warming runs completely counter to what the Bush administration is saying? Answer me that.

And the same holds for the Stanford Solar Center. Neither of these agencies is toeing the government line, so your argument just doesn't wash.

I have studied geologic history as well as astronomy. So perhaps it is you who needs to learn a bit about astronomy, particularly the evolution of stars, especially main-sequence, G spectral class stars like the sun.

I support candidates who favor signing the Kyoto treaty.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, even if it were true that an increase in the sun's temperature is the main factor in global warming, how smart is it for humans to keep accelerating the process by continuously pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? Raises a question about whether or not there is intelligent life on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:49 PM

Hello Mr. Firth, I am completely well educated in earth sciences, thank you very much. You quote data released by NASA, they are in government pay, they use the right buzz words in their research to secure American government funding, and hence they are not to be believed. I have no confidence in the Stanford Solar Centre, again they are government funded. I suggest you educate yourself in two poignant ways;

1: Study geologic history, and not astronomy, as it is the earth that we are more concerned with. The sun is getting hotter as it grows older. This debate is about Giai's ability to regulate itself much more than a star's evolution.
2: Lobby your government and ask them why they will not sign to Kyoto.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 10:06 PM

"Greenland may BE green in a few decades"

Let's hope so. Then the descendants of the Vikings will be able to recolonize a once choice area and realize the dream that their great great great grandfathers held dear. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 03:24 PM

Guest Phil-
You might be right---but it's a bet we really can't afford to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 01:15 PM

Just keep on believing that, Phil, if it makes you feel comfortable.

The behavior of main-sequence G-type stars such as the sun is very stable. The only variation in our sun is the eleven-year sunspot cycle, but this has been going on for billions of years.

I could supply you with enough documentation on this (involving many astronomy textbooks) to keep you reading until the sun goes through its death throes some five to seven billion years from now.

The scientific evidence that the current surge in global warming is human cause is overwhelming. If you can handle the truth, read a bit and educate yourself. For openers:

While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

This is from the Stanford Solar Center. Google it and read the whole article for yourself. Lots of data about the sun. Fascinating stuff.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 07:14 AM

Science has indicated that the planet, taken as a whole, is warming. It is more likely that the planet is warming as a result of increased solar flux. It is also more likely that the warming is far less to do with human interference... specifically because of negative feed back mechanisms reacting to the positive feed back of increasing solar intensity.

Interesting to read the posted comments on "global warming". Who are these commentators? Are they scientists? Are they in Government pay? Are they speculators?

The comments though interesting, are pure scientific speculation based on MET office empirical computer models. Put simply, we do not know what will happen as the sun gets hotter. The temperature of the planet is driven by solar warming, (quote ref Geological history) and not by human induced global warming. It would be helpful if we did not make statements about what may or may not happen to Mother Earth (Gaia) All we need to know is that if we continue as a species to take more than we need, abolish attrition and wars and recycle in the name of political expediency, we will without a shadow of doubt realise our own demise.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 09:44 AM

"The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions."

They went on to say:

"The economists didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels.

The United States has an opportunity to lead the world on research and development, which would give it the moral authority to demand that everyone else do the same. The world's sole superpower could finally provide the leadership on climate change that has been lacking in the White House."

Of course, the simplest way to reduce CO2 release to the atmosphere is to burn less fossil fuel.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 08:02 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/31/eaarctic131.xml

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 08:01 PM

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/04/shrinking-arctic-ocean-sea-ice-signals-climate-change/

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 07:51 PM

"global cooling continues to do its diabolical work around here"

Here we go again.

What you are experiencing personally is NOT "global cooling", but the turbulence effect of "global warming".

May sound paradoxical BS, but the whole BASIS of the GW theory IS that TURBULENCE will cause more mixing of hot and cool pools of air, sweeping more energy from the warm bits to the cold bits - thus sweeping big pools of 'cold' away to normally 'warmer' spots where they 'warm up'.

Ignorance is bliss, unless it gonna kill ya!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 05:59 PM

not only is the 3000 year old ice melting, the 200,000 year old ice is in trouble. Greenland may BE green in a few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 04:11 PM

Oh, what the hell!

Two Hunnert!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 04:03 PM

"Global cooling" is a great sop to those who want to keep right on using the ecosystem as a garbage dump. But the so-called "global cooling" phenomena are local weather purturbations that are caused by overall global warming.

Example:   the melting of the Greenland ice sheets dumps cold fresh water into the north Atlantic which disrupts the warm, heavier salt water flowing up in the Gulf Stream. It is the warm water of the Gulf Stream that keeps Northern Europe's climate moderate. Disruption of the Gulf Stream by the melting ice sheets could, more than likely, trigger extremely cold winters in Northern Europe.

But localized (even though apparently widespread) cooling of this type comes as a result of global warming.

Seeming small actions can have monumental effects down the line. The legendary fluttering of a butterfly's wings in the Amazonian jungle….

:-O    Eeeeeek!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM

Meanwhile, global cooling continues to do its diabolical work around here. It's dreadful. I can hardly imagine what October will be like! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 02:51 PM

From Ars TEchnica:

The landscape surrounding Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic is a shadow of its former self, thanks in part to last month's departure of 55 square kilometers of the Markham Ice Shelf. Ellesmere Island anchors one of only five remaining ice shelves in the Arctic, although how long it will retain that distinction remains to be seen. Including the Markham loss, Ellesmere Island has now lost 10 times more shelf ice this summer than scientists predicted on July 30.

Related StoriesHoley cling-film (may slow global warming) batman
Modeling ice-melt may lead to improved global climate forecasts
Located just west of Greenland, Ellesmere Island is Canada's most northerly landmass. Prior to the 20th Century, it was covered by one continuous 9,000-square-kilometer ice shelf. The Arctic has warmed more rapidly than the rest of the planet, though, over the past 100 years, and Ellesmere's ice shelf soon split into five distinct entities. In summer 2008 alone, Ellesmere Island's other ice shelves, the Ward Hunt and the Serson. have lost 43 square kilometers and 120 square kilometers respectively. The Markham split is the latest loss, leaving Ellesmere with only around 800 square kilometers of shelf ice.

Arctic sea ice has been disappearing at near record pace this summer. While the ice retreat has traditionally slowed in early August, this year's downward trend appeared unflappable in those telling few weeks. Scientists are concerned other cracks in the largest remaining shelf, the Ward Hunt, will continue the trend over the next few years.   

Ellesmere Island's ice shelves are estimated to be around 4,000 years old, and experts do not expect them to reform under current climate conditions. "These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Derek Mueller, Arctic expert at Trent University in Canada.

Ice shelves like those found around Ellesmere Island support unique ecosystems, many of which have gone unstudied. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, for example, dammed the mouth of the Disraeli Fjord to form a 3,000-year-old freshwater ecosystem. As the glaciers on the island melted each summer, their runoff fed the "epishelf lake" that was suspended atop the denser seawater. Between 2000 and 2002, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf cracked and drained the lake, whisking its rare inhabitants out to sea.

Ellesmere Island lost much of its original ice shelf in the 1930s and 1940s, a particularly warm period in the last century. Since 2002, though, ice loss has again accelerated as Arctic temperatures overtop those seen in the first half of the 20th Century

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:28 PM

Casually listening to a nature program on BBC Radio 4 I heard a report of how sea bird colonies were being affected by the spread of tropical plankton and other organisms outward toward the poles.

It is not a theory, not an opinion, the birds can't find the right sort of food to give their chicks in the places they habitually breed. They bring them all sorts of things they can find, but in many cases it is not suitable, so the bird watchers are finding nests of chicks dead from starvation but surrounded by rejected organisms, or even choked by unsuitable food.

The tropical boundaries - an arbitary separation of the Earth's seas by the classification of ecosystems seems to be showing a considerable recent alteration in the warmth of the oceans.

I expect some Northern Hemisphere birds will begin to move their breeding places Northwards once the permafrost melting has settled down and the land develops vegetation suitable for a warmer climate which hopefully will stabilise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:27 PM

IF you mean the Earth as a rock-based accretion in orbit around 150,000,000 KM from SOl, sure it will still be here. If you mean Gaia--a huge and sophisticated community of organisms thriving under a narrow band of temperature and chemical variation osupported by a precise orbit, reliable ratios of light, water and key elements in circulation--not so much, maybe...

But if the removal of Gaia from Earth does occur, it will not be because of people writing gloomy articles.

I would guess, purely speculatively, that it won't even be because of anthropogenic warming. More likely one could whack on the side of the ecosystem by a medium sized comet, or a planetary tidal commotion caused by the Moon getting knocked out of orbit, or some such cataclysm. IF you think life in the ecosphere is brutal, you should try surviving in cold vacuum.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:57 PM

What a marvelous bonanza for the oil companies!

The earth will survive, no matter what we do to it. But will we?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:00 AM

Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 27 June 2008


INDEPENDENT GRAPHICS
ENLARGE
Related Articles
Click here to have your say
Peter Wadhams: Every time I visit the Arctic, the ice gets thinner
Print   Email

Search
Go
Independent.co.uk   Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Stumbleupon
What are these?
Change font size: A A A
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic Ð and worrying Ð examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year. (The Independent)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:22 PM

"The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions."

We should do one helluva lot more than "simply" cut carbon dioxide emissions. But reducing CO2 emissions is essential to diminishing and, hopefully, eventually putting the brakes on the greenhouse effect.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:44 AM

HEy--if the anthopogenic warming trend is going tobe temporarily offset by a regular cyclical cooling phase in the natural course of things, we should be delighted we have gained a little breathing room in which to reverse our toxification processes.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

"This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.

These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems.

The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions. "

read the whole article-

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:02 PM

You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but sooner or later you're going to become painfully aware that your ass is on fire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:49 PM

I am enjoying the spitting in this thread, don't stop now!

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:02 PM

"things"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:35 PM

"Since you seem incapable of actually reading something that might disagree with your particular world view"

Well, no. I read it, but am capable of distinguishing spin from data.

I will leave now, and let you have your political argument, while I pursue science.

Please write to me in 50 years, if you are alive, and I am alive, and we will discuss how thing really turned out.

I am much more interested in making the world habitable for my kids than I am in proving I am "right" to politicobots. Now, gnash your teeth while I go educate the next generation.

buh-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:30 PM

Wolfgang has kindly provided a link to the actual article above. You will find that it does not deny global climate change. It does point out that a specific region of the globe will lag for approximately a decade. It most certainly does not argue that global climate change is a myth or a political invention. The Hoover Institute fellow quite cleverly misquotes to disguise this result.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:25 PM

BB:
I do not give a      what Al gore says. I read the actual peer-reviewed journals. From what I can tell, you read the references that are fed to you by websites with political axes.

When I stray into *your* field of expertise, please tell me. In the meantime, I have no inclination to argue with your links from political websites. If you care to argue actual science rather than the spin and selective quotes you find on political websites, bring it on.

Interestingly, your quote regarding the German study on ice thickness in west Greenland, and my rebutal pointing out that the article was egregiously misquoted disappeared from this thread. Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:19 PM

PDQ - you are ducking the question by hiding behind literalism. Here is your quote:

"There is not enough ice to make that happen."

You are correct in that statement, but it misses the point. And *that* is exactly my point. The ice is not the whole story. Please go educate yourself before making such statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:05 AM

"...water at a depth of 4,500 metres in the Weddell Sea warmed by a tenth of a degree Celsius between 1989 and 2005, although the warming trend may have begun earlier. The latest work, by researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, found that temperatures have cooled slightly since 2005..."
(Nature news, April, 30th, 2008)

From the abstract of the article Amos has mentioned:

"we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, N. S. Keenlyside, M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh & E. Roeckner, Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 08 - 05:16 AM

GUEST, TIA:

"...if you believe that meltwater alone will raise sea level..."

Once again, you credit statements to me that have nothing to do with what I say. That is the lowest form of "winning at any cost" arguement technique and is not the type of behavior worthy of someone who thinks of himself as a scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:33 AM

On the other hand, the BBC News site also carries this:

"Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.""

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:30 AM

The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming. However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.


The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

(BBC)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:20 PM

Surface warming, but not high atmosphere warming, is completely consistent with the greenhouse model of CO2 and other greenhouse gases impeding the transfer outward from surface through atmosphere.

Which is exactly what most models of global warming say is happening.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:54 PM

BTW BB, just to wet your cartridges, I started looking at the links in the article you referenced. One ends with "To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off." So, the reference to it in the article is sneaky at best. Several others are to US government websites, or a New Zealand government website with summaries of government reports. Another is a bio of a weatherman that features a videoclip of an appearance on the Sean hannity show. Another, oddly, is simply a link to a metric to imperial converter routine (although it purports to be a link to some kind of NASA data). I gave up in disgust before finding any references to actual scientific articles. So, have I seen enough to being doing science instead of politics?

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:54 PM

Let me see..... "political pundits I should ignore:


Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist.

Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Oceanology advised: "Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!"

The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. "We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south," Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated.

"The University of Alabama, Huntsville's analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade," Joseph D'Aleo, the Weather Channel's first director of meteorology, told me.

As marine geologist Dr. Robert Carter of Australia's James Cook University recently observed: "The real-world global average temperature...exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998, to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last three years."

"I don't make climate predictions because I don't know what the Sun will do next," says S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia emeritus professor of environmental sciences and founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. "But analysis of the best data of the past 30 years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas."

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted that "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, more than 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris's Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the global-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

"The hypothesis that solar variability, and not human activity, is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not," explained Dr. David Wojick, co-founder of Carnegie-Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

AccuWeather's Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: "People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder."



Scientific expert that is irrefutable:

Al Gore.


Yup, that sure looks like proof that global warming is both caused entirely by man, and can be prevented by voting the "correct" party in the next election...


"No political axes to grind there I am sure. I'll stick to the science thanks."

Right- I have to consider that I have a better basis on science than you, if that is what you are claiming. Or do you claim that Al Gore is not as biased as the Hoover institute???

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:43 PM

Better keep listening to politicians as to what journals are saying the correct thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:41 PM

P.S. BB - I believe I read the referenced authors long before you discovered those references on freerepublic.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:39 PM

You are right, I am sorry. You did not use the word significant. But my point remains - if you believe that meltwater alone will raise sea level, you are missing other important effects.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:38 PM

Sorry my yelling friend. I am a scientist, not a politician. I'll get my science from the journals, not from the Hoover Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:23 PM

GUEST,TIA ,

Since you seem incapable of actually reading something that might disagree with your particular world view, I will just mention that to judge SCIENCE data based on a political bent, AS YOU ARE DOING, is NOT sccience. Did you read WHO the referenced science sources were? Or do you just look at the author, and decide it is wrong???

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:55 PM

GUEST,TIA

With all do respect, I never used the term "significant flooding". I said that the 5 feet some goofballs are suggesting cannot happen. If you are going to make up statements and attribute them to others, please go back and talk to yourself. You obviously like to see your own words more than others do.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:53 PM

Are we really supposed to believe an article from freerepublic.com that is written by a fellow of the Hoover Institute. No political axes to grind there I am sure. I'll stick to the science thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:45 PM

PDQ - again you say there is not enough ice to melt and cause significant flooding. Again, I recommend that you educate yourself about the separate "steric" and "mass" components of sea level rise before making unscientific pronouncements. Melting is less than half the story when it comes to sea level rise. Again, I am not doing your homework and explaining here. I hope that you will do some reading, and learn some things.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:29 PM

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/posts


""I don't make climate predictions because I don't know what the Sun will do next," says S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia emeritus professor of environmental sciences and founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. "But analysis of the best data of the past 30 years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas."

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted that "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, more than 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris's Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the global-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

"The hypothesis that solar variability, and not human activity, is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not," explained Dr. David Wojick, co-founder of Carnegie-Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:16 PM

Last night the local TV Weather man, commenting on the huge bubble of polar air surging up from the Antarctic, putting a huge High over a large chunk of Oz, and bringing record (since start of recording) low temps, said "So much for Golbal Warming."

I cringed again!

GW _IS_ responsible for this!

Just because you don't understand something Scientific, you CAN make jokes, but be careful lest those who DO understand think you are stupid, as well as ignorant!

GW means - NOT uniformly increasing temps everywhere - BUT AN INCREASE IN TOTAL ENERGY OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM - which leads to 'turbulence'. This means BOTH higher AND lower temps EVERYWHERE!

SO the record lows ARE part of GW!

Sadly this whole thread is just full of similar ignorance!

Just shouting what you believe doesn't stop the plane from crashing! :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
It's difficult to make EASY emphasis in plain ASCII text without capitalisisng...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 11:34 AM

OK, Wolfgang, we shall use your figures.

That suggests that mean sea level will rise about 6 inches in the next 100 years, if things go as they have been going.

Why do some scare-mongers say that the sea will rise 5 to 6 feet in the next 100 years and flood most of the great costal cities of the world, including New York?

Where will all this water come from? There is not enough ice to make that happen.

Where is the connection between man's use of carbon-based fuels and ice melt? We do have a huge amount of underground volcanic activity in the southern Pacific Ocean. The heated water produced is softeneng the edges of the ice in Antacrtica. The part above the ocean is softening, the part above land is still solid as ever, actually growing slightly.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 11:03 AM

The actual records show that the mean sea level has risen 2mm per decade over the last 150 years. (pdq)

Someone (perhaps you) has made an error in converting one unit to another. Even if one looks at writings of Robert Johnston (a global warming skeptic) the number he gives is around the mid 1800s the rate of sea level rise increased to about 15 centimeters per century (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/sealevel.html) which is 1,5 mm/a.

What you have written differs from all the varying estimated values by roughly a power of ten.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 07:58 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:58 AM

The New York Times' Kristof discusses the failures of Bush' best efforts in regards to climate projections.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:56 AM

An educated and well-researched article in Nature magazine assesses the assumptions and projections of climate-change thinking, and finds them wanting in pessimism.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 10:11 PM

Then Don there are those without the science degrees that adhere to the physiology of "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck & looks like a duck, it a duck. I like yours better but,,,,
When I read the evidence & see the actuall photos & look at the imaging, hear what the polor bears, seals & penguins are saying & someone else whose got a vested interest in an opposing view tells me some thing completly oof the wall, I'll go with what my own thought process tells me is correct. When the weather man is saying it's bright & sunny all day & then I look out my window & it's dark & it's pouring, my thinking is to disguard the weather man's conclusion. There have been many claims made by the science community that the government has been very bais in this area of global warming & poultion & here's where those with a vested interest comes into play. They are the minority that are claiming that the majority is screeming that the "sky is falling". Well the sky isn't falling but global warming is happening & man plays a role in it, let's except it & do something about it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:23 PM

Having a degree in science is not necessarily an indication that one can tell Shinola from the other stuff, even in a field that is closely related—very closely relate—to one's own specialty.

In 1956, I took an astronomy course from a Professor T. S. Jacobson at the University of Washington. I must admit that I was more than a little disappointed in the course (Astronomy 101) because it was supposed to be an introductory course to astronomy. Though the whole course, he had us drawing triangles on a hemisphere about the size of half a grapefruit, according to coordinates he gave us. Right ascension, declination, that sort of thing. How to find a particular star in the sky once you've looked it up in that year's astronomical almanac.

I was not the only one who grew restive after a number of weeks of this. I was hoping that the course would be about the birth of stars, different types of stars, formation of planetary systems, etc. That's what most of the other students in the class had expected also. The drop-out rate was fairly high, but I beavered on and stuck it out in the hope that things might improve.

At the beginning of one class, as Prof. Jacobson was preparing to pass out the hemispheres, the calibrated curved triangle protractors that went with them, and the sheets of coordinates, a student ask a question.

"Professor, what do you think of the International Geophysical Year plan to launch an artificial satellite?"

"A ridiculous waste of money," said the good professor. "It will just fall back to earth. Artificial satellites are impossible. It'll never work!"

At the age of six, sparked by the comic strip, "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" I became fascinated with the idea of space travel, and this got me to reading science fiction. But not just fiction. I also read books by Willy Ley, such as Rockets and Space Travel (1947). It was one of the earlier books on rocketry for the general public, and it became a reference for both science fiction writers and for reality writing on the subject. Also, perhaps his best-known book, The Conquest of Space (1949), beautifully illustrated with the imaginative—and often amazingly predictive—paintings of Chesley Bonestell. There was also a whole series of articles by Werner von Braun in Colliers Magazine about, not just artificial satellites, but space stations. As far as I know, the wheel-shaped space station in "2001: A Space Odyssey" first appeared in the illustrations accompanying these Colliers articles. In addition to Willy Ley's writings, I was also quite familiar with the works of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth, and Robert Goddard.

So I knew the science was there, the principles were sound, and, if they got the engineering right (and most of those involved with the program seemed more than competent), artificial satellites and far beyond that would indeed "work."

So—if I knew all this, which door had Professor Jacobson been standing behind?

But the good professor's diet had to turn to quantities of crow when, on October 4th, 1957 the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I. The American Vanguard project was nearly ready to go, but the Russians had beat us into space. The professor may have felt a slight amount of vindication a couple of months later, on December 6th, 1957, when Vanguard blew up on the launch pad. I was not totally surprised because I had read criticisms of the Vanguard rocket by a number of rocket scientists, saying the entire fuel system of the Vanguard was a plumber's nightmare. Von Braun's Redstone was a much simpler and inherently more reliable launch vehicle.

Grudgingly, the job was given to von Braun and his Redstone team who, on January 31, 1958, launched—glitchlessly—Explorer I. Whereas Sputnik I carried no scientific package and did little more than broadcast "beeps," it did provide some information about atmospheric density by studying the decay of its relatively low orbit, and because it was filled with pressurized nitrogen, the decrease of the gas pressure inside provided some information about micrometeorite penetrating. Explorer I, however, carried a small scientific payload that eventually discovered the magnetic radiation belts around the Earth, that were named after principal investigator James Van Allen. Eleven and a half years later, on July 20th, 1969, Neil Armstrong set foot on the surface of the moon.

Fortunately, there were other astronomy classes at the University of Washington, and other astronomy professors. In a later class, I learned (or rather, confirmed) much of what I already knew from my reading about the birth of stars and the formation of planetary systems, and actually got a chance to use the telescope in the small observatory on 17th Avenue N. E., just south of East 45th Street (near the north entrance to the campus). Despite the fact that the viewing from this location was not particularly good due to light pollution from the University business district just a few blocks to the west, I got a good look at the Arend-Roland comet (Spring, 1957), Jupiter and its four Galilean moons, and Saturn, complete with rings at a good angle for viewing. Looking at the real thing tends to pump a lot more adrenalin that looking at a photograph, even though the photo may show a lot more detail.

So—this was one of those times when I learned that having a degree in science, even being a professor at a major state university, is no guarantee that someone is immune from speaking a lot of twaddle, even in fields related to their specialty. I learned that there are experts and there are "experts." This, along with the principle of "listen carefully, but verify." With whom does one verify? Other scientists. And if they disagree, don't just listen to the disagreement, but understand the reasons for the disagreement. Again, listen carefully. And use your own brain!

Now it has most certainly happened in the history of science that the majority of scientists have held a particular view and a tiny minority have held another view, and the minority was eventually proved to be right. But if the vast majority of scientists agree on something, and a small number of scientists disagree, providing only contradictory and inconsistent "evidence" to support their position—and if they have a vested interest in their position—and when all the data of which I am aware corresponds with the majority position—I feel I am on fairly safe ground by casting my lot with the majority of scientists.

Thus it is for the matter of global warming. The vast majority of scientists agree that it is happening. The only disagreement within this majority is just how fast it's happening.

And I might point out—once again—that this is a question of science, not politics/ There are those who wish to make it a political issue, having a financial interest in attempting to debunk the overwhelming evidence for global warming. Future generations may very well regard them as criminally culpable for the consequences, if action is not taken immediately

Whether the Earth is flat or spherical is not a question of political viewpoint or bias.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 03:28 PM

Der SPiegel (Germany) reports:

Researchers have found ...evidence that the frozen Arctic floor has started to thaw and release long-stored methane gas. The results could be a catastrophic warming of the earth, since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But can the methane also be used as fuel?

(aerial photo: The Lena River flowing through Russian Siberia and empties into the Arctic Ocean. This satellite image shows the river delta, where methane concentrations are unexpectedly high).

It's always been a what-if scenario for climate researchers: Gas hydrates stored in the Arctic ocean floor -- hard clumps of ice and methane, conserved by freezing temperatures and high pressure -- could grow unstable and release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, more than carbon dioxide, the result would be a drastic acceleration of global warming. Until now this idea was mostly academic; scientists had warned that such a thing could happen. Now it seems more likely that it will.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 09:58 AM

That last post contains about 6 out of the 10 most common blogosphere talking points on global warming. And not a shred of science to back it up. All from one who was complaining upthread about the scientific illiteracy of liberal arts majors.

Got trounced by real scientists, so talking points is all that's left I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 09:46 AM

The subject of this thread is Global Warming It is not about me. Sorry so many folks feel the need to throw brickbats at anyone who will not parrot the 'party line', but that is their shortcoming.

Just something to think about: all this Global Warming we are supposed to worry about, and spend 3 trillion dollars fixing, is in the future. All we have so far, that anyone can agree on, is a slight rise in average ambient air temperature of 1 degree F, and that has occurred since about 1840, a period of over 150 years. We also have an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 290 parts per million to the current 380 PPM. Both these changes are beneficial to plant growth and crop production. About 2 more degrees rise will be a good thing for native plants and animals, and it will increase crop yeid to feed the enormous Third World population growth which really is happening.

Unfortunately, there is just as much chance of a 2 degree drop in temperature as there is rise. We have nothing to do about it. It will be the combined result of many naturally-occurring events that we have no control over. Predict the day of the Second Coming or the next San Francisco earthquake, you have just as much chance of being right.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Zen
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:37 AM

Just back to reply to pdq.

The BBC article I linked to referred to research at the world-renowned Proudman Oceanographic Institute in Liverpool.

You are clearly too blinkered and engaged with your own self-importance to read down that far pdq and I cannot be bothered to share bandwidth with you any more.

Go stick your head in thre trophoshere... it will clearly sustain your level of brain activity on this particular matter.

Goodbye.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:41 AM

"Second, your graph is for 1992-2008 and can not be used to refute my claim which covered 150 years."


Your claim covering the past 150 yrs PDQ, lacks todays sophisticated technology, which there's no use in trying to compare the 2, give it up! In the past 16 yrs our scienctific reseach has advanced at a far greater rate that the privious 134 yrs that you're refering to.

There is now evidence that the sea ice at the polor regions are acting as insulators & trapping solor heat, furthing the ice cap melt. This many present a problem when this reaches a tipping point. But lets wait to see who wins the argument 1st & deal with all the problem afterwards,,,,,whne it's too late.

From a non PHD'd but very common sensed layperson.

Even non scientific photo's taken of glacier & & snow pack regions
during the 30's show that the toll taken to this regions has been such that it's impack is clearly visible compared to pictures taken after & up to the present. The Westen US ranges that supply the watershed for that half of the nation is becoming arid bound. Lake Meade is half of what it was, the Colorado is disappearing, the Platte which was once a trade & cargo route barely could be called a stream today. DO we need to dry up & shrivle before you'd admit to maybe a slight "we should consider the outcome" or would you prefere
we deal with istakes after they've been made & when they can't be made right.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:00 AM

"it is also the "party line" that many diseases are caused by germs. I hear this constantly, and without doubt nor nuance, from the mainstream media, the medical establishment, and my mother, and it makes me, frankly, very suspicious."

Disease is caused by Miasmas! And Combustion depends on the existence of Philostogen!


AS a musical aside I insert here reference to the song "Three hapence a Foot!"


"I have heard claims of 6' or more of sea level rise in the next 100 years and the result being flooding of major cities such as New York and Paris. Real change will be about 2 inches, scaremongers claim 6 feet. This is not even junk science, it is just plain junk."

If that's the case why bother with the London Barrage? Ah! High Tides come much ABOVE (including 'Tidal Surges') the 'average' rise of 3 mm a year...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM

My final word...

PDQ says we (okay, maybe only me) only quote links that support us (me).

Absolutely correct!

I have provided no links to opinion or blogs - only data (please go test me on this).

Thank you PDQ for acknowledging that the data support us.

I am truly sorry that I annoyed you with data. Please do enjoy your little world, and I am truly sorry that we disrupted it.

You Win.

Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:02 PM

Don't confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.

Waste of time. I'm out of here too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:46 PM

Zen,

Hate to tell you this but the BBC article you linged to shows a picture of a forlorn woman holding a baby and wading through waist-deep water. Tugging on the heart strings and appealing for ourage are signs of propaganda, pure and simple. The rest of the article is wild speculation.

If you have scientific information to share, you are encouraged to do so. So far what you posted does not make the grade.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Zen
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:34 PM

Like TIA I will now dip out of this debate in deference to the science disputers. As a scientist I have provided scientific links but am now also done.

Good wishes to all on both sides of the argument.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM

I am afraid that the foremost source of 'talking points' is the people who insist that Global Warming is a huge problem. They are also the ones demanding that 3 trillion dollars be ponied up to pay for remedial actions. I heard one activist lady say "pay us now or pay us later". The largest transfer of wealth in history is the 8 trillion spent by developed countries (perhaps we could substitute Western World) on Third World crude oil. At least that money bought something tangible.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:03 PM

I am done with this one. I am providing actual data, not just blogosphere talking points. I am not going to try to explain the separate steric and mass components of sea level (hint: the melting you talk about is only half of the story. Go look it up - I am not doing anyone's homework).

I won't engage in an argument of scientific data vs. blog talking points.

If you feel you have won, I congratulate you. Go in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 05:58 PM

". . . you only find links that support what you believe, nothing more."

Uh-h-mm. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 05:49 PM

If the Global Warming debate really becomes a contest to see who is declared 'winner' and who is declared 'loser', there will be no winner. Everybody will lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 05:10 PM

A long time ago, I saw a fight on TV in which one of the fighters
lost every one of the 10 rounds on the cards of the three judges,
the referee, and 7 out of 7 news media who were reporting the
fight.

Yet the losing fighter argued that he had won!

Can't think of his name right now - probably pdq...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 03:16 PM

First, you only find links that support what you believe, nothing more.

Second, your graph is for 1992-2008 and can not be used to refute my claim which covered 150 years.

Third, the amount of melted ice (and all stored water) that has gone into the ocean does not equal the amount necessary to cause the increase you claim.

Fourth, the public predictions of sea level change get bigger every year, not because of any scientific data, but because the public has become accustomed to the older numbers and must be scared again.

I have heard claims of 6' or more of sea level rise in the next 100 years and the result being flooding of major cities such as New York and Paris. Real change will be about 2 inches, scaremongers claim 6 feet. This is not even junk science, it is just plain junk.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:54 PM

Actually, the correct figure is 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/year (note the per year *not* per decade).

Way larger than the "fact" you provide above.

Graph here:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg

Raw data here:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.txt

Easily still outrun, yes. But mass population shifts invariably lead to conflicts -- usually armed conflicts.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:34 PM

Well, Bill D,

The actual records show that the mean sea level has risen 2mm per decade over the last 150 years.

That is about 1.3 inches total.

Even you can run that fast.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:58 AM

Hearing some naysayers predict little change, or even cooling, reminds me of the guy who called the weather bureau to complain about their forecast.

"Despite what you said, I just stepped out into 6 inches of "partly cloudy".

If water IS in coastal cities in 20-30 years, you may want to remember that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Zen
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:19 AM

For those who are interested in scientific evidence rather than politically-motivated conjecture and opinion here is a BBC News item about a new study that predicts much higher sea-level rises than those forecast by the IPCC.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:14 AM

Interestingly, it is also the "party line" that many diseases are caused by germs. I hear this constantly, and without doubt nor nuance, from the mainstream media, the medical establishment, and my mother, and it makes me, frankly, very suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:50 PM

"fact: There has been absolutely no increase in atmospheric temperature since 1995. With the extremely sophisticated measuring equipment we have in this modern time, we would surely have noticed it if it existed."


This contradicts NOAA. See this graph:

clicky:
global mean temperature (land and ocean) 1901-2000

URL:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

and, BTW, according to the National Climate Data Center, nine of the warmest years ever recorded (records back to 1880), have been *after* 1995.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:41 PM

The news media and global warming peddlers tell us every day that:

                *man produces pollution like carbon dioxide

                *that pollution goes into the atmosphere and produces The Greenhouse Effect

                *The Greenhouse Effect is the cause of Global Warming

Nope, not much doubt, nuance or equivocation there.

I am not debating the correctness right now, just pointing out what the "party line" is on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:32 PM

If anal means using words according to their standard definitions, and interpreting the statements of others with the presumption that they are also using words according to standard definitions, I am guilty as charged. To do any other would simply be kangaroozificatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:30 PM

Thanl you, Wolfgang...Yep...as I said way back up there ^, the theory that oil & gas are 'abiotic' is largely the work one one man...Thomas Gold. I saw him present his ideas several years ago, and had forgotten the name.

His ideas are looked at seriously by VERY few...and usually only by those with the dreaded "political agenda" that pdq decries.

(By the way, pdq...how is it that all these scientists have a political agenda, and you do not?)

In the last analysis, common sense tells us..(well, some of us)...that *IF* current science indicates Global Warming, and calculations indicate that WE are partially responsible, *THEN*, even *IF* we might be wrong, it behooves us to at least err on the side of caution in our use of resources, and attempt to control our population!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:14 PM

"does not become a fuel until it is burning"

Well by that standard, neither would petroleoum... :-)

... and by that standard, Logic.... :-P


"changes in atmospheric CO2 lagging or preceding temperature changes, because it varies with latitude."

Complicating this overly simplistic approach is the fact that there is constant circulation between the various lattitudes...

As to the source of crude oil, it has been established that many large lumps of 'organic matter' whizz around in space. When the Earth coalesced, such lumps would have been ' buried' all over the place... However, I remember clearly being told as a child that oil & coal came from old forests.... so that MUST be true.... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:12 PM

Recent (2006) review of the abiogenic theory

...This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

BOld theories only die with their last adherents. So "absolutely incorrect" (TIA) may be technically wrong but is right for all practical purposes. (By this standard of weighing the evidence, BTW, recent creation may also not be named "absolutely incorrect")

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:10 PM

>>I does not become a fuel until it is burning. That, however, would sound silly, wouldn't it?<<

Yes that would be silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:02 PM

I was an organic chemistry major a one time and I, personally, do not believe that coal and crude oil are from the same source. That is my opinion and I will state it as often as I like.

Far to many people concentrate on words and not on the concepts that those words are trying to convey. If I were as anal as some of Mudcat's regulars, I could point out (technically) that coal is not a fossil fuel, it is a mineral. I does not become a fuel until it is burning. That, however, would sound silly, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:50 PM

Definitions of the term fossil fuel from all over the web

pdq, do you have any source for your definition of fossil fuel? I'd be curious to see it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:34 PM

In the opinion of the American Geological Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:29 PM

Artic slide show.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:24 PM

In your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:22 PM

No one who knows anything has ever claimed that any useful quantities of oil come from dead dinosaurs. It is almost certain that somewhere a dinosaur may have died in a swamp or sunk to the bottom of the ocean, and its remains mixed with other dead organisms, but it feeds a third grader's (mis)understanding of the phrase "fossil fuel" to refer to dead dinosaurs.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that there are any economically exploitable abiogenic oil deposits. As with all true science, this is open to future question and testing.

I stand by the phrase absolutely incorrect, because it referred to your statement that coal is a fossil fuel, but oil is not. That statement is, in fact, absolutely incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

Next point...
One has to be very careful when talking about changes in atmospheric CO2 lagging or preceding temperature changes, because it varies with latitude. In the Antarctic, insolation (solar heating) driven by Milankovitch cycles causes warming, which warms the ocean - causing it to release CO2, which then circulates the globe and enhances the greenhouse effect, in turn affecting temperature. Thus, in Antarctic ice cores, CO2 lags dT, but in Greenland ice cores, it precedes dT. Thus, it is overly simplistic, and not at all illuminating, nor convincing, to simply argue that "CO2 lags T" or vice-versa. The big picture includes positive feedback between Milankovitch effects and CO2-related warming that clearly have gone on long before anthropogenic CO2 production. But, the amplification of Milankovitch effects through oceanic CO2 release certainly should cause one to take a very careful look at the potential effects of anthropogenic CO2 production.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

The phrase "...someone who may well know what he is talking about" was aimed at TIA and clearly does not apply to every poster on this thread.

Russia has sunk many test wells all over their part of the world, and they seem to find useabe quantities of oil every time. It make no diffefence what type of geological formations are at the surface. Bad news is that the wells must go down 5 miles or more. Perhaps 8 miles. It is there, deep in the Earth, and there is no evidence it came from dead dinosaurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 12:48 PM

It is nice to see a post from someone who may well know what he is talking about, but in all fairness, you said:

"Sorry - absolutely incorrect" and immediately proceeded to give an explanation that is far from absolute. You state that oil comes from deep in the Earth and is produced by great heat and pressure, as I also said. You only disagree on the source of the material being acted upon.

Coal is, essentially, pure cabon. It is surely a "fossil fuel".

Crude oil, if sampled in various parts of the world, will contain every element known to man. At least leave the possibility open that the source is not directly from dead plants and animals. That has ben the common assumption for a long time, probably based only on the fact of high carbon content.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Zen
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM

Quite so TIA... I had noticed that odd statement myself.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 12:28 PM

From pdq, 08 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM:

"The term "fossil fuel" applies to coal, but not oil. I was an organic chem major for a while, and, though there is disagreemnt among scientists, many recognise oil as the product of heat and pressure deep in the Earth."

Sorry - absolutely incorrect. According to the Dictionary of Geological Terms published by the American Geological Institute, fossil fuels are any hydrocarbon that can be used for fuel -- principaly natural gas, coal, and oil. I have had this book on my desk daily since the 1970's. Oil may be the product of heat and pressure deep in the Earth, but what are the heat and pressure acting upon? What is the "raw material" for oil? Carbon - organic carbon. To be fair, abiogenic oil production has been performed in the laboratory, and there are viable theories of its presence deep in the Earth, but all economically exploited oil fields produce clearly biogenic oil -- a true fossil fuel.

This is my field of research, practice and teaching. I am hardly a liberal arts major.

I have not read very far or completely in this thread. So I cannot comment further...yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 11:42 AM

Well, maybe we shouldn't cancel global warming just yet. Note the correlations between the observed Western US measurements and those predicted -- matching exactly over fifty years... hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 11:34 AM

An interesting rebuttal to the Global Warming paradigm based in part on more recent satellite measurements which do not detect expected hot spots.

Unfortunately it has a limbic, gloating tone to it which detracts from its analytical stance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 09:12 PM

"let's have a Window Tax!"

:-)

QUOTE
The window tax was a glass tax which was a significant social, cultural, and architectural force in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and then Great Britain during the 17th and 18th centuries. Some houses from the period can be seen to have bricked-up windows, as a result of the tax.
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Computer reference
For more details on this topic, see Criticism of Microsoft#Licensing agreements.

The term is also used in computer market (sometimes referenced as "Microsoft tax"), claiming that all major computers vendors, sell their products with Microsoft Windows OEM pre-installed, and Linux users will pay for those licenses and cannot buy a computer without paying to Microsoft. However, there have been recent reports of Linux users using the terms of the Microsoft End User License Agreement to obtain a refund of this "tax".
UNQUOTE

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:27 PM

IF you do all your thinking in pigeonhole boxes, like that, Sir Q, it explains why you sometimes come up with slightly twisted conclusions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 05:37 PM

One can be extremely biased and absolutely correct.

Not so. The very word "bias" means distorted. It is of course quite possible to be be very sure about a position we have reached, and if we are absolutely correct that is quite justifiable, and in fact necessary. But that isn't the same as "bias" - bias is something that always needs to be taken into account and adjusted for if we are to hit the target we are aiming at, whether we are playing bowls or engaged in discussion and trying to arrive at the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 05:14 PM

Picky, picky, picky. . . .

Where the analogy breaks down, unfortunately, is that humans don't seem to be quite as perceptive as frogs.

("You liberal arts majors." Jeez, pdq, get some new writers!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 03:02 PM

You liberal arts majors keep talking about the "frog-in-the-pot" senario, but scientists have actually done that experiment.

When the frog senses a 1 degree F change in temperature (= 0.7 degree C), it jumps right out of the water.

Unfortunatey, last time the experiment was conducted, the frog jumped clean off the stove, dying of injuries suffered when it hit the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:36 PM

Contemplate for a moment the complacency of the frog sitting in a pot of water, unconcerned with the fact that it is slowly being brought to a boil.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,redsnapper
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 07:30 AM

I only wish it were so ms lemon.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,ms lemon
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:23 AM

But all of this is scare mungering by the world governments to squeeze more taxes. I know, let's have a window tax!

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:47 PM

Thanks for the heads-up, Ebbie.

I googled "Frontline" and "Heat" and came up with a web site that said the program was scheduled to air on Tuesday, April 22. I checked my local PBS affiliate (KCTS Channel 9, Seattle), and they have a listing for "Frontline: Hot Politics" on Tuesday, April 22 at 9:00 p.m. Does this sound like it could be the one? Or is their yet another one coming up?

I checked the PBS web site, "Frontline" page, and came up with THIS.

I checked even further, and came up with a web page where you can stream a whole bunch of "Frontline" programs on your computer! HERE.

Again, thanks!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 08:04 PM

This being Folk Festival week, today I sat in front of the television, cat on lap, to take a nap.

I woke up when the content of the show running started seeping into my brain.

Evidently in October of this year, Frontline will be airing a documentary - called Heat - that may prove a bit disturbing to some.

One of the statements made was that in order to sustain our quality of life by the year 2050, (or 2025?) we will have to reduce Earth's CO2 levels by 60% to 80%. And a scientist is quoted as saying, That is not an achievable goal.

The speaker said that the gist of the findings are already available on the net.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:57 PM

The Denial Industry

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:52 PM

PDQ:
"Let's try to fix real problems. If there are climate problems, we did not cause them and we certainly cannot fix them. We can just observe"

Does that mean you can kiss your ass as it waves good-bye to you before it flies, or would you prefere to kiss it after you've done nothing to prevent it from it's non-stop solo observation flight. Let the rest of us try to do something while you watch with your finger stuck in the dike. At least get out of the way, obstacle.

"The earth will survive". Yes, and I'd like me & mine to be part of it when it does.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:45 PM

That I agree with. Save for the fact that if one is getting information from a source that is already established as biased, it requires just that much more in the way of rigorous verification.

Although one should be rigorous at all times.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:24 PM

Hate to tell you, unca Donald, but "unbiased" and "correct" are not even closely related. One can be extremely biased and absolutely correct. Much better that than unbiased and totally wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:19 PM

Well, pdq, judging from some of the opinions you have expressed on the global warming issue, I don't think I can count on you for unbiased information.

On matters of oceanography, a former singing partner of mine back in the 60s is an oceanographer, and her husband is also an oceanographer. Their special concern right now is that the increase in the temperature of the oceans is killing off the coral reefs--or rather, the organisms that build them. And if you want to know about the disastrous effect this will have on the aquatic portion of our biosphere, I'll ask Judy to recommend a few books for you to read. In fact, she and her husband have written a few themselves. By the way, they're not just theoretical desk-jockeys. I just heard that Judy had been awarded some kind of certificate for logging an incredible number of hours underwater using scuba gear.

On cosmology, astronomy, and planetology, I have a whole bookshelf full of books, both old and recent. on those subjects. And I have read them (except for Michio Kaku's latest, which I'm looking forward to). I have quite and extensive science library. For the latest information, I have Scientific American, Science, Nature, Astronomy, and more generally, Smithsonian Magazine and others available to me. I read them regularly. I took a couple of astronomy courses at the University, and even logged in a little telescope time.

Meteorology? A couple of people, including a professor at the University of Washington. I also have a friend in the Astrobiology department at the U. of W. Quite an interesting field, that. Astrobiology (studying extreme conditions here on Earth, with a focus on life-bearing planets in general and the conditions necessary for life to exist at all) subsumes a number of planetary sciences.

By the way, did you know that there is a whole variety of living organisms living in the 700 degree water near "black smokers" (volcanic vents) in the ocean's floors? They get their energy, not from the sun, but from the heat. The water is able to achieve such high temperatures without boiling or vaporizing because of the extreme pressure at those depths.

This is just for openers.

If I was a Liberal Arts major (English, Creative Writing, and later, Music), why did I take so many science courses? My ambition, as a writer, was not to write the Great American Novel, but the Great Galactic Novel. Science fiction. Hard science fiction. So in the same way that someone who wants to write historical novels (and keep the history accurate) needs to study history, I made it a point to have a good, overall knowledge of science. And for anything I felt a bit shaky on, I made sure that I knew who to consult.

It was later that I took up music. But my interest in writing and in science has never abated.

Thanks for the offer, though.

Don Firth

P. S. The internet is also a good source of scientific information, provided one gets that information from sources one knows to be both authoritative and reliable.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 08:32 PM

Sorry -- details are here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 08:28 PM

Physics Today, current online edition,, reports:

"Trends in the hydrology of the western US bear the imprint of manmade climate change
Water managers may no longer be safe in assuming that resources will remain within their historical range of uncertainty.

April 2008, page 16


Figure 1
The snowpack in the western US has been declining over the past 50 yearsÑa trend that should alarm urban dwellers of Los Angeles as much as skiers in Park City, Utah. Furthermore, the snow runoff has been occurring earlier in the year, so that less water flows through rivers during the later months of the summer. The decreasing river flow further stresses a region that is experiencing drier summer conditions. In the past few years, large and intense fires have ravaged western forests, and water levels in the region's critical reservoirs have dropped to alarmingly low levels. Lake Mead in Arizona and Nevada, a lifeblood of cities and farms in the Southwest, is currently only half full, as seen in figure 1.
The West has, of course, experiencedÑand survivedÑsuch dry spells before. The current one may be no more than a pendulum swing of the natural climate cycle. Still, hydrologists can't help suspecting that manmade additions of greenhouse gases and aerosols to the atmosphere are affecting the regional climate system. Scientists who participated in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have deduced that greenhouse-gas emissions account for most of the planet's recent warming on a global scale.1 It's much harder, however, to detect the impact of those human-induced changes on a specific region.

Nevertheless, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a team of other climate scientists set out to do just that. Team members hail from Scripps, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the University of Washington, and the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Japan. They compared the predictions of computer climate models to the measurements of three temperature-sensitive hydrological variables in many different regions of the western US.2 Only by including greenhouse gases and aerosols in the model simulations could they adequately reproduce the spatial and temporal pattern of the changes that have been observed over the past 50 years. They concluded that up to 60% of the trends in river flow, in minimum winter air temperature, and in spring snowpack over the past half century are human induced.

Earlier studies with computer climate models had predicted that manmade climate change would bring a more arid climate to the southwestern US.3 The paper by Barnett's team goes further by attributing the observed changes to global warming, comments Ronald Stouffer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). The new study, he notes, finds that not only warmer temperatures but also temperature-related hydrological parameters are consistent with the human fingerprint.

Julio Betancourt of the US Geological Survey in Tucson, Arizona, added that people studying the time series of many climate-related variables had been noticing a rather sudden change, an inflection point, around the mid-1980s.4 "They wondered whether the change was due to natural variability or to the greenhouse-gas impact," said Betancourt. "The jury was out until the Barnett group's paper came along.""

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:10 PM

I will be more than generous with my time, Don. Just let me know when a scientific issue stumps you. Least I can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:11 PM

Gee, I just noticed! Anyone who is concerned about global warming and environmental degradation is now a "Liberal Arts" major. Well, it just happens that some of we Liberal Arts majors also have a damn good education—not to mention experience working—in the sciences. And if there is anything in the sciences that I'm unsure about, I know who to ask.

We do love to try to kill the messenger, don't we, pdq?

GUEST,Wolfy complains of all the "not one mentions" he (didn't) encounter, indicating that he didn't look at the sites linked to. There is plenty there, and more. Then Wolfy goes on to enunciate the "Pollyanna" verses that were previously spoken by Charlton Heston in a little dissertation he gave, adding his voice to attempts to debunk global warming, on the longevity and durability of the planet Earth.

Quite right. Planet Earth will indeed survive, no matter what we puny humans do to try to poison it.

But—will we puny humans?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 03:17 PM

I worked for a time as a technical writer for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. This gave me a bit of insight into the way that power companies work.

The Department of Energy commissioned the BPA to find new, economical sources of electrical power. After much research and number-crunching the minions of the BPA came up with an answer they didn't like. So they redid the research, tried their damnedest to shuffle and reshuffle the numbers, but they kept coming up with the same answer. The most economical new source of electricity was not building more power dams. Nor was it building coal-fired power plants. Nor did it involve building anything.

Conservation.

There was much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the upper reaches of the BPA, but the incontrovertible facts led them, kicking and screaming, to that unavoidable conclusion. Biting the bullet, they decided to initiate a program that funded residential weatherization. Local Public Utility Districts advertised the program, urging people who heated with electricity to allow the PUD to hire a local contractor and insulate their homes, and apply a number of other measures, such as installing double-paned windows. This would be free to the home owner, or at very low cost. The home owners who chose to participate loved it because it lowered their heating bills by a substantial amount. And since each individual home used less electricity (and a lot of people took advantage of the program), that freed up a great wad of electrical power to be used elsewhere. Mission accomplished!

Where I came into it was that all the houses in the program were inspected after the work was done to make sure it was done to code (some local contractors did try to cut corners, we found), and I was the guy who compiled the inspectors' reports as they came in and wrote a synopsis of them in semi-plain English so the folks upstairs could decide whether to cut the local contractor a check or not. And also to keep track of how well the program was going.

It went so well, in fact, that Washington State initiated a similar program for people who heated with oil, and I wound up writing inspection reports for them, too.

While I was sitting there poking away at the computer, I kept my eyes and ears open and had a chance to watch a number of very interesting people in action. It turned out to be quite an education!

Suffice it to say that, although the home owners who heated with oil loved the Oil Help program, the oil companies were very unhappy. It seems that they felt the Oil Help program was eating into their profits and they tried a variety of political and legal gambits—unsuccessful, happily enough—in an effort to stop the Oil Help program.

Anything like conservation or environmental considerations were just not part of their thinking. The only operating principle seems to be "Sell More Oil!"

But what are they going to do when the limited supplies finally run out? I keep hearing the same figure. The earth's known oil reserves should last for maybe another forty years. The hope of the oil companies is in unknown reserves. And should more oil be found, at the rate it is being consumed, how much longer will that last? What is needed—NOW—are alternatives to oil, and coal. None polluting, renewable energy resources. They're out there, just for the taking, and there is a lot of profit to be made from developing them.

But many of these folks have no sense of the future beyond making the next quarterly report look good. Beyond that, they are not even taking into consideration their own future. What are they going to do when the oil runs out?

And for those who don't get the point, let me spell it out:   This is not a matter of "Left-Green" thinking, nor is it a matter of politics. It is a matter of simple good business sense. How are you going to make a profit—or even a living—selling widgets when there are no more widgets?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 02:04 PM

The GEO 4 report is 570 pages because that insures nobody will read it. They will only read the conclusion section, which is, as usual, only opinion.


PDQ:

WIth all due respect, this is the bluntest piece of reactionary BS invective I have ever read. Surely you jest?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:59 PM

The current population explosion will destroy the finest arable land, not the mythical global wrming. The Great Central Valley of California,te greatest food producing region on planet Earth, will be a net food importer by 2050. That same year, Nigeria is expect to reach a population of over 300 million, up from the present 55 million. Yes, Nigeria will equal the current population of the vast United States!

Let's try to fix real problems. If there are climate problems, we did not cause them and we certainly cannot fix them. We can just observe.

Also respectfully submitted,

"pdq"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: redsnapper
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM

pdq... some may of course suggest that the UNEP GEO-4 is politically-motivated, but the fact remains that extensive lists of references of the scientific input are available at the end of each section. And I do not think I am not doing what a liberal arts major does... whatever that is... rather quoting from a source which itself is fully scientifically-referenced.

fact is that about 1.8 degrees F will produce world-wide abundance of food due to about 30% increase in crop yield. Well that is theoretically possible... if climatic and other changes haven't destroyed the arable land to grow it on.

Respectfully,

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

Not trying to pick a fight with you, redsnapper, but you are doing the same thing the liberal arts majors do. You are simply quoting sites that have a political agenda.

GEO is part of the UN and UN money (20% of which must come from the United States) paid for collecting data and writing. The GEO 4 report is 570 pages because that insures nobody will read it. They will only read the conclusion section, which is, as usual, only opinion.

UN activists are trying to turn this into the second biggest transfer of wealth, about 3 trillion dollars, from developed countries to the Third World. The planned confiscation does not include India, China, Indonesia, etc., most of the world's people will not be asked to make any sacrifice at all.

To put the number in perspective, developed countries have transferred about 8 trillion dollars by buying oil. The US National Debt stands at about 9 trillion. Golbal warming remedialtion is really about fixing something that is not broken. I want that 3 trillion spent on health care, road repair, cancer reaserch, and other proper causes.

You quote one source which says "Some scientists believe a 2°C increase in the global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels is a threshold beyond which the threat of major and irreversible damage..."

Well, fact is that about 1.8 degrees F will produce world-wide abundance of food due to about 30% increase in crop yield. Unfortunatly, for the next generation of Third World babies, such an increase is extremely unlikely as Man's activities have no affect on the climate at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:24 PM

Unfortunately, your Milankovich cycles do not provide the nul hypothesis.

Statistically, the range of known temperatures prior to the rampup of increasing carbon emissions (which began increasing dramatically in the early Industrial Age) does not actually touch the range of our most recent and projected measurements. This is one reason why average T is being viewed as function of increasing atmospheric C.

Additionally, the rates of change of Milankovich cycles do not appear, on first review, to be at all consistent with the rates of change being measured in environmental T. This miltates against these cycles being the causative agent.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: redsnapper
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:03 PM

A slightly fuller extract concerning global warming:

There is now "visible and unequivocal" evidence of the impacts of climate change, and consensus that human activities have been decisive in this change: global average temperatures have risen by about 0.74°C since 1906. A best estimate for this century's rise is expected to be between a further 1.8°C and 4°C. Some scientists believe a 2°C increase in the global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels is a threshold beyond which the threat of major and irreversible damage becomes more plausible.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: redsnapper
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:56 AM

Well... I happen to be a professional scientist with some 35 years working experience. Anyone interested in the evidence as it stands at present could do worse that look at the

Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO - 4) Report

This link is for the English language version, other language versions are available. (Warning... some 570 pages!). All the sections give an extensive list of references. The Report does not make for very happy reading.

While the Report is about much more than climate change, the section dealing with the atmosphere does say

Climate change is a major globalchallenge. Impacts are already evident, and changes in water availability, food security and sea-level rise are projected to dramatically affect many millions of people. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (principally CO2) are the main drivers of change. There is now visible and unequivocal evidence of climate change impacts. There is confirmation that the Earth's average temperature has increased by
approximately 0.74°C over the past century.

The very last sentence of the report concludes

...the scenarios point to the need to act quickly. Our common future depends on our actions today, not tomorrow or some time in the future.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:23 AM

Thanks for that post, GUEST,Wolfy. Here is a link to an explanation of your Milankovich (also spelled Milankovitch or called Croll-Milankovich) cycles:

                   written in easy-to-understand language

Guest,Wolfy....if you have a degree is science, you need to post more often. Over 99% of the posts on Mudcat are by liberal arts majors. People with degrees in philosophy, journalism, English lit or humanities often have a hard time seeing through the smoke-and-mirrors crowd who produce most of the internet sites with hidden political agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Wolfy
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 08:13 AM

I have read all comments posted with much interest. There has been only one reply that has been influential and informative. Global Warming is an emotive issue and its fires are stoked by politicians and their greed. We should do all we can to look past their greed.
The one factor, which is the most important, seems to have been overlooked. The Earth is more than capable of looking after itself. We are all Emmets (little ants) in the grand scheme. Crucial to this is the Earth's ability to restore its balance, whilst still remaining in productive chaos. There are positive and negative feedback mechanisms in play that operate for every nanosecond that we waste our emotions in worry.
I have not read one mention of increases in the water and carbon cycle with direct regard to increased deep sea carbon burial, the importance of the Tibetan Plateau, chemical weathering of siliceous lithography and atmospheric carbon drawdown. Not one mention of the importance of upland areas in the Holocene or geographical distribution of plate tectonics. Not one mention of sun spot cycles, paleo-magnetic origination or planetary pole flip. Not one mention of Milankovich cycles, delta carbon13 correlations or oxygen18 indicators. All of these are of vital importance in any warming debate. (I ain't never heard a politician mention them either).
My advice to the readers would be not to worry about such a trivial thing as perceived human atmospheric content intervention and advise you should all concentrate on more relevant matters. Mother Earth is billions of years old and she has billions to go.. she will still be here when the human species has evolved upwards or destroyed its trace completely. She doesn't need or want our help.
Power to the people!!!

W

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:36 AM

As far as NASA's receiving federal funds for research into global warming is concerned, have you checked the federal government's position on global warming lately? The idea that NASA is influenced by federal funds to promote the idea of global warming just doesn't wash.

Check the link I put in a post above marked TOUCHE!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:22 AM

By the same token, PDQ, there is a lot more money available to researchers in evolution than there is to those seeking to prove intelligent design. And more for geophysicists who accept satellite measurements of the globe than those seeking to prove a flat-earth hypothesis. And more for the study of thermal properties of materials than for the analysis of phlogiston tides. The reason is that as more data has been gathered and verified, humans interested in progressing reject the more stupid for the less stupid, because it hads been found over the millennia that the stupid ideas are more harmful to survival broadly than the less stupid ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:20 PM

Particularly to the point:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Karin
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:11 PM

There is probably a combination of natural climate change AND global warming in place now. The town that I live in (Waveland, MS) was completely wiped off he map in 2005... hurricane Katrina... we were point zero. Our climate has been changing in an obvious/noticeable way for several years. This winter has been very strange. 'Something' is happening. I could list major southern lakes that are drying up ~if you like :) ~In any case, there were tornadoes in the middle of Atlanta last month and when I was up in Jackson this weekend whole sections of of the city had been destroyed by tornadoes...all of this activity is unusual.
Didn't the UK have some horrible flooding in Sheffield that was considered unusual. I remember seeing the images in the news.
As for NASA being under the government thumb...hmm...I think the bush administration is doing as little as possible to help end human participation in Global warming...so if the bush admin is pressuring NASA it doesn't add up for me. Bush is an oil man and so is the VP. I don't think the government cares, they do exactly as they please without regard for science or man.
Something is happening to the climate and it isn't exactly the norm as we've known it. Climate change~Global Warming...or both.
Get ready for the water wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:08 PM

Okay, pdq, NASA it is. CLICKY.
ANOTHER HELPING.
TOUCHÉ.
LOTSA STUFF HERE (links).

But all that money is going to influence their findings, right? So NASA's just another one of those pesky "Left-Green think tanks."

Well, pdq, this is not for your benefit, but for the enlightenment and edification of those who like to make up their own minds.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:21 PM

"Laypeople, in this case, means non-scientists, and implies 'people do not know what they are talking about.'"

Wrong. There are "laypeople" who often know as much about a specific field as specialists in that field. Sometimes even more.

"Laypeople" is one of those pejorative terms that incompetents like to toss out when questioned by someone without a degree in the field, even when--especially when--the expert in the field says something that is obviously ridiculous.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:15 PM

Weak Don. Real weak. Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:13 PM

In short, anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint. By definition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 09:54 PM

ms lemon's post of   09 Apr 08 - 10:25 AM is also a link to a NASA site. The content of each site is controlled by a "Responsible NASA official" whose name can be found at the bottom of the text.

I have no problem with the NASA sites. Good information, but remember something. They receive huge amounts of federal money and studies of "global warming" will keep many people working. They will be out of work if the concept is proven false. Same with college studies, federal research grants, expose books and Green websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 09:35 PM

pdq, there is not just one author there, there are several. I tend to suspect that any scientific research center whose findings don't agree with your preconceptions is a "Left-Green think tank."

How about NOAA? How about NASA? Are they also "Left-Green think tanks?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:25 PM

Well, unca Donald, you question the veracity of any source that does not pass your political lithmus test, so perhaps others have the right to question your source.

It is a Left-Green think tank on a college campus in the "People's Republic of Massachusetts".

It is nice to see the quote by Paul Ehrlich, a fine man with whom I was on a first name basis at one time. The quote you linked to is:

       "Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong." - Paul Ehrlich

Laypeople, in this case, means non-scientists, and implies "people do not know what they are talking about".

The author of the article also gives his opinion that "It is human nature to protect your own interests."

Another true statement. There is an almost unlimited amount of research money available for those wish to support global warming and next to no money to people who will not support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 05:15 PM

The Greenhouse Effect.
The Culprits.
Consequences.
The Skeptics.

"We must no longer think of human progress as a matter of imposing ourselves on the natural environment. The world—the climate and all living things—is a closed system; what we do has consequences that eventually will come back to affect us."    —United Nations Environmental Program

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:20 AM

MEasuring global warming at the atmosphere to ground level substantiates the warming hypothesis, while measuring it at the stratosphere inverts it. This is exactly the effect you would predict if your hypothesis was that atmospheric carbon was creating the greenhouse effect, reducing heat loss by transfer out of the atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:04 AM

'Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1)."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:01 AM

ms lemon...the last article you cited is great. Everyone should read it begining to end.

It covers several points including the need plants have for CO2. Also addresses the points about increased rain, crop productivity and others.

It also shows that, from 1950 to 1994, the West got warmer, the Rocky Mountain states got wetter, and the East got colder.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:30 AM

The "CO" was probably caused by the subscript being dropped in the copy prosess.

Of course carbon dioxide (CO2) is the gas being discussed by global warming fans, not carbon monoxide (CO).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:25 AM

Does this have anything to do with anything?

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM

I think we should cut down or even ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide   It's a chemical found in reservoirs and lakes. Causing dreadful problems and adds to the Global Warming which will kill us all.

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 02:46 AM

Water, Barry, What's that?

We've only got Coke and Pepsi left...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 01:34 AM

"1994" I can't believe that anyone would base their beliefs on scientific data that's so old in relation to todays technology. The Earth's still flat, is the learning curve that you're swearing by. GPS, Thermo & Nuclear imaging, we even understand Polar Bears Porpoises now when they tell us that not only are the caps melting but the snow packs on the Earths highest mountain ranges are disappearing so rapidly that Lake Meade is now half of what it once was when 1st damned only a few yrs ago. Even the rivers have given up, the Colorado is going the way of the Platte.
Whew, it's getting hot in here, would some one pass the water,,,,,,,,,OH SHIT!!!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:22 AM

"In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores."

I think that what was meant was CO2 - NOT CO! CO would eventually kill most things...

I remember hearing a while ago that this 'effect' was more wishful thinking that proven fact - I know of no such proper research tests undertaken. And the 'bigger is better' theory forgets to take into account mere physics - the structure of an ant, for instance will not let it survive if it were to grow to the size of an elephant - genetics will inhibit most plants 'growing to double their size' and surviving - The 'Intelligent Design' promoters rebel at the idea that such plants would be able to 'evolve' to 'survive' in the changed situation...


"Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent."

In ONLY SOME areas, and also the droughts will increase in the rest... funny how the proponents of that keep omitting the second, even more important bit, especially for Australia... when the Murray Darling dries up, as it is currently in the process of, then Australia's food bowl is kaput... and we have already built houses, roads, and factories over lots of the areas previously used to grow food...


"amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere lags behind the temperature increase"

Ah... now you have the problem of just how do you measure this - and taking into account that the original deniers of 'change' used this argument, now you want to disallow this argument? heheheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:24 PM

*grin*...but those don't agree with Baden!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 10:32 PM

Okey dokey, pdq, here you go.

Ecobridge.
CLICKY #1.

Woods Hole Research Center.
CLICKY #2.

Earth Observatory (NASA).
CLICKY #3/

This is just for openers. I could give you several dozen more, but my wife just called me to get ready for dinner.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:49 PM

It is just one article. You asked me to support my contentions and I have done so. Your turn to show sheets, not just be a critic.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:39 PM

By the way, since 1994, some of the passages in the Baden-O'Brien article cited in red have been demonstrated—by events—as just plain wrong.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:36 PM

"...does anyone have any idea of just how warm and dry a previously inhospitable climate may become?

Well, the scientific models do not support the idea the Earth will become dry and inhospitable at all. The increase in temeperature will be modest, less the 2 degrees F, and will be mostly due to a rise in the minimum temperature. This will produce an increase in H2O evaporation > increase in humidity > increase in rainfall > increase in plant growth and crop yield > increase in O2 production, an integral part of plant photosynthesis. Yes, a limited amount of global warming is the best thing we can hope for to counter the outrageous population growth in the Third World.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:35 PM

huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

Well, this is certainly not accurate. China right now is choking on some of the most polluted air in the world. Their enlightened self-interest is prompting them to find ways to cut back their carbon emissions. They are trying out new and cutting edge technologies and urban planning methods that will both reduce greenhouse gas as well as reduce the pollutants in their air. A side benefit will be that they will have a competitive edge when they take these new technologies and methods to market. The US, because of its unwillingness to be a world leader in this respect, will be playing catch-up in the new sustainable technologies market for a long time. The benefits of being at the cutting edge of these technologies is great. The negative consequences of intransigence on this issue are enormous.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:34 PM

John A. Baden, Ph.D., is head of FREE (Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment), a right-wing think-tank best known for the junkets it hosts each year for Federal Judges and its effort to indoctrinate those judges in Libertarian ideology. FREE receives major funding from Shell, ExxonMobil, General Motors as well as the usual extreme right wing philanthropic funds such as Olin, Castle Rock and Claude Lamb.

John Baden is also a past member of the National Petroleum Council.

I would hardly take his word as unbiased scientific evidence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:21 PM

It's true, turning the planet into a greenhouse could produce some BIG plants; as well as wipe out a lot of real estate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:02 PM

Has anyone given thought to the end result? Yes, I can see that crops may grow bigger and for longer as chilly lands warm up and stay warm longer. But does anyone have any idea of just how warm and dry a previously inhospitable climate may become?

Reminds me of a friend of mine. Knowing himself to be a bit of a spendthrift, he married a woman whose frugality he admired.

They didn't stay married long - turned out she wouldn't let him spend an unnecessary penny.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:14 PM

Bill D,

What may be alarming, if you think about it, is the fact that the issue has been politicized so badly that the 1994 facts are now regarded as blasphemy.

Note: Dr. Baden supports my clain, here questioned, that global warming would be very helpful in the production of food to feed our exploding population:

"In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:58 PM

Can I take it that you will not give Amos's link a listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM

Yes...in **1994** the issue was not quite clear yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:53 PM

In the Seattle Times, March 23, 1994

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders.
by John A. Baden, Ph.D. and Tim O'Brien

Some of the questions raised in this column are addressed in FREE's forthcoming book, "Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance."

THE global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of the political process.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13, 1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super-hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent.

Amidst the uncertainties, one thing is certain: Some groups benefit if the public believes global warming is a genuine crisis that can only be stopped with massive political mobilization. Irresponsible efforts by these groups fuel fears of widespread drought and crop failures, of super powerful hurricanes, of oceans engulfing coastal cities, and of blazing summer temperatures. How do they gain by hyping global warming?

For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.

Insurance companies may also gain from government efforts to control global warming. Insurers are motivated more by profits than ideology. If global warming causes increased hurricane damage or floods, they may lose immense amounts of money. Massive carbon taxes or regulation may halt warming and their losses. Since they as taxpayers will pay only a trivial portion of any regulatory bill, it is reasonable for them to seek such measures. If global warming never manifests, they lose little, but society loses a lot.

When making decisions and facing uncertainty, responsible people evaluate the most likely costs and benefits of alternative strategies. Given our current understanding, the changes wrought by global warming may well bring small costs or perhaps benefits. Massive prevention programs will surely be expensive, they will slow economic progress worldwide. Moreover, delaying action for a few years, while our understanding of climate change improves, is likely to lead to more prudent policies. If substantial warming is going to occur, a few years delay will make very little difference.

The global warming debate is far from settled. In deciding what to do, we should consider both the merits of the arguments and the possibility that they are being manipulated for hidden agendas. If we do not, we are likely to be stampeded into public policies with huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

John A. Baden, Ph.D., is Chairman of FREE and Gallatin Writers.

Tim O'Brien contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:34 PM

". . . only the facts should be subject to such scrutiny."

Yes! And I'm asking you to cite the sources for your assertions so we can determine whether or not they are, indeed, facts.

Philosophy 115:   Principles of Logic.

I take it from your ducking and dodging that you are unable to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:29 PM

"...many recognise oil as the product of heat and pressure deep in the Earth."

Is that the strange theory put forth by mostly ONE guy that oil did NOT come from organic carbon? If so, 'many' certainly do NOT recognize any such thing!

"...testimony given must be assumed truthful until it is substantially impeached."

Ummm..sure...
You making any distinction here between 'truthful' and 'accurate'?

Sorry, pdq, but you are just strewing the landscape with vague assertions:

"fact: There has been absolutely no increase in atmospheric temperature since 1995. "

Well..take a look at these graphs from NASA

and this one

It is the case that the changes in global climate may actually cause some cooler temperatures and more snow, etc. in some areas...but glaciers ARE retreating, the Antarctic icecap is breaking up...and ask a few Polar Bears about the extent of their Winter hunting grounds.

It sure seems to me that some folks have an interest in seeing certain ideas promoted, and are picking & choosing among the data and studies to support pre-chosen conclusions.

Now prove ME wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:27 PM

Hey, PDQ.

Watch Gore's little talk. It's short.

Which of the facts he presents do you feel are wrong? The pictures of the reduced polar icecap?

Let's get specific here. Stop waving your arms and generalizing like a panic-stricken teenager.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:16 PM

As usual, a Mudcat discussion is being distorted in an attempt to discredit people, when only the facts should be subject to to such scrutiny.

If you don't like those facts, unca Donald, present some information you do like. Baiting is a poor response at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:12 PM

Facts that originate in one's own head and heart, Don, are much more fun. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:06 PM

Within my experience, if someone asserts something as a fact and is challenged on it, those folks who have substantiation for there assertions are only too happy to cite it. Those who are asserting an opinion as a "fact" frequently get a bit hinky about it when challenged, and often try to divert the discussion from the weakness of their argument by accusing the challenger of trying to stifle debate.

It's a long-established principle of rational debate (Aristotle, I believe) that the person who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof.

I do not get my "scientific facts frome MoveOn.org or Mother Jones News." Neither do I get them from Rush Linbaugh or Fox News Service.   

Where do you get your scientific "facts?" That's all I.m asking. And it's a fair question to ask you to provide support for what you assert are "facts."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:01 PM

Actually, from the point of view of the law, fase statements are to be considered rare and abhorrant. Therefore, testimony given must be assumed truthful until it is substantially impeached.

I did get bill Monroe's birthday wrong, but that was because I took it "off the top of my head". I also misstated the amount of money a single working person could earn before paying any taxes under the George W. Bush tax reduction plan. I said it was 30K when it was closer to 28K. Again, not a mortal sin.

I will put my record of accuracy up against any Mudcat member, except Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:52 PM

What a wonderful presentation. What a tragedy that Gore has not been in our government for a decade. But what an opportunity we have now. As he says, we, as a civilization, have the opportunity to become the generation that future people will celebrate.
However, if Gore and people like him don't get into government in this next election the opportunity diminishes dramatically, imo.

Al Gore is adamant about the fundamentals. He has a great line in there, something like: Tapping into tar sands and shale oil is the energy equivalent of a junkie, when the veins in his arms and legs collapse, finding and utilizing veins in his toes.

A new body, The Alliance for Climate Protection, or something like that, is being formed.

Do take the time to watch the presentation, folks.

Thank you, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:26 PM

Why isn't Ron Davies also here demanding "proof"? Is the poor guy sick or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:25 PM

Just because you can't get scientific facts frome MoveOn.org or Mother Jones News does not mean you cannot find them if you look. Nice way to keep you out of trouble, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:19 PM

You know better than that, pdq. You made the assertions, claiming them to be "facts," so the burden of proof is yours.

Why are you reluctant to name them? Are you afraid your sources (presuming there are any, beyond your own opinion) are insufficiently authoritative?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:09 PM

Borrowing katlaughing's favorite trick to stifle discussion, are we, unca Donald? You do some research that proves me wrong and I will listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:00 PM

I swan it could make your head explode if you didn't have a tough hide:

"An online ABC News article on the "surrogate wars" of this year's presidential election quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an ardent supporter of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) candidacy, saying that McCain has "earned a reputation…of doing things that put the country ahead of party." As an example, Graham cited McCain's environmental record, claiming that it's stronger that former Vice President Al Gore's:

"He's not going to run away from President Bush but at the end of the day, John McCain has earned a reputation, and has the scars to show it, of doing things that put the country ahead of party," Graham said, noting McCain has differed with the party on immigration, his desire to close Guantanamo Bay, and enacting robust climate change policies.

"Climate change is the road less traveled but he's traveled it even more than Al Gore," Graham said. "Al Gore has talked about it and deserves great recognition but he was around here a long time and never introduced a bill."

On its face, Graham's claim is laughable. But digging deeper into the substance, it rings of pure absurdity. In fact, Gore held the first congressional hearings on climate change in the late 1970s, well before McCain was even elected to Congress.

In 1997, Gore helped broker the Kyoto Protocol which called for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the passing of a Senate resolution stating that the U.S should not join Kyoto, Gore symbolically signed the protocol in November, 1998. While McCain voted for the resolution condemning Kyoto, he claims today that "we have an obligation" to cut greenhouse gases but still thinks the U.S. "did the right thing by not joining the Kyoto treaty."

Moreover, the evidence shows that McCain is confused on environmental issues. He now supports ethanol despite previously criticizing it. McCain has talked tough on capping carbon emissions but failed to even vote on key Senate legislation addressing the issue. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to understand his own position on cap-and-trade:

In the Republican debate in Florida, he denied that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap on carbon. (One wonders what he thought that first word was doing in there.) He has said he won't support a cap-and-trade bill unless it includes extra support for nuclear power (because nuclear power is low-carbon), not seeming to grok the fact that the whole point of a cap-and-trade program is to raise prices on carbon, offering a de facto subsidy to all low-carbon options. ..."

Huffington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:22 PM

"In Al Gore's brand-new slideshow (premiering exclusively on TED.com), he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission" -- the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right. Gore's stirring presentation is followed by a brief Q&A in which he is asked for his verdict on the current political candidates' climate policies and on what role he himself might play in future. " (Precis on the site linked above).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM

AL Gore, speaking at TED, has opened a new presentation on the exacerbation of global warming: link here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:18 PM

Substantiation for those "facts," pdq? Sources, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:13 PM

My statement was accurate, and so is yours, pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:52 PM

A tiny correction still may be needed. It is the money generated by carbon-based resources that leads to war and human suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:17 PM

Ok, I'll change my terminology. The burning of carbon based fuels causes many kinds of pollution - carbon monoxide being only one - that are causing enormous health and environmental problems all over the world. Also, the process of extracting and transporting carbon based fuels such as coal and oil are causing an enormous amount of pollution. The wars that are being waged for these resources have a devastating effect on human life as well as on the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

"Sometimes one word, the correct answer, will trump 50,000 words of opinion and BS."

SHHH!!!!

Oh, you are a real troublemaker aren't you, pdq? An out and out subversive! Well, we have ways of dealing with you, my friend. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM

fact: The amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere lags behind the temperature increase, not the other way around.

fact: Plants take in CO2 and give back O2. More carbon dioxide is a good thing overall, especially since it will cause crops, actually plants in general, to thrive.

fact: There has been absolutely no increase in atmospheric temperature since 1995. With the extremely sophisticated measuring equipment we have in this modern time, we would surely have noticed it if it existed.

fact: Most of the loss of biodiversity if from overpopulation. We now have 6.8 billion people and the growth may not even slow much until we get to 12 billion. Fortunately, most of us will be gone by then and will not have to see the wars, famine on disease that will result.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:43 PM

Sometimes one word, the correct answer, will trump 50,000 words of opinion and BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:43 PM

Excessive CO2 is not a pollutant, except that it has a significant effect in exacerbating the greenhouse effect.

Maybe your organic chem studies didn't incllude that part.

And if petroleum does not come from organic carbon, which is arguable, it would still cause bad effects when being burned -- such as NiOx by products, and greenhosue effects -- AND still draw down a limited resource when used.

So the point is really moot as far as global warming is concerned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

NOOOOOO!!!!! PDQ You are the man speaking the most sence here.
Every one else believes what they are told by the governments and not looking into the science of it all. Read my link again.

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:41 PM

I said 50,000 words. You're not even close, man. Go back to the end of the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:35 PM

It is the burning of fossil fuels and the by-products being poured into the atmosphere that is one of the major cause of global warming, and this matter is not in dispute, except by those who have a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels—oil companies, coal companies, etc. So the two issues are inextricably linked.

The very conservative Jerry Pournelle, a well-known science fiction writer who has solid science credentials (two PhDs), has worked in the aerospace industry, was a science advisor to President Ronald Reagan (Citizens' Advisory Council on National Space Policy), and was an advocate for SDI—as I said, very conservative—once made the statement that fossil fuels are a limited resource, and when it's gone, it's gone. And, he goes on to say, there are so many essential products made from petroleum, including everything from life-saving pharmaceuticals to the barrels of ball-point pens, that "to deplete the diminishing supply of oil by burning it to produce energy, especially when you consider the non-polluting, renewable alternatives that are available, is a crime against the future!"

And that from hard-charging conservative—but one who is very knowledgeable about matters of astronomy and (most relevant in this context) planetology.

Far from costing jobs, cutting down sharply on the use of fossil fuels and developing renewable alternatives will create jobs and stimulate the economy. The elimination of global warming causing pollution from fossil fuels and the creation of new non-polluting industry (profits to be made!). Two for the price of one. Why are business-oriented conservatives against this?

One reason I would hypothesize is a short-sighted tendency to concentrate on the next quarterly report and immediate profit rather than planning intelligently for even better returns in the future.

Don Firth

P. S. Some wag once made the comment that "We'll have solar power when someone figures out a way to run a sunbeam through a meter!"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM

Okay, I've just burned up another piece of my life reading this frikkin' thread...and you're still ALL wrong! Every danged last one of you. You heard me. All of you. Yeah. You're wrong. So there. Dead wrong. Bloody well wrong to the nines!

Let's fight about it. He who reaches 50,000 words first and hits "submit" wins.

Go!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

The use of the word "entirely" is not reasonable at all.

The term "fossil fuel" applies to coal, but not oil. I was an organic chem major for a while, and, though there is disagreemnt among scientists, many recognise oil as the product of heat and pressure deep in the Earth.

Corbon dioxide is not a pollutant. In the early days of life on Earth, oxygen was the pollutant and CO2 was necessary for life.

Actually, I am not sure what is meant by "pollution". Burning wood in most parts of the world is the natural thing to do. Forests were burning away for millions of years before Man figured he had to put fires out. Wood fires may be wrong in the Los Angeles basin, but not here in the vast expanses of the Great Basin.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:26 PM

What is your dispute with my statement, pdq?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:22 PM

"We need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. That is a fact not in dispute."

I think "that is a dispute not in fact" would be more accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM

beardedbruce and ms lemon's links are some of the reasons I think it's a mistake to focus entirely on global warming as a reason to move away from fossil fuels as a way of producing energy. There are many other reasons that are equally compelling that nobody disputes. The myriad problems associated with pollution, for instance. We need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. That is a fact not in dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:10 PM

It was the consciousness (or otherwise) of human actions I was referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM

The Earth, as a planet, has no feelings one way or another, whether any particular group of organisms stick around for very long. However we might...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:36 AM

The fact remains that whether or not global warming is taking place, the biodiversity of the planet is taking one hell of a hammering due to human actions, consciously or otherwise!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 06:47 AM

The Mail on Sunday I think ...Definately worth a read

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:37 AM

"There will be so many giant aircraft that there won't be enough customers to fill them, and airline press gangs will roam the streets around our airports dragging defenceless members of the public away to occupy seats on their planes."

Truly Truth is stranger than fiction....

Flybe 'hire actors' to fill up planes

Flybe 'hire actors' to fill up planes

LORNA MARSH

30 March 2008 11:39

Norwich airport bosses were today at war with Flybe after the budget carrier advertised for actors to falsely bump up passenger numbers in a bid to get a bonus.

Richard Jenner, MD of Norwich International, said that he was "absolutely shocked" at the airline's money-spinning plan of using bogus passengers to fill extra flights and reach its quota, saying it was "underhand" at a cost to the environment.

As people across the globe prepared for Earth Hour Flybe chiefs admitted laying on extra flights to Dublin in a bid to reach the figures required to earn an extra £280,000 from Norwich airport even though it had already been promised half that amount for getting close to the full quota.

[More...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not making this up you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Keith Cunningham
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 05:18 AM

Mornin everybody,

Amid all the public relations hype relating to the causes of global warming we haven't heard much about dealing with the people who are the real cause of the whole mess i.e. the manufacturers of the machines which are blasting the carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. They sell their jumbo jets, giant air-buses, cruise liners and fat-belly four-by fours to thick-walleted businessmen and politicians meanwhile ensuring that the finger of supercilious rectitude is being wagged at the ordinary users who, because they have poured so much of their financial substance into the purchase of these goods(?) cannot afford to buy the PR clout which ought to be unleashed upon the captains of the polluting industries, their bankers, and their political toadies.

I attended a PR course once, and the lad who was running it claimed that venting and servicing a big industrial chiller was the equivalent of trashing a million fridges, and that the rabbiting-on about aerosols etc. was a PR scheme to divert attention away from the indusrialists' contribution to ozone depletion.

What an opportunity global warming offers for motor manufacturers. We suspect that their products are responsible for a lot of atmospheric pollution so what will they do? They'll make even MORE of them. They'll get more miles per gallon and be more environmentally friendly, but how much pollution will be unleashed upon the world during the manufacture of the blasted things and their transportation to the point of sale, and how much pollution will be cause by the trashing of the old ones?

And why not build bigger aeroplanes eh? Why kill only a couple of hundred people when we could kill a thousand? It has been claimed that a bigger plane is better for the environment because it will give off less carbon per passenger mile. No worries there then, except that the airlines will probably need to multiply the number of passengers in order to make them profitable. There will be so many giant aircraft that there won't be enough customers to fill them, and airline press gangs will roam the streets around our airports dragging defenceless members of the public away to occupy seats on their planes.

Anyway, perhaps it is now time to point out that carbon dioxide is exactly what it says on the tin. One part carbon and two parts oxygen. When you burn a hydrocarbon with oxygen you get carbon dioxide, water, and a funny smell. Fine, but hang on a minute. The oxgen you used up during the combustion process may have been the very atoms you or your offspring might need to allow them one last breath in this world. A lot the rest of it will, as part of the carbon dioxide compound, have been dissolved by the rain and ended up in the sea to be used to make bones and shells for the denizens of the deep (and the shallows). Eventually these denizens will snuff it and our oxygen will end up in carbonates on the sea bed. And a fat lot of use it'll be to us then, because it's going to take millions of years of tectonical bumping and grinding before some volcano punts it back into the air.

Ozone, a triatomic form of oxygen, is formed by the action of ultraviolet radiation upon the oxygen content of the stratosphere. In recent years we have heard a lot about ozone holes. Question; are the holes in the ozone layer forming because there isn't enough UV, or because there isn't enough oxygen?

But, looking on the bright side, global warming will bring some benefits one of which pleases me immensely. Polar bears will become an endangered species, and so they should be. Nasty vicious things! Away with them, I say, and away also with crocodiles and elephants.

And whales.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Castle.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:42 PM

Exactly!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:51 PM

And, Don, there is no current way to tell if we have already passed that point - yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:00 PM

I mentioned the possibility on a thread some time back and was told that I was a raving alarmist, totally insane, and full of bovine excrement, not just by the global warming doubters and self-appointed debunkers, but by some folks who are concerned about it and should have known better, but still told me that I was being ridiculously excessive.

Nevertheless, more than one astronomer and planetologist whose writings I have read have ventured the opinion that, even though it's a remote possibility, it is nevertheless possible that, between natural cycles and human activity, a runaway greenhouse effect could be precipitated here on earth—the same planetary catastrophe that made Venus the way it is:   hotter than a pizza oven and uninhabitable by earth-type critters. And when and if a runaway greenhouse effect gets started, there is no way of reversing it. That's what's meant by "runaway."

And here's the fun part:   nobody knows for certain just where that tipping-point might be, but knowledgible planetologists have opined that it is quite probably much earlier than most people would assume.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Doc John
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:40 AM

When we have good photographs of the surface of the greenhouse plated Venus, I expect to see wrecked Boeings, rows of abandoned 4X4 and a whole lot of discarded patio heaters. Add to the list anything you don't actually like.
Dr John

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:32 AM

See this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/03/we_lose_in_greed_game.html

---

Jim, please select the most appropriate thread in which to post your links. Duplicate postings will be deleted. -Admin

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:27 AM

Just getting rid of GWB & replacing with Obama would be a good start!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:15 AM

'BTW, Sal, what is the "hidden technology" your informant is waiting for America to unleash?' Um... if I knew that it wouldn't be hidden!

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:52 PM

"what is the "hidden technology" your informant is waiting for America to unleash?"

Basically ANY mastabatory fantasy that will get us out of the current mess without any negative effects....

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:42 PM

Whether global warming is human-caused, the result of natural cycles, or some combination of the two is irrelevant. Acting as if it is human-caused and doing what we can to reverse damage we may have caused has benefits beyond the scope of the global warming issue alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM

BTW, Sal, what is the "hidden technology" your informant is waiting for America to unleash?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:31 PM

Jupiter doesn't work well as a model for what's going on in the rest of the solar system, particularly for the terrestrial planets like Earth. A gas giant can be considered a sort of "proto-star," or a potential star that didn't make it because it just didn't manage to accumulate enough mass for sufficiently powerful nuclear reactions to ignite in its core.   But it's interesting to note that, unlike terrestrial planets that absorb energy from the sun and reflect a small percentage of it, Jupiter is actually emitting more energy than it absorbs. This indicates that it may have nuclear reactions taking place in its core, nowhere near enough for it to be even remotely considered a star, but enough to effect the temperature of the planet in general.

So one can't point at Jupiter and say, "See? Global warming is happening all through the solar system" (sorry—not the case!) "so it can't be caused by human activity. Go right ahead, buy that gas-guzzling SUV and pollute the atmosphere all you want."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:30 PM

Sal:

I don't think your informant i addressing the statistics correctly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the semantically incorrect term 'warming'...

"Warming' implies to most normal people something like putting heat under a saucepan or water, which seems to become uniformly hot (actually it doesn't on a microscopic scale, even when boiling.... but that's for another conspiracy thread!) ... leading to the constant stream of idiotic comments - "Wow! lowest temp in 50 years - hey - so much for global warming!" & "Wow! highest rainfall for 100 years - hey - so much for global warming!"...

The term 'GW' refers to the increase in total energy of the system - which then leads to more turbulence - consequently the theory really predicts greater LOCAL temp ranges - both higher AND lower temps, as well as both areas of LOCAL increased & decreased rainfall .... sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:37 PM

I found this on another thread ...

'...the link to the graph posted is another example of emotive, contorted poppycock largely orchestrated by bearded tree huggers and their good old mates. The graph has been extratacted from the original scientific data based on delta oxygen 18 values in formaminifera, GRIP data,deepsea sediment cores and temperature measurements taken by man dating back to the 18th century. The crucial point is that the graph has been used by you as propaganda to support your cause and it is entirely untrue. The original data included global temperature and it is seen from the data that temperature leads carbon dioxide levels. If you are intelligent enough, try and release your emotions and think about my statement subjectively.Then when you will realise the truth, please come back to me and comment on..

1. Earth's positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
2. The present global mountain ranges, the Tibetan plateau and chemical erosion.
3. The effect of Milankovich cycles
4. The effect of sunspot cycles.
5. The Maunder Minimum.
6. The Worldwide global cooling from 1945 to 1967.
7. The Laki Fissure eruptions.
8. The Cretaceous age and the white cliffs of Dover.
9. Any Governments vested interest to be voted back into power.

Look, this is not an emotional issue, it is all part of a natural progression towards ultimate planetary balance. Human Beings are animals. At present this animal is reaping havoc and chaos on all biodiverity. It was no different 70 million years ago in the Cretaceous. I wouldn't have liked to be bitten and eaten alive by a raptor, would you?

We have passed peak oil producion and within the next few decades or until America unleashes it's new hidden technology, human beings as a species will either become extinct or diminish to such an extent that biodiversity will find its own balance.

All that is important here is, we understand that the earth is in perpetual balance, and when a species dies it is easily replaced by another. We are so insignificant in consideration of geologic and evolutionary time. So please don't worry yourself, Mother Earth has always had it sussed.'

Kinda relevant

sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:03 PM

On Monday, former Vice President Al Gore and his climate change awareness organization, the Alliance for Climate Protection, launched a $300 million, three-year campaign to teach "people in the US and around the world that the climate crisis is both urgent and solvable." The "We" campaign "aims to enlist 10 million volunteers through a combination of network and cable commercials, display adsÉand online social networks." Funding for the campaign includes Gore's Nobel Peace Prize money and all the profits from his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

ÊThe campaign will launch televison advertisements later this week that "will team up offbeat celebrity couples who may not have much in common but share a belief that it is important to address climate change." These "unlikely alliances" include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the outspoken pastors Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, and the Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith, country music stars on opposite sides of the partisan divide.

GREAT GREENWASH: While spending $100 million per year is remarkable for an issue-based public advocacy campaign, it is dwarfed by the $700 billion market in annual corporate advertising and public relations spending.ÊThe companies in the polluting sectors, such as energy, transportation, agribusiness, chemical, and manufacturing, recognize the economic stakes of fighting climate legislation. Their efforts involve public campaigns that "greenwash" their environmental record, arguing that global warming is not their fault. For example, the "clean" coal industry is sponsoring a $20 million lobbying campaign by the National Mining Association and a $40 million astroturfing campaign by front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. The American Clean Skies Foundation, a "clean" natural gas industry front group, is launching a "multi-million dollar media advocacy campaign" on Earth Day. The "ultra-clean" auto industry trade group Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers runs its "Discover the Alternatives" campaign -- while lobbying against increased fuel economy standards and filing suit against the regulation of tailpipe greenhouse emissions.ÊThe "clean" nuclear industry has establishedtheÊClean and Safe Energy Coalition to promote nuclear's low global warming footprint -- while ignoring the unsolved problem of radioactive waste.

Big Oil's $100 million trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute, spends millions a year promoting projects like the "Energy Tomorrow" campaign -- which blames ethanol for rising fuel prices -- and buying goodwill from science teachers, environmental groups, volunteer organizations, and even bloggers, all while lobbying to keep billion-dollar tax breaks for oil companies.

(Progress Report e-letter)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 06 - 09:52 PM

well! Those polar bears on Jupiter are obviously in for a rough time! Not to mention the resort developers.

Subject: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 06 - 07:05 PM

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.

"The storm is growing in altitude," de Pater said. "Before when they were just ovals they didn't stick out above the clouds. Now they are rising."

This growth signals a temperature increase in that region, she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm

The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since.