Damn Climate Change

[Wild Cobra]

Global Warming, Climate change. I don't care what it's being called, it's just a cycle.

I don't recall the last time we had so much rain in Portland in July. It's probable been 25 years or so. How about those floods in Texas? When's the last time you guys had so much precipitation?

Years ago, we used to have a saying here, "We don't tan in Oregon, we rust." That was completely true when I was a child. Then we transitioned into a long period of hot dry summers that we all love. Looks like we might be going back to those days of rust. On the bright side, maybe Mt. Hood will stay snow capped this next summer like I remember as a child.

I don't see this climate change as an effect from global warming. I see it as natural celestial cycles. Those of you who wish to continue with the panic, the primary sign I think you may want to consider is the atmospheric temperature measurements taken by weather balloons for the last 50 years or more. I wonder why the alarmists of the scientific community never talk about these troposphere temperatures. Surely, if we have global warming over the last 50 years, the troposphere will show the increase, wont it?

[Extra Stout]

This has been the coolest, wettest summer of my life. But it's just one data point.

There is that alternate theory out there which alleges that the gap between variations in solar output and observed climate response on earth is explained by concomitant decrease in cloud cover due to disruption of cloud-promoting cosmic rays by solar wind. So not only is the sun more energetic during its peaks, but more of its energy reaches the surface.

In any event, I figure that energy efficiency initiatives which purportedly would slow down global warming also happen to result in a marginal decrease in the amount of money going to Arabs sympathetic to people trying to kill me, as well as to multinational corporate executives eager to rape every last dime out of me. So energy efficiency is the way to go until we learn more.

I understand that there are some lefty "intellectuals" out there who don't think that is going far enough, but I think they don't care about the science, but rather just want people to submit to coercive central planning, of which they of course will be in charge.

[PixelPusher]

In any event, I figure that energy efficiency initiatives which purportedly would slow down global warming also happen to result in a marginal decrease in the amount of money going to Arabs sympathetic to people trying to kill me, as well as to multinational corporate executives eager to rape every last dime out of me. So energy efficiency is the way to go until we learn more.

I understand that there are some lefty "intellectuals" out there who don't think that is going far enough, but I think they don't care about the science, but rather just want people to submit to coercive central planning, of which they of course will be in charge.
Would you consider the following the result of "coersive central planning"?


http://www.mlcsmith.com/games/bungie/myth/assets/playtitans.jpg
http://lib.colostate.edu/research/agbib/CSUarch_GW_p.2%20country%20needs_small.jpg http://www.alrdesign.com/blog/uploaded_images/ww1646-34-762800.jpg
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

In any event, I figure that energy efficiency initiatives which purportedly would slow down global warming also happen to result in a marginal decrease in the amount of money going to Arabs sympathetic to people trying to kill me, as well as to multinational corporate executives eager to rape every last dime out of me. So energy efficiency is the way to go until we learn more.
I agree we should do what we can to limit our energy usage. I just wish those leftist elitists would take their own medicine.

I understand that there are some lefty "intellectuals" out there who don't think that is going far enough, but I think they don't care about the science, but rather just want people to submit to coercive central planning, of which they of course will be in charge.
I know. Funny how they want the government involved in their agenda's, but no government involvement for other people's agendas...

"Distinctively bitter?" Ready for a 6.8% IPA?

Inversion IPA (http://www.deschutesbrewery.com/BrewPub/OnTap/119274.aspx)
Deschutes Brewery website (http://www.deschutesbrewery.com/default.aspx)
Wiki on Deschutes Brewery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschutes_Brewery)

Just happens to be my favorite beer maker after living in Germany for six years.

[fyatuk]

Hey, I'm just glad the rain isn't coming down all at once like in July 2002 and Oct 1999. Those royally sucked.

Other than that, I want less clouds and temps about 7 degrees warmer.

[Extra Stout]

Would you consider the following the result of "coersive central planning"?

No, I don't believe there was a Marxist economy constructed in the United States during the 1940's.

You win the "Non Sequitur of the Month" for July.

[inconvertible]

In 500 million years the sun will grow, turn red and then swallow the earth.

so we gonna die anyway.

[PixelPusher]

No, I don't believe there was a Marxist economy constructed in the United States during the 1940's.

You win the "Non Sequitur of the Month" for July.
Who said anything about marxism? I'm just trying to find the gap between the Federal government's comprehensive energy and conservation policy back then (based, for the most part, on national security) and the current policy, which is...well...


"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." - Vice President Cheney

[sabar]

In 500 million years the sun will grow, turn red and then swallow the earth.

so we gonna die anyway.By that logic we should just save ourselves the trouble and commit mass genocide on the human race.

Oh, but the problem (or alleged problem) at hand doesn't affect you in your lifetime, so screw the future!

On topic, there isn't enough data to show anything, everything is an assumption. I'll take the "better safe than sorry" route.

[Extra Stout]

Who said anything about marxism? I'm just trying to find the gap between the Federal government's comprehensive energy and conservation policy back then (based, for the most part, on national security) and the current policy, which is...well...
Well, the Paul Ehrlichs of the world insist that the threats of global warming/overpopulation/food supply/blah blah blah require us to abandon market economies and adopt rigid central planning of the economy. That element is always present on the left, and just has to be ignored.

I really question why in the world you would throw something Dick Cheney said back in my face. Am I Yonivore or something? Should I throw Hugo Chavez quotes in your face?

[Sec24Row7]

In 500 million years the sun will grow, turn red and then swallow the earth.

so we gonna die anyway.


We actually have a lot longer than that... but nice of you to remember something from highschool and pull a big number out of your ass.

[xrayzebra]

And then you have this. You just gotta love it. You gonna die
anyhow, so I think I will enjoy my beef.Where's the beef (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbeef119.xml)

[Soul_Patch]

Im pretty sure humans will find a way to eradicate themselves long before the sun does it.

[xrayzebra]

And then you have Father Gore, savior of the world and another
one of his pronouncements.


The sky is falling, the sky is falling (http://www.aspendailynews.com/article_20762)

[Yonivore]

By that logic we should just save ourselves the trouble and commit mass genocide on the human race.

Oh, but the problem (or alleged problem) at hand doesn't affect you in your lifetime, so screw the future!

On topic, there isn't enough data to show anything, everything is an assumption. I'll take the "better safe than sorry" route.
As long as you do it out of your pocket and not mine, I'm cool with that.

You see, that's the biggest opposition to all this "global climate change" nonsense; all the money it costs -- and economic growth it retards -- to implement these idiotic measures, i.e. the Kyoto Protocols.

So, sure, be safer rather than sorry...just do it with your own money.

[Yonivore]

Well, the Paul Ehrlichs of the world insist that the threats of global warming/overpopulation/food supply/blah blah blah require us to abandon market economies and adopt rigid central planning of the economy. That element is always present on the left, and just has to be ignored.

I really question why in the world you would throw something Dick Cheney said back in my face. Am I Yonivore or something? Should I throw Hugo Chavez quotes in your face?
Hey, hey, hey! Be nice.

[spurster]

It is good to know that science is a liberal conspiracy.

[Yonivore]

It is good to know that science is a liberal conspiracy.
Not empirical science, it's just the pseudo-science of concensus that is a liberal conspiracy.

[PixelPusher]

Well, the Paul Ehrlichs of the world insist that the threats of global warming/overpopulation/food supply/blah blah blah require us to abandon market economies and adopt rigid central planning of the economy. That element is always present on the left, and just has to be ignored.

I really question why in the world you would throw something Dick Cheney said back in my face. Am I Yonivore or something? Should I throw Hugo Chavez quotes in your face?
No, you certainly aren't Yonivore, and apologize my last 2 posts seemed like I was attacking you personally. I didn't quote Dick Cheney because he's the ultimate uber-villain of the right, I quoted him because he's the guy in charge of our national energy policy.

Frankly, I'm tired of the kneejerk barring of teeth and growling like a junk yard dog from so many people everytime anyone suggest anything that even remotely resembles a collective response to energy conservation/production/whatever - as if any deviation from a purely laizze-fare government will plunge us into the dark abyss of a communist dystopia. As you said yourself - the conservation policies and programs during WWII didn't transform us into another USSR.

If dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue, why shouldn't the government have a role? The "free market" says we import foreign oil because it's currently the cheapest option. Do we intervene to secure ourselves, or do we just wait around for another 4 or 5 decades hoping things don't get worse while we wait for foreign oil to grow scarce enough to make other energy options more competitive?

[Extra Stout]

No, you certainly aren't Yonivore, and apologize my last 2 posts seemed like I was attacking you personally. I didn't quote Dick Cheney because he's the ultimate uber-villain of the right, I quoted him because he's the guy in charge of our national energy policy.

Frankly, I'm tired of the kneejerk barring of teeth and growling like a junk yard dog from so many people everytime anyone suggest anything that even remotely resembles a collective response to energy conservation/production/whatever - as if any deviation from a purely laizze-fare government will plunge us into the dark abyss of a communist dystopia. As you said yourself - the conservation policies and programs during WWII didn't transform us into another USSR.

If dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue, why shouldn't the government have a role? The "free market" says we import foreign oil because it's currently the cheapest option. Do we intervene to secure ourselves, or do we just wait around for another 4 or 5 decades hoping things don't get worse while we wait for foreign oil to grow scarce enough to make other energy options more competitive?
I'm not sure why you think I disagree with you on any of that.

Somebody to my right might point out that FDR was a wacko liberal with godless communists in his Cabinet, however.

[Yonivore]

I'm not sure why you think I disagree with you on any of that.

Somebody to my right might point out that FDR was a wacko liberal with godless communists in his Cabinet, however.
FDR was a wacko liberal with godless communists in his Cabinet.

He also extended the depression with his New Deal socialism.

[Wild Cobra]

And then you have Father Gore, savior of the world and another
one of his pronouncements.


The sky is falling, the sky is falling (http://www.aspendailynews.com/article_20762)
Yep, Chicken Little Gore.

I'm not worried about CO2 levels raising the temperature any more. I'm worried about it becoming toxic to some life form. Increase what we have by tenfold, and it will cause havoc on us. How much can more vulnerable life like birds take?

When they start being honest with us, I can support their ideas and plans. Until they are honest, I think they are just starting a giant money grab. Also, until they are honest with us, people wont understand the real threats.

How much stock does Gore have in companies that sell carbon credits?

[Wild Cobra]

FDR was a wacko liberal with godless communists in his Cabinet.

He also extended the depression with his New Deal socialism.
Careful, we might need a "Project Venona" thread.

[DarkReign]

FDR was a wacko liberal with godless communists in his Cabinet.

He also extended the depression with his New Deal socialism.

:lmao Right on queue, too. That was awesome.

[spurster]

Not empirical science, it's just the pseudo-science of concensus that is a liberal conspiracy.
Of course, there is no pseudo-science from conservatives on global warming or other science they don't like (e.g., evolution).

If you want hard data of a large change, maybe the shrinking Arctic ice might be convincing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2035521,00.html

[Yonivore]

:lmao Right on queue, too. That was awesome.
Of course, I couldn't have done that on purpose, could I?

Uncanny how I used the identical quote and everything!

[DarkReign]

Things like Environment, Medical Care, Taxation, Infrastructure, Defense and Law Making should be the domain of government (maybe some real obvious things as well that I am missing).

Anything beyond the obvious, leave to the domain of the people. People suggesting cars should emit less toxins, or requiring car makers to produce vehicles that get high MPG....are these really that bad? Does this truly stunt the growth of the sector?

If so, tell that to Toyota and Honda.

[Yonivore]

Of course, there is no pseudo-science from conservatives on global warming or other science they don't like (e.g., evolution).
Conservatives aren't proposing we impoverish our country over the evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism debate, are they?


If you want hard data of a large change, maybe the shrinking Arctic ice might be convincing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2035521,00.html
How is that related to anthropogenic global climate change? Please cite the appropriate scientific studies.

And, how about Mount Kilimanjaro (sp?). Remember? Gore used it as an example of how increased CO2 was causing it's ice cap to recede. Ooops! Now, it seems it's being caused by local clear cutting on the mountainside and not some "global" manifestation after all.

Antartica? melting in some spots...getting colder in others. And, on the whole colder than before. But, nothing that hasn't happened before.

So, what does your UK article say about the Artic?

[Yonivore]

Things like Environment, Medical Care, Taxation, Infrastructure, Defense and Law Making should be the domain of government (maybe some real obvious things as well that I am missing).
Well then, start your own country and write a constitution that does those things.

Because our current constitution doesn't contemplate government doing much of what you just stated beyond defense and infrastructure in support of commerce. Legislation and taxation are mechanisms by which government is operated, not functions but, funny you should see them that way.


Anything beyond the obvious, leave to the domain of the people. People suggesting cars should emit less toxins, or requiring car makers to produce vehicles that get high MPG....are these really that bad? Does this truly stunt the growth of the sector?

If so, tell that to Toyota and Honda.
No, but government regulation might. This should be a function of supply and demand. If people truly want more efficient cars, industry will provide them.

[Sportcamper]

It has been extremely hot in LA...Some people argue that it is because of global warming...I think it is because it’s July....

[DarkReign]

No, but government regulation might. This should be a function of supply and demand. If people truly want more efficient cars, industry will provide them.

Fair enough, but a good number of people want to drive drunk, smoke weed and molest children. Doesnt mean we give them a choice on the matter.

Coupled with the fact that, I dont care how you spin it, America will perpetually be at war over oil. They have the most, we do not. Therefore we will constantly have an interest in the region solely based on the fact that we will not explore alternative methods of travel.

Obviously, this is theory-world. But if by 2010 all Americans are driving some sort hybrid/high MPG/alternate fuel source vehicle, how much LESS dependant upon the Middle East would we be?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ooops! Now, it seems it's being caused by local clear cutting on the mountainside and not some "global" manifestation after all.

that's definitely man-made

[xrayzebra]

It has been extremely hot in LA...Some people argue that it is because of global warming...I think it is because it’s July....

You damn non-believer. And quit eating beef.
:lol

[xrayzebra]

Fair enough, but a good number of people want to drive drunk, smoke weed and molest children. Doesnt mean we give them a choice on the matter.


Ah so people who drive big cars are drunk drivers, child
molesters and break the narcotics laws. Or the equivalent
thereof. I didn't know that. Eat any beef lately.

[Yonivore]

that's definitely man-made
But, it's not a global manifestation. Gore's contention was that it was being caused by rises in CO2.

I've never said we couldn't affect our climate or the environment on a local bases.

[Yonivore]

Fair enough, but a good number of people want to drive drunk, smoke weed and molest children. Doesnt mean we give them a choice on the matter.

Coupled with the fact that, I dont care how you spin it, America will perpetually be at war over oil. They have the most, we do not. Therefore we will constantly have an interest in the region solely based on the fact that we will not explore alternative methods of travel.

Obviously, this is theory-world. But if by 2010 all Americans are driving some sort hybrid/high MPG/alternate fuel source vehicle, how much LESS dependant upon the Middle East would we be?
Did you see the UFO video in the other thread? I think the guy is arguing with your "perpetually" argument.

And, it's not that we don't have oil...it's that the enviro-whackos won't let us retrieve it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And, it's not that we don't have oil...it's that the enviro-whackos won't let us retrieve it.


we got plenty of reserve in Iraq

[Yonivore]

we got plenty of reserve in Iraq
They're getting ready to sell it to the Chinese.

[Oh, Gee!!]

D'oh!!

[Yonivore]

D'oh!!
Never was about oil. That was your fantasy.

[spurster]

The Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001557.html

Of course, effects are circumstantial evidence. But denying the fire when there is smoke is foolish.

[PixelPusher]

Never was about oil. That was your fantasy.
You guys can never settle on your own fantasy reason; WMD, spreadin' Democracy, fighting global terrorism...

[Oh, Gee!!]

That was Dubya's fantasy.

fixed for accuracy

[Yonivore]

The Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001557.html

Of course, effects are circumstantial evidence. But denying the fire when there is smoke is foolish.
Shrinking and revealing the remnants of villages during a more temperate time. What caused that warming?

[Yonivore]

fixed for accuracy
Link? Seriously, where'd you get that idea?

At least we know how you define accuracy. Explains so much.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Link? Seriously, where'd you get that idea?

At least we know how you define accuracy. Explains so much.


uh-oh, yoni's getting personal

[DarkReign]

Ah so people who drive big cars are drunk drivers, child
molesters and break the narcotics laws. Or the equivalent
thereof. I didn't know that. Eat any beef lately.

No, people that drive large vehicles are not the equivalent.

You missed the point. The point was, just because a person wants to, doesnt mean they should be allowed.

[Yonivore]

uh-oh, yoni's getting personal
How was that personal? Is it unreasonable to expect you to support the nonsense you spout in here?

[PixelPusher]

Link? Seriously, where'd you get that idea?

At least we know how you define accuracy. Explains so much.
I'd link to the Bill-O interview, but you won't see this post anyway.

[Wild Cobra]

If you want hard data of a large change, maybe the shrinking Arctic ice might be convincing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2035521,00.html
How does that article help when the author lies about cause and effect?


Sea temperatures in the Arctic have risen 3C in recent decades due to a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to Mark Serreze, who led the study at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He fears continued thinning of the ice will lead to a sudden acceleration of melting that will leave the ocean ice-free.
I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.

Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.

Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What is the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.

There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.

Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.

A few links:

Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/)

Black and White: Soot on Ice (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html) an updated version

Animation of melting arctic ice (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/01_ice0001.mpg)
Animation of the Arctic melting (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/02_Albedo.mpg)
Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/apr/HQ_05111_Earth_Energy.html):


The study reveals Earth's energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet's history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.


As the Earth warms it emits more heat. Eventually the Earth will be back in balance, if the greenhouse gas emissions are kept at the same level of today. Scientists know it takes the ocean longer to warm than the land. The lag in the ocean's response has practical consequences. It means there is an additional global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit that is already in the pipeline. Even if there were no further increase of human-made gases in the air, climate would continue to warm that much over the next century.

This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.

STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHER (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007030524509.html):

The Pacific storm track carries these polluted particles to the west coasts of Canada and the United States, across America and eventually, most of the world, Zhang notes.
"The Pacific storm track can impact weather all over the globe," he says.

"The general air flow is from west to east, but there is also some serious concern that the polar regions could be affected by this pollution. That could have potentially catastrophic results."

Soot, in the form of black carbon, can collect on ice packs and attract more heat from the sun, meaning a potential acceleration of melting of the polar ice caps, he believes.

"It possibly means the polar ice caps could melt quicker than we had believed, which of course, results in rising sea level rates," he adds.

[Wild Cobra]

that's definitely man-made
But it's not by greenhouse gasses that the USA has control over!

[xrayzebra]

No, people that drive large vehicles are not the equivalent.

You missed the point. The point was, just because a person wants to, doesnt mean they should be allowed.

Why for goodness sakes. You want to change lifestyles
convince people they should change. Don't use the old
adage "there ought to be a law". Hell we have enough
laws now and they aren't enforced.
Let's quit passing laws on lifestyles just because, well
just because.

[Oh, Gee!!]

How was that personal? Is it unreasonable to expect you to support the nonsense you spout in here?

do you provide links when you spout the slogan "we fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here?"

Why should I provide links to what others have said and documented about the issue of whether the war is for oil? You'll dismiss them as crazy libs, or change the issue, or argue endlessly about some insignificant detail.

I said what I said, and I'll stand by it. If you don't believe it or even want to entertain the possiblity of its truth, I'll not lose any sleep over it.

[Yonivore]

do you provide links when you spout the slogan "we fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here?"
I just posted a portion of the NIE that supports that. So, yes, I do.

Your turn.


Why should I provide links to what others have said and documented about the issue of whether the war is for oil?
Well, I'm assuming you want to be credible. But, maybe not.


You'll dismiss them as crazy libs, or change the issue, or argue endlessly about some insignificant detail.
Maybe they are crazy libs. I promise I won't change the subject if you post a credible source that says this is a war for oil.


I said what I said, and I'll stand by it. If you don't believe it or even want to entertain the possiblity of its truth, I'll not lose any sleep over it.
And, yet, I still find Petraeus more believable. Go figure.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I just posted a portion of the NIE that supports that. So, yes, I do. Your turn.

so quoting an estimate of what may happen in the future is a credible link to you. Pardon for me asking, but how could you ever post a link that proves some future event? Do you have some special googling technique that allows you to see into the future? Probably not. The truth is the "over there so we don't over here" argument is just a prediction, a mere guess.


Well, I'm assuming you want to be credible. But, maybe not.

or I post here sporadically in between projects, and I don't really have all the time in the world (as you do apparently) to post treatises on any given subject. I usually just state my opinion and move on.


Maybe they are crazy libs. I promise I won't change the subject if you post a credible source that says this is a war for oil.

go to www.google.com, and type in the phrase "war for oil" or something similar, and take your pick.


And, yet, I still find Petraeus more believable. Go figure.

I doubt he has an opinion (or one he could freely share) on the subject of oil.

[Yonivore]

so quoting an estimate of what may happen in the future is a credible link to you. Pardon for me asking, but how could you ever post a link that proves some future event? Do you have some special googling technique that allows you to see into the future? Probably not. The truth is the "over there so we don't over here" argument is just a prediction, a mere guess.


We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.
That's not a prediction.


or I post here sporadically in between projects, and I don't really have all the time in the world (as you do apparently) to post treatises on any given subject. I usually just state my opinion and move on.
Okay. I'll give your unsupported opinion the weight it deserves then.

By the way, I thought you knew I steal my opinions from people who have the time to write and source them so I don't have to. Real time saver.


go to www.google.com, and type in the phrase "war for oil" or something similar, and take your pick.
Sorry, not doing your work for you.


I doubt he has an opinion (or one he could freely share) on the subject of oil.
You'd be wrong. He covers the topic in the Hewitt interview.

[Oh, Gee!!]

By the way, I thought you knew I steal my opinions from people who have the time to write and source them so I don't have to. Real time saver.

:tu

[Wild Cobra]

I just posted a portion of the NIE that supports that. So, yes, I do.


You forget. Liberals use talking points and code words. When you deviate and talk the truth, or use what sounds like a talking points, but is the reworded truth, they don't understand.

[Wild Cobra]

go to www.google.com, and type in the phrase "war for oil" or something similar, and take your pick.

Yep, find all the liberal propaganda over the subject by using liberal code words.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You forget. Liberals use talking points and code words. When you deviate and talk the truth, or use what sounds like a talking points, but is the reworded truth, they don't understand.


do you just spit out Rush Limbaugh's views all day?

[Wild Cobra]

do you just spit out Rush Limbaugh's views all day?
Ah no...

I don't have the time of day to listen to him. Does he say that too?

[Yonivore]

:tu
So, I addressed and refuted every point in your post and all I get is a thumbs up for something everyone already knew?

[DarkReign]

I dont give 2 shits what you two think, the whole situation is the greatest coincidence in the history of mankind.

AQ was responsible for 9/11, flush with support from said tragedy, Bush parlays that tragedy into a witch-hunt for WMDs (jumping logic that much, I dont see how it ever got off the ground). Somehow, some way, Iraq was implicated to be the next enabler in a conspiracy for a hypothetical terrorist plot to procure WMDs.

Three things had to be true for this leap of logic...

1) Iraq must have had WMDs
2) A known terrorist plot to acquire WMDs
3) Iraq had to have been actively seeking to unload said weapons to known terrorists.

Seeing as all three in hindsight are false, this administration has spun the story in so many ways since for any number of reasons, four listed here...

1) To save face. Pride is a bitch.
2) Profit. Nuff said
3) Oil. Nuff said.
4) To spread democracy.

So either our leadership is too prideful to back this issue down gracefully, or we're there for selfish reasons. Reasons that are not selfish on behalf of the American people, but to big corporations heavily invested in the profit from war both financially and politically.

I know you dont believe any of this, Yoni/WC/Ray/et all, and thats completely fine. You'll cite some blog, that cites some intel gained from some interrogation that says some shit about how we as America must be involved over there, so theyre not over here. Thats just propaganda, something the Democrats will use to their fullest extent post 2008 as well. This isnt party politics, its a power grab. When the Executive powers were awarded to the president during wartime in the past, there have been plenty of Democrats to hold seat and not volunteer those powers back.

So as much as it may pain you know that I am not condemning Repubs or Democrats and that I support neither party, I would think it wise to temper your absolute trust in any one ideal no matter how much it may align with your morals and values.

Because you and I and everyone on this board stands to gain NOTHING from this adventure we're all being dragged into. Peace, security and well-being are not what is at stake. Money, power and influence on the other hand are being strengthened with every press conference, news clip and blog entry.

We here, discussing these issues, are all pretty much the same in terms of station in society, ambition and capability. And this entire fiasco is either the greatest coincidence in the history of man or the most sinister attempt at total and unquestioned control.

I will never trust my government, or any other government, unequivocally in my lifetime. And I am quite surprised how willingly some here seem to be to capitulate to any government under a guise of patriotism and democracy. I question the government at every turn because these bastards have never done anything to prove I should believe otherwise, and that has nothing to do with Red or Blue.

Its about knowing that there is in fact a power structure we as normal individuals are neither apart of or influencing. Its not one man or even cloak and dagger, its right there, sitting on TV, telling us why things are the way they are. They dont have to hide.....we fucking elect them.

[Yonivore]

I dont give 2 shits what you two think, the whole situation is the greatest coincidence in the history of mankind.

AQ was responsible for 9/11, flush with support from said tragedy, Bush parlays that tragedy into a witch-hunt for WMDs (jumping logic that much, I dont see how it ever got off the ground). Somehow, some way, Iraq was implicated to be the next enabler in a conspiracy for a hypothetical terrorist plot to procure WMDs.

Three things had to be true for this leap of logic...

1) Iraq must have had WMDs
2) A known terrorist plot to acquire WMDs
3) Iraq had to have been actively seeking to unload said weapons to known terrorists.

Seeing as all three in hindsight are false, this administration has spun the story in so many ways since for any number of reasons, four listed here...

1) To save face. Pride is a bitch.
2) Profit. Nuff said
3) Oil. Nuff said.
4) To spread democracy.

So either our leadership is too prideful to back this issue down gracefully, or we're there for selfish reasons. Reasons that are not selfish on behalf of the American people, but to big corporations heavily invested in the profit from war both financially and politically.

I know you dont believe any of this, Yoni/WC/Ray/et all, and thats completely fine. You'll cite some blog, that cites some intel gained from some interrogation that says some shit about how we as America must be involved over there, so theyre not over here. Thats just propaganda, something the Democrats will use to their fullest extent post 2008 as well. This isnt party politics, its a power grab. When the Executive powers were awarded to the president during wartime in the past, there have been plenty of Democrats to hold seat and not volunteer those powers back.

So as much as it may pain you know that I am not condemning Repubs or Democrats and that I support neither party, I would think it wise to temper your absolute trust in any one ideal no matter how much it may align with your morals and values.

Because you and I and everyone on this board stands to gain NOTHING from this adventure we're all being dragged into. Peace, security and well-being are not what is at stake. Money, power and influence on the other hand are being strengthened with every press conference, news clip and blog entry.

We here, discussing these issues, are all pretty much the same in terms of station in society, ambition and capability. And this entire fiasco is either the greatest coincidence in the history of man or the most sinister attempt at total and unquestioned control.

I will never trust my government, or any other government, unequivocally in my lifetime. And I am quite surprised how willingly some here seem to be to capitulate to any government under a guise of patriotism and democracy. I question the government at every turn because these bastards have never done anything to prove I should believe otherwise, and that has nothing to do with Red or Blue.

Its about knowing that there is in fact a power structure we as normal individuals are neither apart of or influencing. Its not one man or even cloak and dagger, its right there, sitting on TV, telling us why things are the way they are. They dont have to hide.....we fucking elect them.
Okay, class; see what you end up with when you start off with a false premise?

[DarkReign]

Okay, class; see what you end up with when you start off with a false premise?

I thought the premise was spot on.


AQ was responsible for 9/11, flush with support from said tragedy, Bush parlays that tragedy into a witch-hunt for WMDs (jumping logic that much, I dont see how it ever got off the ground). Somehow, some way, Iraq was implicated to be the next enabler in a conspiracy for a hypothetical terrorist plot to procure WMDs.

[Yonivore]

I thought the premise was spot on.
I know you do.

So, tell us, who on the planet believe there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to March 2003? Name one person from the the Bush or Clinton administrations that said -- before the invasion -- there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Fact of the matter is, everyone on the fucking planet believed they existed. And, before you start with, "that's because Bush twisted the intelligence," remember that a) an investigation concluded that wasn't the case and b) President Clinton has supported President Bush's claim.

So, yeah, you started with a false premise.

Then, you have have to explain away all the other justifications for invading Iraq contained in the AUMF in Iraq. Because, WMDs weren't the only one. In fact, it wasn't the presence of WMD's that are mentioned but Hussein's continued refusal to comply with several UNSC Resolutions related to WMD programs and developments.

Care to try again?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I know you do.

So, tell us, who on the planet believe there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to March 2003? Name one person from the the Bush or Clinton administrations that said -- before the invasion -- there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Fact of the matter is, everyone on the fucking planet believed they existed. And, before you start with, "that's because Bush twisted the intelligence," remember that a) an investigation concluded that wasn't the case and b) President Clinton has supported President Bush's claim.

So, yeah, you started with a false premise.

Then, you have have to explain away all the other justifications for invading Iraq contained in the AUMF in Iraq. Because, WMDs weren't the only one. In fact, it wasn't the presence of WMD's that are mentioned but Hussein's continued refusal to comply with several UNSC Resolutions related to WMD programs and developments.

Care to try again?

I don't think most will dispute the fact that Saddam had WMD prior to 2003, but the evidence post 9-11 suggested that Saddam did not have the capability to pose an immediate or imminent threat to the US the way we were led to believe by this administration. We weren't getting the whole picture. We were told "Saddam has WMD," but were not given the ever-important qualifiers to that statement. Qualifiers such as "from 1992," or "but no feasible way to launch an attack on the US," or "no evidence suggesting that Saddam is organizing an attack on the US" were all left out of the discussion by the people who were privvy to that information. So I guess you can't accuse the administration of lying per se, but you can accuse them of only giving us half of the story.

And as far as the refusal on Saddam's part, that's not entirely true either. UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq only months before the invasion and found no nuclear reactors, or any of the neccessary components of said reactors, and were pretty much given freedom to inspect everything they wanted and found nothing. Yes, Saddam kicked them out, but don't pretend that he never allowed the UN to inspect.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's not a prediction.

Don't recent speeches by the administration suggest that AQ has become stronger in regions outside out of Iraq, and that a future attack against the U.S. is predictable (or in the words of Chertoff, get ready for a "summer spectacular")? Doesn't that counter the prediction that fighting them there means not having to fight them here?


You'd be wrong. He covers the topic in the Hewitt interview.

So, you think a general would be told by the pentagon or the administration whether oil was the main cause for war? And if he was told, do you think he'd be free to tell a national audience that secret on the radio? Pardon me for discounting the general's view on the subject.

[spurster]

The global temperature has been steadily increasing over the past 150 or so years.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Of course, we should nothing about it.

[Yonivore]

The global temperature has been steadily increasing over the past 150 or so years.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Of course, we should nothing about it.
Doesn't that predate the Industrial Revolution? Kind of puts the lie to manmade global warming, eh?

Besides, once we get past this whole argument of what's causing it, who says it's bad thing anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vacation spots.

One more thing. Did you know Texas is experiencing the coolest July on record? I knew. ;)

[Oh, Gee!!]

Doesn't that predate the Industrial Revolution? Kind of puts the lie to manmade global warming, eh?

some say the I.R. started in the late 1700s, some say the middle 1800s, some the late 1800s, so I guess it depends on who you believe.

[Yonivore]

some say the I.R. started in the late 1700s, some say the middle 1800s, some the late 1800s, so I guess it depends on who you believe.
Fair enough.

So, tell me, what happened to the Global Cooling scare of the 70's? Scientists, then, were convinced we'd be freezing by now.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Fair enough.

So, tell me, what happened to the Global Cooling scare of the 70's? Scientists, then, were convinced we'd be freezing by now.


dude, I was just a baby then.

[Extra Stout]

Fair enough.

So, tell me, what happened to the Global Cooling scare of the 70's? Scientists, then, were convinced we'd be freezing by now.
The aerosols actually did provide some cooling in the mid-20th century.

[Yonivore]

dude, I was just a baby then.
So? You're ready to embrace a concensus that was decades in the making, don't you think you need to be somewhat aware of what was going on in the interim?

[Yonivore]

The aerosols actually did provide some cooling in the mid-20th century.
Bring back CFCs then. Problem solved.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So? You're ready to embrace a concensus that was decades in the making, don't you think you need to be somewhat aware of what was going on in the interim?


I was just trying to make you feel old. But seriously, the global cooling thing didn't have anything close to the amount of support and consensus from the scientific community that you're seeing with global warming. I don't think you can ask "hey, the global cooling thing turned out to be wrong, so what's to say that global warming won't turn out the same way either?" There are apples and oranges.

[Yonivore]

I was just trying to make you feel old. But seriously, the global cooling thing didn't have anything close to the amount of support and consensus from the scientific community that you're seeing with global warming. I don't think you can ask "hey, the global cooling thing turned out to be wrong, so what's to say that global warming won't turn out the same way either?" There are apples and oranges.
You're right, you are young. They were fucking nuts about it. Just as much hysteria as there is today over global war...er, global climate change.

It's not apples and oranges, it's two sides of the same coin. Liberals usurping science to force social change.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're right, you are young. They were fucking nuts about it. Just as much hysteria as there is today over global war...er, global climate change.

It's not apples and oranges, it's two sides of the same coin. Liberals usurping science to force social change.

but the only difference that matters is the presence of scientific consensus in one theory and not the other.

[Yonivore]

but the difference is the scientific consensus is present in one theory and not the other.
Nah, there was a concensus then too. It was beyond debate. It was, as Algore likes to say, a settled matter.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Nah, there was a concensus then too. It was beyond debate. It was, as Algore likes to say, a settled matter.


we'll if you call hype by the media "scientific consensus," then I guess you're right: the cooling theory is on "equal scientific footing" with the warming theory . FYI, I'm being sarcastic.

[Extra Stout]

Bring back sulfur emissions then. Problem solved.
There are unpleasant side effects to that, which I'm sure you know, although some have suggested aerosol-seeding of the upper atmosphere as an extreme measure to induce cooling, in the event global climate change threatens human survival at some point in the future.

[Wild Cobra]

There are unpleasant side effects to that, which I'm sure you know, although some have suggested aerosol-seeding of the upper atmosphere as an extreme measure to induce cooling, in the event global climate change threatens human survival at some point in the future.
I wonder what will happen with all the coal burning China is doing? I wonder what their coals sulpher content is? Could they be the cause of the record rains?

[Wild Cobra]

we'll if you call hype by the media "scientific consensus," then I guess you're right: the cooling theory is on "equal scientific footing" with the warming theory . FYI, I'm being sarcastic.
With modern scientific evidence of the last few recent years, it is clear than man-made global warming has as much credibility as the flat earth theory. Don't forget, there was consensus then, and those who said otherwise were heretics. Today’s heretics are the deniers. History will show them correct and the alrmists as foolish as those who told Columbus he would fall of the edge of the Earth.

[Extra Stout]

I wonder what will happen with all the coal burning China is doing? I wonder what their coals sulpher content is? Could they be the cause of the record rains?
They will create a lot of pollution; pretty high; no.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Not empirical science, it's just the pseudo-science of concensus that is a liberal conspiracy.

So, you think that the major scientific institutes of the world are engaged in psuedo-science, not empirical science?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

It is the empirical science of the world's major scientific institutes and universities that informs climate change theory.

Just shot your neo-con agenda in the foot there.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

With modern scientific evidence of the last few recent years, it is clear than man-made global warming has as much credibility as the flat earth theory. Don't forget, there was consensus then, and those who said otherwise were heretics. Today’s heretics are the deniers. History will show them correct and the alrmists as foolish as those who told Columbus he would fall of the edge of the Earth.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Sorry, which peer-reviewed journals are YOU reading? Do they have lots of dots that you join together?

WTF are you talking about? The more we look at the climate, the more certain the scientific community becomes that we are fundamentally affecting it. You are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

Climate change denial has the credibility of flat earth amongst scientists. Amongst neo-cons with a monetary and political agendas such as you it might have some credibility, but not scientists.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yep, Chicken Little Gore.

I'm not worried about CO2 levels raising the temperature any more. I'm worried about it becoming toxic to some life form. Increase what we have by tenfold, and it will cause havoc on us. How much can more vulnerable life like birds take?

When they start being honest with us, I can support their ideas and plans. Until they are honest, I think they are just starting a giant money grab. Also, until they are honest with us, people wont understand the real threats.

How much stock does Gore have in companies that sell carbon credits?

You know what, FUCK AL GORE. Scientists want nothing to do with Gore. He hijacks the debate about what we should be doing away from science and policy to petty politics. He is a hypocrite and a fool.

Stop using anti-Gore arguments, which are political, to attempt to discredit the science. Address the science. But you can't. That's the problem. All the debunkers have been shamed by the scientists they misrepresent. All the debunker's objections have been answered. But you never mention that.

Even the biggest of climate change deniers, Bjorn Lomborg who wrote The Sceptical Environmentalist back in 2000, has flip-flopped and now agrees that climate change is occurring.

Fuck this shit. None of you fuckwits know a damn thing. I work with people who report on different aspects of climate change every freakin day, and you insult every one of them - basically, you call them liars and fools - with your bullshit. Some of these people are at the top of their respective fields, engaged in cutting edge empirical science at one of the world's leading research institutions, and not one of them has any doubt that climate change is being driven by human activity. But you know betterthan them, and thousands of others engaged in similar research across the globe. Yup, you guys know better. :rolleyes

But, no, I'm the one with my eyes closed... :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

You know what, FUCK AL GORE. Scientists want nothing to do with Gore. He hijacks the debate about what we should be doing away from science and policy to petty politics. He is a hypocrite and a fool.
Agreed.


Stop using anti-Gore arguments, which are political, to attempt to discredit the science. Address the science. But you can't. That's the problem. All the debunkers have been shamed by the scientists they misrepresent. All the debunker's objections have been answered. But you never mention that.
I most certainly can address the science. I understand more about this issue than at least 99% of the population.


Even the biggest of climate change deniers, Bjorn Lomborg who wrote The Sceptical Environmentalist back in 2000, has flip-flopped and now agrees that climate change is occurring.

Funny, he’s one I haven’t heard of. Maybe because he did dabble with junk science. I did a quick wiki read on him. Nobody I’ve listened to.


Fuck this shit. None of you fuckwits know a damn thing. [B]I work with people who report on different aspects of climate change every freakin day, and you insult every one of them - basically, you call them liars and fools - with your bullshit.
So what do they say about:

The change in solar activity between about 1900 to about 1950.

CO2 lagging long term temperature changes by an average of 800 years.

That the equilibrium the ocean establishes accounts for 28 ppm of CO2 per degree C change.

The obvious approximate 1500 year cycle in global temperatures

Solar activity being verifiable by the isotope concentrations of Oxygen 18, Beryllium 10, and Carbon 14, and coinciding with global changes.

The problems of accurate CO2 changes in ice cores once the samples are so deep the CO2 changes from gas to liquid.

That CO2 is near saturation levels for trapping heat at the frequencies it vibrates at.

That CO2 increases do not have a linear relationship to trapped heat like the IPCC report indicates falsely in calculations.

Why do troposphere atmospheric measurements for these last several decades not track surface temperature measurements, and over the long term, show almost no increase.

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure I can find more good questions.
On solar activity. The average output changed by about 0.15% which may not seem significant, but is perhaps a 0.3 Celsius change in temperature. Since land is only about 1/3 the surface, only 0.1 C will track with it. The rest is absorbed into the ocean and released slowly. I haven’t seen data here, but would place a 150 year or more smoothing on a plot as a guess for the other 0.2 degrees.


Some of these people are at the top of their respective fields, engaged in cutting edge empirical science at one of the world's leading research institutions, and not one of them has any doubt that climate change is being driven by human activity.
Then why are factors ignored that offer results they don’t like?


But you know betterthan them, and thousands of others engaged in similar research across the globe. Yup, you guys know better.

There are so many that dispute the alarmist. They have coherent arguments that put the alarmists to shame.

As for knowing better than them? Are their motives skewed by grant monies to show such an output, or not?

If they are claiming we are causing the warming, then yes. I know better than them. Do they ever mention the troposphere measurements in their research? The ocean equilibrium? Compare with data available from the SOHO satellite? The fact that the atmosphere only accounts for less than 2% of the CO2?

[Extra Stout]

That CO2 is near saturation levels for trapping heat at the frequencies it vibrates at.
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one.

CO2 approaches saturation at lower levels of the atmosphere (troposphere); however, these are not the levels at which radiation is lost back to space. At those upper levels, CO2 is not close to saturation, but it is increasing apace.

An old fallacy about the atmosphere was to treat it as if it were homogeneous, when instead it has distinct layers. CO2 concentration within a single layer will be relatively constant due to the mixing effect of convection, but this does not translate across different layers.

The earth at equilibrium will always be in energy balance with the sun, so however much radiation it is seeing from the sun, that is how much it will be emitting as well. So the temperature at that interface essentially is only a function of the sun's output.

However, the surface temperature will depend upon the atmospheric "resistance" to losing heat. CO2 works like a kink in the hose or a dam in the river. The level of the river downstream of the dam will be the same as if the dam were never built (i.e., temperatures in the upper atmosphere), but the level upstream will be much higher (i.e., temperatures in the lower atmosphere).

You see the same effect in the contrast between the temperature on a cloudy, humid night as opposed to a clear, dry one. CO2 acts in the same way as water vapor in that regard in providing resistance to the loss of heat.

The difference between CO2 and water vapor is that the water does not get up into the upper layers of the atmosphere in comparable quantities to what CO2 does.

[Yonivore]

not one of them has any doubt that climate change is being driven by human activity.
They're liars and/or fools. Lying fools or foolish liars.

[Sec24Row7]

No one has as of yet been able to explain this to me...

http://www.lasraicesranch.com/images/misc/image277.gif

Things like Ice Ages with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere contradict a human driven warming trend with CO2 as the cause.

Just me though...

[xrayzebra]

Hell, RNR seems to ignore any rebuttal or opposing views to
any of his arguments. Like what I posted in the club. Of course
he does go to a University and all his rebuttals are peer reviewed.
Well except maybe his replies when he is in a bad mood.

Quote:

RNR, here is a little more "research" on the Edwards. Now I know
this must have been peer reviewed, since you quoted the same
source. Maybe you should do a little more depth in your research.



Frequently Asked Questions

Here are answers to some of the questions I get asked most frequently regarding the Edwards Aquifer and issues surrounding it. Let me know if you have a question you would like to see answered here!

Will we run out of water?

Unless we start mining the resource by using more than goes in on a long term basis, we will always be able to get plenty of good water for critical uses like eating and bathing. We have never seen the Aquifer less than 90-95% full, so there is lots of water down there we can use if we have to in an extreme drought. However, we sometimes DO run out of water in the top 5-10% of the Edwards formation, and when that happens the springs stop flowing. Lots of people, along with endangered plants and animals, depend on water from the springs. To keep them flowing we have to keep the Aquifer almost full.

Do we have a water shortage?

Maybe it's more correct to call it a money shortage. If money were no object, we could do very expensive things like desalinate ocean water and have an unlimited supply. What we are running short on is the cheap, seemingly limitless aquifer water that we have been used to using without restriction. All of the alternative water sources seem very expensive by comparison.

So is our water shortage more related to environmental protection and economics and equitable sharing than an actual physical shortage of water?

Yes.

How much water is in the aquifer?

Because of the complexity of the Aquifer system, it is difficult to narrow down the range of how much water we think it contains. One thing that is clear is there's a big difference between how much water the Aquifer contains and how much water could be extracted. Some researchers have estimated the Aquifer may contain as much as 175 million acre feet. However, that figure includes water locked up in pore spaces that are not connected to any other pores, so that water can't move anywhere and is therefore not available. A more reasonable estimate of 25-55 million acre-feet is based on effective porosity, which is a measure of the percentage of pore spaces within the rock that are connected to other pore spaces (see Maclay, 1981 and Ogden, 1986). Pores must be connected for water to move through the rock and to the surface through springs and wells. Additionally, one should not picture the Aquifer as a vast underground pool. There are undoubtedly many large caverns, but most of the water is in small pore spaces that are probably no larger than your finger.

Some people say there is enough water in the aquifer to supply our needs for several hundred years, even if it never rains again. Is that true?

If there's 25-55 million acre feet of water available, and if we use only 450,000 acre feet a year, then it sounds like there's enough water to last 200 years! However, the aquifer contains a lot of water that we can't really get to in legal or practical terms. The problem is the springs go dry when the aquifer is still 95% full. So as long as we are going to maintain at least minimal natural springflows for the sake of endangered species, recreational economies, downstream ecosystems, and downstream economies, then the large amount of water below the level of the springs is essentially unavailable to us. Even if we did decide to let all the springs go dry and pump out as much water as we need, it is very expensive to pump large amounts of water up from great depths and it would soon get prohibitively expensive.

=======================================

I had stated that the rainfall over the whole earth was not
accurately measured or known and his rebuttal was that
"every" drop of rain is accurately measured by river flow.
I then countered that no one even knows how much water is
contained in the Edwards aquifer, where San Antonio gets
most of it's water, and he posted the measurement well of
the Edwards at Fort Sam Houston. So I went back to the same
website and the results are posted above.

But of course he doesn't like to be challenged and he is a
budding scientist, just that he has some liberal leanings



RNR Rant (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74194)

[Wild Cobra]

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one.

CO2 approaches saturation at lower levels of the atmosphere (troposphere); however, these are not the levels at which radiation is lost back to space. At those upper levels, CO2 is not close to saturation, but it is increasing apace.

Well done.
:clap
You are the first person I ever encountered that pointed that out. It is very close to correct from my understanding. However, the primary frequencies that CO2 absorb from radiated heat from the surface is in a narrow band from about 12 micrometers to 17 micrometers. The other bands are at radiation levels so minute levels (near the ends of a curve like a bell curve) that 100% of them are a very small portion of the infrared radiated This 12-17 band in near the peak levels of frequencies radiated and covers about (my visual estimate) 18% of the radiated power. H2O overlaps this band at about half the absorption capacity.

Now what you are stating is that the heat is trapped at lower levels and therefore is radiated and trapped at a greater percentage than what finally makes it out to space, am I right? Problem is this. What is re-radiated from the CO2 is more than just the same frequencies absorbed. The atmosphere is composed of primarily N2 and O2. The added heat from the CO2 warms these molecules, and is then radiated at frequencies that primarily don’t care about CO2. There is an effect as you describe, but with the minimal attitude changes the 100% saturation point becomes, this difference is still insignificant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png


An old fallacy about the atmosphere was to treat it as if it were homogeneous, when instead it has distinct layers. CO2 concentration within a single layer will be relatively constant due to the mixing effect of convection, but this does not translate across different layers.

Correct in general. CO2 mixes well up to 80 km. It is other gasses that don’t mix so well and are in different concentrations.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO2vsaltitude.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CH4vsaltitude.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/H2Ovsaltitude.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/SO2vsaltitude.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/N2Ovsaltitude.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/O3vsaltitude.jpg


The earth at equilibrium will always be in energy balance with the sun, so however much radiation it is seeing from the sun, that is how much it will be emitting as well. So the temperature at that interface essentially is only a function of the sun's output.

Yes and no. That is true for land surface areas. The oceans absorbs the radiation rather deep, and hold the heat for some time before the equilibrium can be achieved. One scientists estimates that the ocean is holding so much energy not yet in balance that the earth will still heat up by one degree from it. The theory is sound, but not necessarily the specific numbers.


However, the surface temperature will depend upon the atmospheric "resistance" to losing heat. CO2 works like a kink in the hose or a dam in the river. The level of the river downstream of the dam will be the same as if the dam were never built (i.e., temperatures in the upper atmosphere), but the level upstream will be much higher (i.e., temperatures in the lower atmosphere).
In the end, all this does is create a more severe delta T between the immediate lower atmosphere and the next layers. It does not have an effect of changing the global temperature. I have no argument against those who say it changes climate however. I am one to believe that weather patterns are more severe as it takes more violent reactions to achieve balance, like stronger hurricanes and tornadoes.


You see the same effect in the contrast between the temperature on a cloudy, humid night as opposed to a clear, dry one. CO2 acts in the same way as water vapor in that regard in providing resistance to the loss of heat.

Resistance is an incorrect analogy because it implies a linear effect. However, yes otherwise.


The difference between CO2 and water vapor is that the water does not get up into the upper layers of the atmosphere in comparable quantities to what CO2 does.

Agreed, and is not as constant as CO2 levels.

Are we really disagreeing? Seems like we agree. Just not on the finer nuances and the final results.

[Wild Cobra]

No one has as of yet been able to explain this to me...

http://www.lasraicesranch.com/images/misc/image277.gif

Things like Ice Ages with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere contradict a human driven warming trend with CO2 as the cause.

Just me though...
The global warming deniers explain it rather well, factually. It is simple. The effect that CO2 has on atmospheric warming reaches near a 100% effect real fast, probably at about 100 ppm. Once the primary frequency range that CO2 can trap is at 100%, the rest is insignificant.

Nice graph.

[Nbadan]

Now what you are stating is that the heat is trapped at lower levels and therefore is radiated and trapped at a greater percentage than what finally makes it out to space, am I right? Problem is this. What is re-radiated from the CO2 is more than just the same frequencies absorbed. The atmosphere is composed of primarily N2 and O2. The added heat from the CO2 warms these molecules, and is then radiated at frequencies that primarily don’t care about CO2. There is an effect as you describe, but with the minimal attitude changes the 100% saturation point becomes, this difference is still insignificant.
Eh,

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model(2000) (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/scheffer_etal_T_CO2_GRL_in_press.pdf)

[Yonivore]

Eh,

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model(2000) (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/scheffer_etal_T_CO2_GRL_in_press.pdf)
Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.

[Nbadan]

Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.

Well, yeah, but it's a well-respected guess...

[Nbadan]

Things like Ice Ages with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere contradict a human driven warming trend with CO2 as the cause.

Or, more likely, this was a volcanic period and a lot of CO2 as well as sulfur dioxide SO2, which is very reflective of the Sun's solar radiation and thus cooled the earth, were propelled into the atmosphere....

[Wild Cobra]

Eh,

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model(2000) (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/scheffer_etal_T_CO2_GRL_in_press.pdf)
Very nice find Dan. I started reading the article. I like it. I don't know how accurate it is, but my inital opinion is that it is a great piece to the puzzle of determining various aspects of warming.

Get back later on it. Not much time during these wee hours to focus on it.

[Wild Cobra]

Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.
If you haven't read that yet, don't immediately discount it. I read the first part, and it looks sound to me so far.

[Wild Cobra]

Or, more likely, this was a volcanic period and a lot of CO2 as well as sulfur dioxide SO2, which is very reflective of the Sun's solar radiation and thus cooled the earth, were propelled into the atmosphere....
My thought is that initial development of the earth simply had that much CO2. I never researched the concept, but some think that oxygen levels were far higher too. Otherwise it is difficult to have life forms as large as dinosaurs were. Think about it. Strength is affected by oxygen concentrations in the blood. You take any life form and scale it up, the result is not linear between weight and strength. That's why ants can carry 50 time or more their weight. Just doubling the size of something in three dimensions yields eight times the mass, but the two dimension cross section across muscles only yield four times the strength.

My personal untested belief is that we had far more land and much less ocean thise millions of years back. No huge ocean to absorb CO2 and Oxygen, nitrogen, is a wildcard. I hadn't considered it. Where did the ocean come from? Slowly over time, two thing happen, and contine to happen today. The orbit of the Earth crosses the path of comets that have left behind water from the sun's radiation. Also, we have Coronal Mass Ejections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection) that add matter to the earth. Primarily hydrogen, which combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to make water. Who really knows how million of years of this has changed the earths properties.

Since we have no records from the past, we can really only make wild guesses. If we assume that temperature range from Sec24Row7's is accurate, then it should be noted that the earth has stayed within a specific range through volcanoes, and all other changes.

[Wild Cobra]

Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.
Well, yeah, but it's a well-respected guess...If you haven't read that yet, don't immediately discount it. I read the first part, and it looks sound to me so far.
OK Yoni, I'm with you now. As I continues to read the numbers they apply to CO2 effects and addressed the obsolete 2001 IPCC report... Even the IPCC reports contradicts their own information from one year to the next.


Not that I disagree with the report just because it refers to the IPCC report, but the far reaching modeling of CO2 vs. temperature. This alone is reduced for projected effects in the later IPCC reports vs. the 2001 report.

Sorry Dan, not such a nice find after all. It read very good at the start, but started going into junk science

[Sec24Row7]

Or, more likely, this was a volcanic period and a lot of CO2 as well as sulfur dioxide SO2, which is very reflective of the Sun's solar radiation and thus cooled the earth, were propelled into the atmosphere....


Actually Earth's initial atmosphere was more like that of Venus and Life has slowly been putting C02 away into CaCo3 (Calcite the main ingredient of Limestone) for a couple of billion years.

The main component of the earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen at about 78%...

This Nitrogen content used to be 2% back when the earth was first formed... and the amount of the Nitrogen in the atmosphere hasnt changed...

That's how much CO2 has been taken out since life began.

[spurster]

Antarctica is warming up, too.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060330_warming_antarctic.html

The scientists estimate that atmospheric temperatures over Antarctica in the winter have risen by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius) in the last 30 years, and the change is due in large part to greenhouse gas emissions.

...

The study is detailed in the March 30 issue of Science.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cobra, you've brought up a number of discredited ideas used by "debunkers". I will point you towards the scientist's explanations tomorrow.

[Sec24Row7]

No one really ever wants to talk about my graph...

You can't deny that it has been warmer on average over the last few decades.

You can't deny it was getting cooler in the 40's.

There is just no pattern that follows CO2 levels.

Climate change is real.

To deny as much would be stupid. The graph shows as much.

Climate change just doesn't mean what scaremongers say it does.

If you are looking for the Oceans to rise 2 feet in your lifetime, good luck.

I would bet against you.

[DarkReign]

If you are looking for the Oceans to rise 2 feet in your lifetime, good luck.

Well, by 2 feet, I would certainly agree with you. But I was just reading Scientific American special edition on the concept of Time, and it said in an unrelated argument...


ONE YEAR
Earth makes one circuit around the sun and spins on its axis 365.26 times. The mean level of the oceans rises between one and 2.5 millimeters, and North America moves about three centimeters away from Europe. It takes 4.3 years for light from Proxima Centauri, the closest star, to reach Earth - approximately the same amount of time that ocean-surface currents take to circumnavigate the globe.

[Sec24Row7]

Ocean levels have been rising since we have been warming out of the last ice age.

Go look at a map of what Florida looked like 15,000 years ago.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to recognize it.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/

There is a view of how much land mass Florida has lost due to rising sea levels about halfway down the page.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Re Wild Cobra:

Wild Cobra, you bring up many of the classic ‘debunker’ arguments found on junkscience.org and its ilk. Have you bothered to go to your local university and discuss them with the climatologists? Or to go to a site like Realclimate.org which is staffed by climatologists from universities across the world and offers excellent science communication explaining the phenomenon, and unmoderated discussion of articles if you have challenges or questions? I recommend you go here and do some reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

The change in solar activity between about 1900 to about 1950.
Solar activity roughly correlated with changes in temperature between 1900 and 1950, no-one will argue that. In fact, why argue it? Most industrialization, and thus the significant increases in CO2 production, occurred post WW II, in fact from the early 1950s, so why don’t we look at what has happened 1950-today? Temperature has increased significantly while solar activity has remained static and certainly HAS NOT followed the recent temperature trend. Here’s a lovely graph illustrating all of that…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Here’s an article about solar forcing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/


CO2 lagging long term temperature changes by an average of 800 years.
Here I refer you to realclimate. Read the explanation and tell me where they are wrong:
2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/


That the equilibrium the ocean establishes accounts for 28 ppm of CO2 per degree C change.
Need more detail for that one – what equilibrium, ocean-atmos exchange in CO2? Per degree of atmospheric or oceanic temp change? Never heard that one before.
Link to a primary source please.

The obvious approximate 1500 year cycle in global temperatures.
Classic Singer and Avery.
You mean the cycles that seem to appear in the last ice age but don’t appear in the current interglacial? Yeah, very relevant.
Here is a climatology department who focus on this question but say nothing about it debunking anthropo climate change theory:

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/MaineClimate/changeEvents.html


Solar activity being verifiable by the isotope concentrations of Oxygen 18, Beryllium 10, and Carbon 14, and coinciding with global changes.
Never heard of that one. Are you saying that those isotopes are flung at the earth in cosmic rays and higher concentrations correspond with warming events? I call bullshit. Show me a paper.

The problems of accurate CO2 changes in ice cores once the samples are so deep the CO2 changes from gas to liquid.
So what are you bringing into question – the paleoclimatic record?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/


That CO2 is near saturation levels for trapping heat at the frequencies it vibrates at.
Utter tosh. But a very complex subject, nonetheless:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/


That CO2 increases do not have a linear relationship to trapped heat like the IPCC report indicates falsely in calculations.
Please specifiy which IPCC report has falsified data and link me to it.

Why do troposphere atmospheric measurements for these last several decades not track surface temperature measurements, and over the long term, show almost no increase.
Ah, 0.6C GLOBAL AVERAGE warming is not “almost no increase”.


There are so many that dispute the alarmist. They have coherent arguments that put the alarmists to shame.
So, because the few ‘debunkers’ out there who make all the noise (Avery, Singer, and the like, men who defended tobacco companies against the link between smoking and cancer, the worst kind of hired guns), most of whom aren’t even climatologists, say things that agree with your frame, everyone else is an alarmist, including literally thousands of scientists in various fields across the planet? Um, okay…

As for knowing better than them? Are their motives skewed by grant monies to show such an output, or not?
Let’s compare motives, shall we. Scientists are often paid well below what they could earn if they were working in business at the same level, and world-wide, research grants amount to what, $50bil.
Fossil fuels are worth TRILLIONS of dollars a year, maybe even tens of trillions.
Who has the greater incentive again?

If they are claiming we are causing the warming, then yes. I know better than them. Do they ever mention the troposphere measurements in their research? The ocean equilibrium? Compare with data available from the SOHO satellite? The fact that the atmosphere only accounts for less than 2% of the CO2?

In the stuff I’ve read, yes, yes, yes and yes. I’m not sure what you’re reading.
(Here's where you get really stupid with that last question - yeah, scientists don't know about the global carbon cycle... :rolleyes )

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

They're liars and/or fools. Lying fools or foolish liars.

Yup, and you, Yonivore, with your multiple PhDs in climatology and paleoclimatology know so much more.

You are truly deluded.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No one really ever wants to talk about my graph...

You can't deny that it has been warmer on average over the last few decades.

You can't deny it was getting cooler in the 40's.

There is just no pattern that follows CO2 levels.

Climate change is real.

To deny as much would be stupid. The graph shows as much.

Climate change just doesn't mean what scaremongers say it does.

If you are looking for the Oceans to rise 2 feet in your lifetime, good luck.

I would bet against you.

That's because a graph like that is essentially meaningless - you have to look much closer at all sorts of detail to understand what was going on.

Everything from sulphate and other aerosol concentration to the albedo of the planet, concentrations of other GHGs, local climatic effects (remember that the continents haven't look like this very long, etc.) could all be playing a part in the observed cycles. I'd suggest you have to dig down into the literature a bit more and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations for your graph.

Paleoclimatology - why don't you take the graph and questions to your local university with a paleoclimatology department and ask them?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

If you really want to understand AGW from all sides, go to the realclimate.org index page and start reading. Anything you don't agree with you can argue with them in detail and it will appear below the article. Cobra, I challenge you to do exactly that and link me to their answers when you're done, although most of what you have listed on the last page has already been addressed by them many times over.

I link to realclimate because they are climatologists and paleoclimatologists from scattered institutions across the world and willing to reply to any question. You could do the same by going to any uni with a climatology department and posing the professors some questions. They will answer you, and show you the primary paper/s on which the answer relies, which you can then read yourself.

I was pretty convinced by the junkscience arguments until I looked at the realsauce.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why we make such elaborate arguments to avoid changing our wasteful and damaging behaviour as societies is beyond me. Waste is inefficiency in economic terms, and lowering waste has been shown to increase productivity in many contexts. We have all been spoiled by the best living standards in history, at least in the developed economies (lucky us!).

We haven't even talked about resource depletion yet. If I were you guys, and I'm gonna guess that you have energy portfolios in your investments, and what a good move that is, much money to be made there (not being sarcastic - energy is a great investment because without it we have no civilisation), I wouldn't worry about the coal and oil that is left going unused. The world is on an upward and increasing fossil fuel teat, no sign of change there at all. In fact, I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT! If I didn't think human activity was driving climate change I would sleep a lot better at night, and waste more of everything and never worry about it. That's how I used to live until I started reading about global change issues 10 years ago.

So, a separate question is what happens when the coal and oil is gone? How are you going to replace all that fossil fuel-driven infrastructure we rely on with infrastructure that runs on other energy sources if we don't start doing it now? We're talking about a massive undertaking in terms of sheer volume of equipment and the resources (human, financial, natural) to construct it.

We really should be discussing global change, which encompasses climate, limited fresh water resources, deforestation, desertification, topsoil degredation, watertable salinity, disappearing oceanic fisheries, ecosystem collapses (due to any or all of the above), etc.

Ray stated the other day that:

[quote=xrayzebra]"We are but a pimple in time. You and people like you give us too much credit. We couldn't destroy earth if we set off every atomic weapon that exist this day and time. Mankind maybe but not earth. I am not even sure that we could kill off all of mankind. " [/xrayzebra]

I then went on to list all of the things we do that have changed and are constantly changing the planet, especially with 6.6bil people and climbing (in 1900 there were 1.5bil using a small fraction of the energy/water/other resources we use today per capita, 1800 less than 1 billion). GLOBAL CHANGE on all levels is the concern - how are all of these processes interacting with each other to jeopardise the special conditions that gave rise to the current spate of human civilisations (since about 4000BC)?

You simply cannot pump massive quantities of energy through a system, which is what we humans have been doing in the post-industrial age, and not expect the system to change - it will, a basic understanding of equilibrium states tells you that.

Ray also completely misses the point - I am NOT afraid for the Earth. As long as we don't "set off every atomic weapon that exist this day and time", which surely would destroy the biosphere through radiation-induced mutation and the toxicity of plutonium (a few things might survive the radiation, like the cockroach, but not too much is going to outlast the double whammy of plutonium toxicity), I know the earth will continue to be here until the Sun explodes. No, I'm concerned about us, you and me and our descendants, and their descendants, OUR CIVILISATION. In so many ways I respect and admire what humans have created, but in overloading our environment, exceeding it's carrying capacity and pushing it's resilience thresholds*, we're dicing with our own downfall. The ultimate irony, with some small lifestyle changes and investment in sustainability, we could achieve a long-term sustainable economy on this planet. Right now we're spending the rent money in front of the landlord while poking him with a stick. Not a wise policy.

*in many complex global systems like climate, we're not sure where the tipping points lie, so rapidly and blindly altering things like atmospheric CO2 concentration is akin to running around next to a cliff in the dark.

[Sec24Row7]

That's because a graph like that is essentially meaningless - you have to look much closer at all sorts of detail to understand what was going on.

Everything from sulphate and other aerosol concentration to the albedo of the planet, concentrations of other GHGs, local climatic effects (remember that the continents haven't look like this very long, etc.) could all be playing a part in the observed cycles. I'd suggest you have to dig down into the literature a bit more and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations for your graph.

Paleoclimatology - why don't you take the graph and questions to your local university with a paleoclimatology department and ask them?

I spent 5 years in the halls of two universities talking to people that taught paleoclimatology.

I have a BS in Geology.

You know what answers they have for it? The ones that believe in man driven global warming bullshit have the same as the one you have. There MUST be a reason it was cold because the MODELS say CO2 causes warming.

The other ones, like me don't believe in this bullshit.

Look at the Graph again... it tells you more than just the world was in an ice age with 4500 PPM CO2.

It tells you that for 450 million years the earth's temperature has alternated within a few degrees of Colder and Warmer times to RELATIVELY THE SAME TEMPERATURE AFTER EACH ALTERNATION through ALL KINDS OF VARIATION OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. What causes the earth to go back to these relative base levels in temperature?

It certainly isn't changes in CO2. CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 450 million years has NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER TO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. Just look at it.

[Wild Cobra]

Re Wild Cobra:

Wild Cobra, you bring up many of the classic ‘debunker’ arguments found on junkscience.org and its ilk. Have you bothered to go to your local university and discuss them with the climatologists? Or to go to a site like Realclimate.org which is staffed by climatologists from universities across the world and offers excellent science communication explaining the phenomenon, and unmoderated discussion of articles if you have challenges or questions? I recommend you go here and do some reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

There is no junk in my remarks. I have heard discussions with several criminologists. Not all are in league with the alarmists.


The change in solar activity between about 1900 to about 1950.
Solar activity roughly correlated with changes in temperature between 1900 and 1950, no-one will argue that. In fact, why argue it? Most industrialization, and thus the significant increases in CO2 production, occurred post WW II, in fact from the early 1950s, so why don’t we look at what has happened 1950-today? Temperature has increased significantly while solar activity has remained static and certainly HAS NOT followed the recent temperature trend. Here’s a lovely graph illustrating all of that…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Coincidence between CO2 and warming. Like you tell others, you have to take all things into consideration. Real math shows a direct relationship between solar power hitting the earth and warming it. This is very sound theory, not modeled guesses. Why do you stoop so low as to bring CO2 into that part of the discussion, deflecting the impact of the sun with such nonsense?


Here’s an article about solar forcing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/


CO2 lagging long term temperature changes by an average of 800 years.
Here I refer you to realclimate. Read the explanation and tell me where they are wrong:
2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Believe it or not, I have read these Real Climate articles, and several others in the past. They blindly believing in CO2 causing warming. What they do not acknowledge is that 800 year average is determined by using a scatter plot of CO2 vs. temperature of all the data over the last several hundred thousand years. This creates a hysteresis curve. When time is adjusted by the 800 years, the hysteresis curve is the flattest. Not just from any one period that looks convenient to use, but for the entire history of the ice cores!


That the equilibrium the ocean establishes accounts for 28 ppm of CO2 per degree C change.
Need more detail for that one – what equilibrium, ocean-atmos exchange in CO2? Per degree of atmospheric or oceanic temp change? Never heard that one before.
Link to a primary source please.

I lost the link to that one. The change is 28 ppm of atmospheric concentration for ever degree C of ocean change. It's not linear, but close for short data points. 28 ppm can optimized linear with normal temperatures we see without being significantly off.

Think about the simple chemistry of it. As water gets colder, it can absorb more gasses. This equilibrium is near linear to temperature, concentration, and pressure. At current climate average ocean temperature and CO2 concentration, 28 ppm is a real number. Some research uses other numbers so I will be flexible on it. Any real scientist will agree that temperature has an effect of gas concentrations in water.

If I was only focusing on this response, I could probably find a link. However, this is a big posting to rebuttal.

Q) Think about this. Why does a cold beer of soda do fine when you open it, but foams when it is opened when warm?

A) The CO2 is near or beyond saturation when warm!

If you look up CO2 in Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2), you will see that it has a solubility in water of 1.45 kg per meter cubed. At 373 ppm (0.0373%), that volume of water absorbs about 0.054 kg. Salt and other factors change this, but think about that. 54 grams of CO2 is a rather large amount of gas.


The obvious approximate 1500 year cycle in global temperatures.
Classic Singer and Avery.
You mean the cycles that seem to appear in the last ice age but don’t appear in the current interglacial? Yeah, very relevant.
Here is a climatology department who focus on this question but say nothing about it debunking anthropo climate change theory:

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/MaineClimate/changeEvents.html

No. Your link is a poor example. Why don't they show data from the 10,000 years to present? Could it show an inconvenient truth? Look at this graph:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Note the red temperature line going up and down several times during the last approximate 10,000 years that your graph doesn't show. Note also that once the CO2 reached about 240 ppm, the temperature is no longer climbing with it? If CO2 had a direct effect of temperature, shouldn't we be at least off the temperature scale at maybe +3 or +4 degrees?

I did not make claim to the cause of the cycle, just that it exists.


Solar activity being verifiable by the isotope concentrations of Oxygen 18, Beryllium 10, and Carbon 14, and coinciding with global changes.
Never heard of that one. Are you saying that those isotopes are flung at the earth in cosmic rays and higher concentrations correspond with warming events? I call bullshit. Show me a paper.

I don't need a paper, my God, why do you? Don't you know these basic sciences? Don't you have a spool of toilet paper with you? Damn college educated assholes. Need everything in black and white.

Consider simple known physics. The radiation bombardment of the sun changes the nucleus of atoms. Nitrogen is changed to C14 by changing a proton to a neutron. Similar things naturally occur in nature with almost all molecules. Scientists know this as fact. Are you telling me your climatologist friends don't know about how these isotopes relate to global warming proxies? The greater the radiation, the greater numbers of molecules changing in a given volume. This is how solar intensities can be tracked over time that we have no other means to measure.

How about some simple wiki links:

Berylium Isotopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium#Isotopes):


10Be is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray spallation of oxygen and nitrogen. Because beryllium tends to exist in solution at pH levels less than about 5.5 (and most rainwater has a pH less than 5), it will enter into solution and be transported to the Earth's surface via rainwater. As the precipitation quickly becomes more alkaline, beryllium drops out of solution. Cosmogenic 10Be thereby accumulates at the soil surface, where its relatively long half-life (1.51 million years) permits a long residence time before decaying to 9B. 10Be and its daughter products have been used to examine soil erosion, soil formation from regolith, the development of lateritic soils, as well as variations in solar activity and the age of ice cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png/300px-Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

Carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14):


Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:

1n + 14N → 14C + 1H

The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 feet) and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 readily mixes and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also dissolves in water and thus permeates the oceans.


Oxygen 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_18)


Paleoclimatology

In Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, O-18 is used to retrieve the original temperatures of the precipitation during different years by analyzing the isotope ratio of the respective annual layers of ice.
You claim to know so much, but apparently completely ignorant to this?



The problems of accurate CO2 changes in ice cores once the samples are so deep the CO2 changes from gas to liquid.
So what are you bringing into question – the paleoclimatic record?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

Yes and no. The general trend is correct. The accuracy starts coming into question with the depth of the ice core. CO2 for example at room temperature changed to a liquid at about 800 PSI I don't remember the exact pressure, that's what My CO2 tanks for kegs are at if my recall is correct.

What happens is that the CO2 is squeezed to a liquid form and the bubbles are no longer present as time and pressure reshapes the deep ice samples. They do what they can not to lose the samples accuracy, but some is lost. When the cores are brought to 1 ATM, the ice cracks and gas is lost. That goes for most the gasses in the samples. Methane is also affected this way and relied upon for historical dating. We can only guess how much is lost from the pressurized depths to the surface.


That CO2 is near saturation levels for trapping heat at the frequencies it vibrates at.
Utter tosh. But a very complex subject, nonetheless:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

That doesn't debunk anything I said. I never implied the 2x M&M theory. In fact, I always said it is not a linear function. Why does the IPCC treat is as a linear function, along with other climatoligists that are in line with you?

Notice how little more of the band a four-fold increase by that link gives. My contention is that CO2 has the ability to trap about 16% of the radiated heat at current levels. Your link suggests a four-fold increase changes transmission from about 66.2% to about 59.8%. I can live with that, although I know of some finer nuances that will reduce the change. For the sake of argument, I will accept those numbers.

OK, 33.8% absorption and the maximum argued amount of 26% that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is estimated to be 32 C. That equates to 8.32 C warming by CO2. A fourfold increase and we now have 40.2% absorption. That is 19% more absorption and now the CO2 effect on temperature is 9.9 C. So it takes a fourfold increase in CO2 to increase the global temperature by 1.58 degrees C!

Now remember, I'm allowing for worse case numbers which I don't agree with. That 26% only applies at a humidity of ZERO! H2O is already trapping half the spectra, so the effect this can cause is about half, or only 0.8 C for a four-fold. If we linearize that small segment, then that amounts to 0.088 Celsius for every 100 ppm worse case.

The truth of the outer range of the absorption spectra is that it is not smooth. It is averaged on most any graph you see. When you look at the data in 0.1 micro-meter resolutions, it peaks and goes to 100% transmission for hundreds of micrometers. Those outer areas cannot peak at 0 transmission, only about 50% because of that nuance.

If I were to accept that data, I will say that when you consider the common spectra absorption with H2O, out industrialized CO2 can only account for 0.06 C increase in temperature.

Like I said, insignificant.


That CO2 increases do not have a linear relationship to trapped heat like the IPCC report indicates falsely in calculations.
Please specifiy which IPCC report has falsified data and link me to it.

I have it on my computer, but forget the filename and location. In the latest IPCC report, they have a similar error to wiki:

Wiki: Greenhouse Gasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses)

Here they show two 1998 CO2 at 365 ppm and a radiative forcing of 1.46 watts. They also show 2007 at 383 ppm and 1.532 watts. A perfect linear relationship, to three significant digits.

You and I agree it's not linear, right?



Why do troposphere atmospheric measurements for these last several decades not track surface temperature measurements, and over the long term, show almost no increase.
Ah, 0.6C GLOBAL AVERAGE warming is not “almost no increase”.

I don't recall the data, but it's no where near 0.6 C. Your 0.6 C is land based sites, right? The ones that the urban areas grew into?



There are so many that dispute the alarmist. They have coherent arguments that put the alarmists to shame.
So, because the few ‘debunkers’ out there who make all the noise (Avery, Singer, and the like, men who defended tobacco companies against the link between smoking and cancer, the worst kind of hired guns), most of whom aren’t even climatologists, say things that agree with your frame, everyone else is an alarmist, including literally thousands of scientists in various fields across the planet? Um, okay…

Your comparison makes you look ignorant. What is the correlation between the two? Are you saying the deniers are liars? I see the alarmists more like ancient sailors who with consensus, thought if they sailed to far, would fall of the edge of the earth. The few who denied that idea turned out to be right! Those who say consensus in science is fact, should loose their credentials.

Very few climatologist are willing to speak out against the fascism involved with the alarmists and the PC crowd supporting them. I say fascism because those who speak out often lose their positions! The PC crowd silences them with lies and loss of jobs. We used to have a climatologist in Oregon. The governor took his position away because he was a denier. Complete loss of wages is a pretty good incentive to keep your mouth shut.



As for knowing better than them? Are their motives skewed by grant monies to show such an output, or not?
Let’s compare motives, shall we. Scientists are often paid well below what they could earn if they were working in business at the same level, and world-wide, research grants amount to what, $50bil.
Fossil fuels are worth TRILLIONS of dollars a year, maybe even tens of trillions.
Who has the greater incentive again?

So you automatically take the money and corporate evil position. You know, statistics don't make facts. Facts are part of statistics however. Unless that statistic is 100%, then you are blowing it out your ass.



If they are claiming we are causing the warming, then yes. I know better than them. Do they ever mention the troposphere measurements in their research? The ocean equilibrium? Compare with data available from the SOHO satellite? The fact that the atmosphere only accounts for less than 2% of the CO2?

In the stuff I’ve read, yes, yes, yes and yes. I’m not sure what you’re reading.
(Here's where you get really stupid with that last question - yeah, scientists don't know about the global carbon cycle... :rolleyes )
That's right, put words in my mouth.

I didn't claim they didn't know. I claim they don't mention the inconvenient truth.

[Wild Cobra]

If you really want to understand AGW from all sides, go to the realclimate.org index page and start reading. Anything you don't agree with you can argue with them in detail and it will appear below the article. Cobra, I challenge you to do exactly that and link me to their answers when you're done, although most of what you have listed on the last page has already been addressed by them many times over.

I have already read most of the articles at that site in the past when I was learnig what I can about global warming.

Nothing new to me.

As for addressing the points I make...

They make excuses. No sound disputes.

[xrayzebra]

Now RNR understands that some folks can put the facts back
into his face. Thanks WC. RNR lacks one great feature. Common
sense. I have accused him of this fact several times and he
insist that mankind is the root of all the troubles of the earth.
Common sense tells me that you can ruin the immediate area for
short periods of time, but if those areas are left alone, Mother
Nature will reclaim the area in time. Like you know some of
the ancient cities of lost worlds. I believe this is what is
happening in Chernobyl at this time. Letting nature take it's
course. His only thought is that man wants to destroy. Wants
to have dirty water. Wants to have dirty water. Man doesn't
want these things. And they most certainly don't want to
destroy their chance of survival on this planet.
People like RNR have politicized this and demanded that man
will change their way of life or perish.

And RNR forgets one very important point. Science is not
infallible. Theories are changed as often as a pair of sox. The
only stable facts are those of physics, as far as I know. All
other facts spewed out are educated guesses. And the old
adage, garbage in garbage out is pertent term, in my opinion.

[Wild Cobra]

Now RNR understands that some folks can put the facts back
into his face. Thanks WC. RNR lacks one great feature. Common
sense. You're welcome.

He definitely misunderestimates people. He took the approach I was repeating propaganda, when I really understand the science behind it. I lack much of the terminology, but I do understand physics, chemistry, etc. I don't think he understands it as well as I do, or at least not as many aspects of it.

[Wild Cobra]

I wish I could find the file that had the IPCC decrepencies. The material is huge, too much for me to filter in a short time and find it.

You can get the IPCC report here:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)

It takes up more than 200 megabytes. The supplement to chapter 8 is more than 40 MB by it self. Individual maps for chapter 10 are located here:

Individual model figures for multi-model means shown in Section 10.3 (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/IPCCdirectory.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

More on the atmospheric saturation of heat trapping.

Please note that in the Real Climate link describing the spectral data (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/), it gave calculations and a nice graph for CO2. It is similar to this. Note that each mark of the left side are factors of 10. It is not a linear graph, but logarithmic:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO2spectra.jpg

Now remember what I said about looking at the data in finer resolution? I said 0.1 micrometers, but you actually need to look finer than that. My mistake, sue me. Also note that you need equipment sensitive enough to make true measurements. Here are refined views of the area in question:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO215umexpanded.jpg

Consider how the narrow bands are so discrete. They really never get to 100%. Equipment measurements that cannot discern such resolutions give false reading. This is another indication that CO2 does not trap as much heat as you guys suspect.

Molecules vibrate at pure frequencies. As an electronics expert, and operating several types of Frequency Selective measurement equipment, I know how the sensitivity and bandwidth affects a graph. There are not really any curved areas when dealing with molecular vibration frequencies. What you see is the lack of the equipment to give clear resolution. The higher the bandwidth that the receiver, the smoother the signal looks. Often to the point of making the changes invisible from zero to maximum.

Link for above data from CalTech:

Carbon dioxide images from HITRAN 2004 (http://vpl.ipac.caltech.edu/spectra/co2hitran2004imagesmicrons.htm)

[xrayzebra]

Still waiting on RNR persuasive argument. By the way did
anyone, besides me, watch the History channel last night. They
had a program on about the possibility of an ice age. And talked
about the little ice age and their supposition on how history was
changed because of climate change. It was interesting. Sure
RNR would not have liked it, no graphs or peer review.

[Wild Cobra]

Still waiting on RNR persuasive argument. By the way did
anyone, besides me, watch the History channel last night. They
had a program on about the possibility of an ice age. And talked
about the little ice age and their supposition on how history was
changed because of climate change. It was interesting. Sure
RNR would not have liked it, no graphs or peer review.
I saw a brief part of it near the end, but moved on to a watching a movie. It did however prompt me to find the data on the link I started:

It’s the Sun Dammit (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)

The suns intensity could decrease to it's lowest output in about 200 years. Maybe we'll be able to relive Washington traversing an icy Delaware river?

[xrayzebra]

I saw a brief part of it near the end, but moved on to a watching a movie. It did however prompt me to find the data on the link I started:

It’s the Sun Dammit (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)

The suns intensity could decrease to it's lowest output in about 200 years. Maybe we'll be able to relive Washington traversing an icy Delaware river?

WC, I have to wonder. What if! The world is really
cooling? How are these folks going to portray that?
What kind of tax will they come up with to "offset"
the cooling. How did mankind cause it? How should
developing countries be helped? You got to wonder.
At least I do.

[xrayzebra]

One other aspect to the flooding in England. The lay blame on
global warming. See the following story.

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
'Early Show' Blames British Flooding on Global Warming
By Justin McCarthy
Created 2007-07-26 09:57

With any weather related disaster, the mainstream media typically blames it on "global warming." This was no exception on the July 26 edition of "The Early Show." Upon reporting on the flooding in Britain, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer concluded her report blaming the disaster on global warming and predicting more to come.

"But most people think that with climate change, flooding like this, or even worse, could become common place here in Britain."

As if floods did not occur before the industrial age. CBS followed NBC's "Today" as correspondent Keith Miller blamed [0] the disaster on "global warming."
Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2007/07/26/early-show-blames-british-flooding-global-warming

========================================


But then again, you have some responsible reporting. Like the
sky isn't falling and this isn't the only time this has happened.

Times Online



From The Times
July 23, 2007
Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country
Paul Simons

What on earth is going on with our weather? Three months’ worth of rain fell in a few places last week, Britain is drowning under floods of biblical proportions and nothing like it has been seen since Noah got his sea legs. In a wave of hysteria, the cry goes out for millions of sandbags, better drains and more flood defences. And fingers of blame are pointing at global warming.

But a simple fact has been overlooked: Britain is a wet country. Yes, it comes as a shock. Over the past few years we’ve become so used to years of scorching, Mediterranean-like summers, when hosepipe bans were the norm, vines were bursting with vintage grapes and water diviners were doing big business. But the truth is that our summers are supposed to be wet: it’s our climate.

The accoutrements of the British summer holiday were thick pullovers and waterproofs. You expected to shiver on wet promenades, “Rain stopped play” was the national mantra and sunblock cream was something for film stars and models. That is why the August Bank Holiday was shunted to the end of the month, because the beginning of August was so awful.

Of course, British summers weren’t always as wet as this year’s, but some were certainly worse. 1912 was the wettest and dullest summer on record, far ahead of this summer’s downpours. It pretty much rained all summer, reaching a peak in late August, when a seven-inch downpour in one day in Norfolk left Norwich completely marooned in a sea of mud and devastation. Even that deluge is overshadowed by the 11 inches of rain that fell in less than a day on Dorset in July 1955 – about half of London’s yearly average rainfall. The longest nonstop rainfall record in the UK was more than 58 hours in London during June 1903, in a summer when there was an epidemic of lung disease in farmworkers caused by mouldy hay and grain.

Farther back still were the sodden summers of 1845 to 1850, when jungle-like humidity and relentless rains triggered the potato blight outbreak that led to the great Irish potato famine, in which a million people died and another million emigrated from Ireland.

Rain is only the half of it. The abysmal summer of 1956 was an assault course of monsoonal rains, big floods, giant hail, houses set ablaze by lightning, howling gales and miserable cold. Just to rub it in, August was one of the coldest and wettest on record across Britain.

It is a very human tendency to blame someone for the vagaries of the weather. A run of bad summers in the 1950s was blamed on nuclear bomb tests, the rains during the First World War were blamed on artillery going off on the Western Front and two centuries ago it was the battles of the Napoleonic Wars that were blamed for upsetting nature. And now it’s global warming.

But climate change was supposed to be making our summers drier, not wetter. Leaving that aside, even if we accept that the recent downpours are a sign of global warming, then a single wet summer hardly adds up to any particular trend. No, it’s far more plausible to explain this latest wet spell as a natural blip in the climate.

If so, then which politician or minister is going to have the courage to propose spending billions of pounds on building new river walls, embankments, ditches and other flood defences? How will we feel about spending large sums of money on such big projects when next year may bring another drought – and the inevitable demands for more reservoirs, leak-proof pipes and desalination plants?

And let’s not forget that an even greater threat comes from the sea. A recent study reveals that London and the Thames Estuary is subsiding faster than anyone had estimated; and with sea levels rising relentlessly, the Thames Barrier is looking increasingly vulnerable. We need to fix that problem before London disappears under a storm surge like New Orleans.

The hysteria over this summer reveals more about our education. The daily forecasts and news reports are all facts and no explanation about why the weather is behaving the way it is. The explanation for the past few days of drama is that Britain lies in a part of the world that is finely balanced between wet and dry, warm and cold weather. The dividing line is the jet stream, a river of wind rushing overhead a few miles high. This summer the jet stream has been very sluggish and buckled into big loops, leaving Britain drenched on the wet side of one of those loops. However, on the other side of the jet stream large parts of Europe are roasting in a ferocious heatwave that has killed dozens of people and brought wildfires blazing across Greece.

This European split has happened before. In the summer of 2002, a large swath of Central Europe was battered by rains that set off huge floods along the Elbe and Danube, drowning more than 100 people.

But there is another story about this summer that has gone virtually unnoticed. Despite all the gloom and doom, temperatures are fairly normal for the time of year. In days gone by, a wet summer would invariably be cold, even with snow in July and frost in August.

The prize for the most diabolical summer of rain and cold should be awarded to that of 1816. Not for nothing was it called “the year without summer” – this time of great storms, massive rains and appalling cold led to the crops rotting, the price of bread soaring and food riots breaking out. Some 200,000 people died of famine across Europe, which was then followed by a typhus epidemic.

So, let’s look on the bright side. At least we haven’t got any hosepipe bans – and the reservoirs are full.

========================================

Now I know I haven't got any great graphs or learned,
peer reviewed reports RNR so loves. All I have a news report
from soneone who obviously did his homework. Wouldn't it
be nice if we had more folks like this reporter.

That's okay, you can thank me later....

[Wild Cobra]

Don't you know Ray, It's fashionable to use the latest fad... Blame it on Global Warming.

I like those examples. Afterall, the raniest July in a very long time here is why I started this thread. It still isn't raining as much as it used to here in Portland... Damn. I miss going three months with no rain...

By the way. What happened to RNR?

RNR.... Where are you....

I'm waiting for explainations of why I don't know shit...

[xrayzebra]

Don't you know Ray, It's fashionable to use the latest fad... Blame it on Global Warming.

I like those examples. Afterall, the raniest July in a very long time here is why I started this thread. It still isn't raining as much as it used to here in Portland... Damn. I miss going three months with no rain...

By the way. What happened to RNR?

RNR.... Where are you....

I'm waiting for explainations of why I don't know shit...


Oh, he is off pouting. And don't know if you noticed
but he is way above us. I think he said he is a
budding scientist, many times. He doesn't like any
facts. Well except his own, which of course have
been well vented and peer reviewed and graphed and
refined and forms a consensus of opinion which of
course make them indisputible and above question.
Any mention of any other source other than his is
out of the question because they all take big oils
money. Of course taking the tax payers money is
okay. Don't you know.

[Wild Cobra]

There's a relatively new article in The Deniers series that speaks of the Black Carbon I have mentioned before. This is the first time I have seen anyone else besides me publically announce such a thing. I found the information from NASA, but they play the political game and stay silent about it.

'Dirty snow' warming the Earth, study finds (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=a9cbecc0-37d0-44a7-9085-0a2217aa390e&k=3803); a few paragraphs from the link:


A team of U.S. scientists has found that "dirty snow" is a surprisingly significant contributor to global warming, and is urging Canada -- as "custodian" of a vast, snowbound nation -- to lead an international cleanup effort.

The researchers have measured, in the first comprehensive study of its kind, how snowy landscapes tainted by carbon particles from inefficiently burned fuels and forest fires are absorbing more of the sun's heat than the less sooty snow cover of centuries past.

"Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smokestacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere and falls to the ground," the team explains. "Soot-infused snow is darker than natural snow. Dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, while bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling."


In their NASA-funded project, Mr. Zender and three colleagues from UC-Irvine and the University of Colorado calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth's temperature to rise 0.1 to 0.15 C, or up to 19% of the total warming of 0.8 C over the past 200 years.

In that time, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 C, and dirty snow there has caused at least 0.5 C of the warming, the team found.

"The global warming debate has focused on carbon dioxide emissions," the scientists note. But their research has "determined that a lesser-known mechanism -- dirty snow -- can explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming primarily attributed to greenhouse gases."


"In some polar areas, impurities in the snow have caused enough melting to expose underlying sea ice or soil that is significantly darker than the snow. The darker surfaces absorb sunlight more rapidly than snow, causing additional warming. This cycle causes temperatures in the polar regions to rise as much as 3 C during some seasons," the scientists say.

"Once the snow is gone, the soot that caused the snow to melt continues to have an effect because the ground surface is darker and retains more heat."

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/science/earth/10arctic.html

August 10, 2007
Analysts See ‘Simply Incredible’ Shrinking of Floating Ice in the Arctic
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The area of floating ice in the Arctic has shrunk more this summer than in any other summer since satellite tracking began in 1979, and it has reached that record point a month before the annual ice pullback typically peaks, experts said yesterday.

The cause is probably a mix of natural fluctuations, like unusually sunny conditions in June and July, and long-term warming from heat-trapping greenhouse gases and sooty particles accumulating in the air, according to several scientists.

...

[Wild Cobra]

Well, another victory for us deniers. Recently, it has been proven that the NASA data reporting 1998 as the hottest year has corrupted results. A Y2K bug is blamed. This doesn't quite wash with me for the reason, especially since an 'Al-Gore-rythm' for calculcations is said to be faulty. A few links and quotes from the articles:

NASA Bitten by Y2K Bug (http://redtory.blogspot.com/2007/08/no-surprise-that-kate-at-sda-leads-what.html)


Having noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000, it’s now been confirmed that a Y2K bug had affected NASA’s climate data. The agency has acknowledged what they refer to as an “oversight” and have released corrected figures in their latest data refresh. Accordingly, the warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long touted in the media as “record-breaking”) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but it will most certainly be taken as lending credence to the arguments of climate change deniers who maintain the issue is anything but “settled science” in their estimation.
Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html)


You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on. And won.

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement that:

"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"

But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?

As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:

"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)


year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
---------------------------------

[xrayzebra]

Well WC, looks like RNR is still pouting. I wonder how he will
explain your latest post. Or even if he will try.

Of course he more than likely is talking to all those learned professors, that like him, that want everyone to conform to his/their life changing ways to protect civilization. And increase taxes and help the third world countries.....etc....etc.....etc.....

You know the old story, if you cant convince people. Just
dazzle them with your BS.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, when I said "Al-Gore-Rythm," I was saying that jokingly. However, I heard yesterday that the scientist responsible for the data was one in the same as the on that got Gore started on his Global Warming stint!

I also heard that this scientist refuses to show his calculations that yielded the increase of a 0.15 Celsius average. Could he have purposely manipulated the data?

I see a pink slip in this guys future. Some say I'm psychic, but you don't need to be psychic to know if he cannot show this as an accident, this guy is likely history.

[spurster]

August 16, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Big Melt
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

If we learned that Al Qaeda was secretly developing a new terrorist technique that could disrupt water supplies around the globe, force tens of millions from their homes and potentially endanger our entire planet, we would be aroused into a frenzy and deploy every possible asset to neutralize the threat.

Yet that is precisely the threat that we're creating ourselves, with our greenhouse gases. While there is still much uncertainty about the severity of the consequences, a series of new studies indicate that we're cooking our favorite planet more quickly than experts had expected.

The newly published studies haven't received much attention, because they're not in English but in Scientese and hence drier than the Sahara Desert. But they suggest that ice is melting and our seas are rising more quickly than most experts had anticipated.

The latest source of alarm is the news, as reported by my Times colleague Andrew Revkin, that sea ice in the northern polar region just set a new low - and it still has another month of melting ahead of it. At this rate, the "permanent" north polar ice cap may disappear entirely in our lifetimes.

In case you missed the May edition of "Geophysical Research Letters," an article by five scientists has the backdrop. They analyze the extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1953. The computer models anticipated a loss of ice of 2.5 percent per decade, but the actual loss was 7.8 percent per decade - three times greater.

The article notes that the extent of summer ice melting is 30 years ahead of where the models predict.

Three other recent reports underscore that climate change seems to be occurring more quickly than computer models had anticipated:

.

Science magazine reported in March that Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice overall, about 125 billion metric tons a year between the two of them - and the amount has accelerated over the last decade. To put that in context, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the most unstable part of the frosty cloak over the southernmost continent) and Greenland together hold enough ice to raise global sea levels by 40 feet or so, although they would take hundreds of years to melt. We hope.

.

In January, Science reported that actual rises in sea level in recent years followed the uppermost limit of the range predicted by computer models of climate change - meaning that past studies had understated the rise. As a result, the study found that the sea is likely to rise higher than most previous forecasts - to between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (and then continuing from there).

.

Science Express, the online edition of Science, reported last month that the world's several hundred thousand glaciers and small ice caps are thinning more quickly than people realized. "At the very least, our projections indicate that future sea-level rise maybe larger than anticipated," the article declared.

What does all this mean?

"Over and over again, we're finding that models correctly predict the patterns of change but understate their magnitude," notes Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

This may all sound abstract, but climate change apparently is already causing crop failures in Africa. In countries like Burundi, you can hold children who are starving and dying because of weather changes that many experts believe are driven by our carbon emissions.

There are practical steps we can take to curb carbon emissions, and I'll talk about them in a forthcoming column. But the tragedy is that the U.S. has become a big part of the problem.

"Not only is the U.S. not leading on climate change, we're holding others back," said Jessica Bailey, who works on climate issues for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. "We're inhibiting progress on climate change globally."

I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue - recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda.

"We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.

"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."

Critics scoff that the scientific debate is continuing, that the consequences are uncertain - and they're right. There is natural variability and lots of uncertainty, especially about the magnitude and timing of climate change.

In the same way, terror experts aren't sure about the magnitude and timing of Al Qaeda's next strike. But it would be myopic to shrug that because there's uncertainty about the risks, we shouldn't act vigorously to confront them - yet that's our national policy toward climate change, and it's a disgrace.

[Wild Cobra]

August 16, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Big Melt
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Who cares about words of a columnist who specializes in political science?

What knowledge does he have to parse the correct information on the subject? Yes, Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice. However, their interiors are gaining ice, and are still near balance. As for the Arctic ice, it is floating ice. It could completely melt and not have any direct effect on sea level. It would have a minor indirect effect as the Arctic ocean absorbs more solar energy. As the average ocean temperatures warm, the heat expansion will have a minor effect.

Find the root problem for the Ice Melts. All credible evidence I have seen shows for Greenland and the Arctic, it is black soot contamination. The ice shelfs in the south are normal periodic phenomena as they are floating ice that stresses from the non-floating ice on the land mass.

wiki; Nicholas Kristof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_D._Kristof)

[spurster]

I am amused by these fallback positions "even if it is melting, it's because of something else". Anyway, here is something recent on the imbalance:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719143502.htm

Source: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: July 20, 2007

Glaciers And Ice Caps To Dominate Sea Level Rise This Century, Says New Study

Science Daily - Ice loss from glaciers and ice caps is expected to cause more global sea rise during this century than the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

The researchers concluded that glaciers and ice caps are currently contributing about 60 percent of the world's ice to the oceans and the rate has been markedly accelerating in the past decade, said Emeritus Professor Mark Meier of CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, lead study author. The contribution is presently about 100 cubic miles of ice annually -- a volume nearly equal to the water in Lake Erie -- and is rising by about three cubic miles per year.

In contrast, the CU-Boulder team estimated Greenland is now contributing about 28 percent of the total global sea rise from ice loss and Antarctica is contributing about 12 percent. Greenland is not expected to catch up to glaciers and ice caps in terms of sea level rise contributions until the end of the century, according to the study.

...

[Wild Cobra]

And you point spurster?


The team estimated accelerating melt of glaciers and ice caps could add from 4 inches to 9.5 inches of additional sea level rise globally by 2100.

They are estimating this much additional from what historical data already says we increase? Not much, and an estimate based on thrends that change. We have been in an accelerated melting of the Northern region. The most recent increases I do attribute to pollution. Not warming. Nobody addresses the correct causes.

How accurate this other article is, I don't know. It at least sounds reasonable except the fear they throw in about Greenland completely losing it's ice. I was refering to the other link which has little or no merit.

[jochhejaam]

The arguements for GW have been weakened to the extent that it deserves no more credibility than the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Global baloney
It turns out the last decade wasn't the hottest in history
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Jack Kelly, Columnist for the Pittsburg Post Gazette & The Toledo Blade.

It was a small change, made quietly two weeks ago on the Web site of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. But it could have big implications.

Al Gore claimed in his 2006 crockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that nine of the 10 hottest years in history have been in the last decade, with 1998 the warmest year on record.

Not so, says the GISS, which is affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University, and is headed by Dr. James Hansen, scientific godfather of global warming alarmism. According to the GISS, the hottest years ever in the United States were, in order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

Only one year in the last five (2006, fourth) is on this list, and only three in the last 10, compared with four in the 1930s.

The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also publishes annual data on U.S. temperatures. Its estimates for the last decade are higher than GISS's. Data collected from NASA weather satellites do not show the warming trend GISS and NCDC do. (Satellites indicated a warming of only a third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999.)

The adjustments in annual temperatures from the GISS's original data to the corrected version are quite small (temperatures from the year 2000 forward were reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius), but the rhetorical implications are great. It sounds so much more alarming to say: "Nine of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade" than to say: "One of the last five years was almost as warm as 1934."

It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station.

A surface station in Detroit Lakes, Minn., showed a big jump in annual mean temperature in the year 2000. Mr. Watts figured this was because two air conditioning vents were installed near the station that year, blowing hot air on the sensor. He expounded upon his theory on his Web log (Watts Up With That?) and promptly got shot down. Several readers noted much of the spike occurred in winter, when the air conditioning units weren't running.

Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, who reads Mr. Watts' blog, had another theory. Perhaps there was a Y2K bug in the software GISS used. He reverse engineered the GISS data, and discovered an error that went far beyond one surface station in Detroit Lakes. Data collected after 1999 wasn't being adjusted to account for the time of day when readings were taken.

Without disclosing how it arrived at its conclusions, the Goddard Institute quietly acknowledged that Mr. McIntyre was right.

The United States is only 2 percent of the world's land mass. It's possible the rest of the world's been getting hotter in the last few years, even if the United States hasn't. But as Lorne Gunter of Canada's National Post noted, we only have surface temperature readings for half the world today. Prior to World War II, we had readings for less than a quarter of it.

Many of those readings are suspect. Earlier this month, British mathematician Douglas Keenan accused Dr. Wei Chyung Wang, upon whom the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for data on China, of research fraud.

Mr. Keenan was able to cry foul on the dubious data because the lead author of the paper to which Dr. Wang contributed his figures was a British scientist, Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Under British law, those who conduct publicly funded research must disclose the data and methodology on which they based their conclusions.

No such law exists in the United States. Though publicly funded, neither the scientists at the Goddard Institute nor the National Climatic Data Center disclose how they arrive at conclusions so they can be independently verified. They ought to.

As the GISS was quietly acknowledging its error, Newsweek magazine, with exquisitely bad timing, declared in an Aug. 13 cover story that the debate on global warming was over.

"The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading," <In other words, it was a great read if you're into fiction. What a joke!> wrote Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson in the following issue.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07231/810390-373.stm

[Wild Cobra]

once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of climate shift or 'global warming'


:guin
You discredit Jochhejaam with a statement that you don't back up, and I bet you cannot.

Have you read this tread from the start, with the evidence presented against man-made global warming?

Tell me why I am wrong. Put your money where your mouth is!

[McFudpucker]

The arguements for GW have been weakened to the extent that it deserves no more credibility than the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Global baloney
It turns out the last decade wasn't the hottest in history
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Jack Kelly, Columnist for the Pittsburg Post Gazette & The Toledo Blade.

It was a small change, made quietly two weeks ago on the Web site of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. But it could have big implications.

Al Gore claimed in his 2006 crockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that nine of the 10 hottest years in history have been in the last decade, with 1998 the warmest year on record.

Not so, says the GISS, which is affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University, and is headed by Dr. James Hansen, scientific godfather of global warming alarmism. According to the GISS, the hottest years ever in the United States were, in order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

Only one year in the last five (2006, fourth) is on this list, and only three in the last 10, compared with four in the 1930s.

The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also publishes annual data on U.S. temperatures. Its estimates for the last decade are higher than GISS's. Data collected from NASA weather satellites do not show the warming trend GISS and NCDC do. (Satellites indicated a warming of only a third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999.)

The adjustments in annual temperatures from the GISS's original data to the corrected version are quite small (temperatures from the year 2000 forward were reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius), but the rhetorical implications are great. It sounds so much more alarming to say: "Nine of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade" than to say: "One of the last five years was almost as warm as 1934."

It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station.

A surface station in Detroit Lakes, Minn., showed a big jump in annual mean temperature in the year 2000. Mr. Watts figured this was because two air conditioning vents were installed near the station that year, blowing hot air on the sensor. He expounded upon his theory on his Web log (Watts Up With That?) and promptly got shot down. Several readers noted much of the spike occurred in winter, when the air conditioning units weren't running.

Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, who reads Mr. Watts' blog, had another theory. Perhaps there was a Y2K bug in the software GISS used. He reverse engineered the GISS data, and discovered an error that went far beyond one surface station in Detroit Lakes. Data collected after 1999 wasn't being adjusted to account for the time of day when readings were taken.

Without disclosing how it arrived at its conclusions, the Goddard Institute quietly acknowledged that Mr. McIntyre was right.

The United States is only 2 percent of the world's land mass. It's possible the rest of the world's been getting hotter in the last few years, even if the United States hasn't. But as Lorne Gunter of Canada's National Post noted, we only have surface temperature readings for half the world today. Prior to World War II, we had readings for less than a quarter of it.

Many of those readings are suspect. Earlier this month, British mathematician Douglas Keenan accused Dr. Wei Chyung Wang, upon whom the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for data on China, of research fraud.

Mr. Keenan was able to cry foul on the dubious data because the lead author of the paper to which Dr. Wang contributed his figures was a British scientist, Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Under British law, those who conduct publicly funded research must disclose the data and methodology on which they based their conclusions.

No such law exists in the United States. Though publicly funded, neither the scientists at the Goddard Institute nor the National Climatic Data Center disclose how they arrive at conclusions so they can be independently verified. They ought to.

As the GISS was quietly acknowledging its error, Newsweek magazine, with exquisitely bad timing, declared in an Aug. 13 cover story that the debate on global warming was over.

"The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading," <In other words, it was a great read if you're into fiction. What a joke!> wrote Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson in the following issue.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07231/810390-373.stm

The dataset used in the study covered only the United States. Considering the US consists of only 2% of the world's actual surface area, it's difficult to justify that global warming is only a data related issue based on such a small sample

Besides, after the correction is factored in, 5 of the hottest 10 years on record occur prior to WW2, before the correction, the data points out that 4 of the hottest 10 years on record occurred prior to WW2, that's a delta of 10%.

Considering the fact that heat islands are a relatively recent phenomena, it's hard to say just how accurate the data recorded before WW2 is.

Raw Data Dump (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)

[McFudpucker]

A Light On Upstairs?

Sorry to send another e-mail so soon. No need to read further unless you are interested in temperature changes to a tenth of a degree over the U.S. and a thousandth of a degree over the world.

Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html) had a flaw in the U.S. data. In that (2001) update of the analysis method (originally published in our 1981 Science paper – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1981/Hansen_etal.html) we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2001 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only). This problem is easy to fix, by matching the 1990s decadal-mean temperatures for the NOAA-corrected and GHCN records, and we have made that correction.

The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.

Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.

Somehow the flaw in 2001-2007 U.S. data was advertised on the internet and for two days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the President, that I must “step down”, or that I must “vanish”. Hmm, I am not very good at magic tricks.

My apologies if the quick response that I sent to Andy Revkin and several other journalists, including the suggestion that it was a tempest inside somebody's teapot dome, and that perhaps a light was not on upstairs, was immoderate. It was not ad hominem, though.

NASA's Statement on Corrected Data's Effect on Global Temperature (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't care what they say. They acknowledge a mistake and then say it doesn't affect global averages? Think about it. The USA is the standard bearer for most things scientific. Chances are, other countries used the same flawed formulas.

What are the chances of the USA averages only being affected? What are the chances of the USA 1934 numbers being the highest while globally is so much different?

Just more excuses from the alarmists. They just make it up as they go. They are probably the same ones that perpetrated the bad formulas and are now in need of redemption. I for one, understanding enough of the sciences involved completely dispute the degree to which others blame mankind for global warming. I could care less what these experts say especially since there is not 100% consensus.

We were discussing how this July/August so far feels like October here in Portland!

Please.... Bring back the global warming.... I miss the heat....

[xrayzebra]

Hey WC October in July/August........caused by global warming.
I cant wait to hear how the Cat five blowing in the Caribbean was
caused by global warming.

I'm sure dan can find an article somewhere.

I still wonder why RNR wont come back and defend his
position. Still sulking I guess.....

[McFudpucker]

I don't care what they say. They acknowledge a mistake and then say it doesn't affect global averages? Think about it. The USA is the standard bearer for most things scientific. Chances are, other countries used the same flawed formulas.

More like the US followed the same flawed protocols considering that modern temperature keeping has been around since the 1850's.

What are the chances of the USA averages only being affected? What are the chances of the USA 1934 numbers being the highest while globally is so much different?

Relatively High.

Just more excuses from the alarmists. They just make it up as they go. They are probably the same ones that perpetrated the bad formulas and are now in need of redemption. I for one, understanding enough of the sciences involved completely dispute the degree to which others blame mankind for global warming. I could care less what these experts say especially since there is not 100% consensus.

We were discussing how this July/August so far feels like October here in Portland!

Please.... Bring back the global warming.... I miss the heat....

So, as long as the data supports your opinion, it's relevant, as soon as the data contradicts your worldview, it is no longer relevant? OK, thanks for clearing that up.



Well, another victory for us deniers. Recently, it has been proven that the NASA data reporting 1998 as the hottest year has corrupted results. A Y2K bug is blamed. This doesn't quite wash with me for the reason, especially since an 'Al-Gore-rythm' for calculcations is said to be faulty. A few links and quotes from the articles:


You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on. And won.

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement that:

"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"

But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?

As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:

"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?

[Wild Cobra]

Hey WC October in July/August........caused by global warming.
I see it as a natural cyclical climate change myself. For the record, when I said "we," I meant those who I talk to locally. I try to clarify such things, but failed in this case.


I cant wait to hear how the Cat five blowing in the Caribbean was caused by global warming.

I'm sure dan can find an article somewhere.
Sure, the combined delta-T (temperature differential) in the atmospheric layering and the water temperature explains such things. I'm sure he can to.

The one thing I have not disputed is the possibility of CO2 concentrations increasing storm activities. It traps the same about of heat, but it traps a higher percentage at the lower elevations. This can in theory increase the severity of storms by the increased delta-T. I don’t think there is much of a change, but to quantify the increased delta-T to intensities would be some pretty difficult modeling, especially since we cannot get the simple stuff right.


I still wonder why RNR wont come back and defend his
position. Still sulking I guess.....
We both know. He cannot find facts that counter the facts in my arguments.

[Wild Cobra]

So, as long as the data supports your opinion, it's relevant, as soon as the data contradicts your worldview, it is no longer relevant? OK, thanks for clearing that up.
No, you are assuming as to what I am assuming. How can that bear any accuracy whatsoever?

I explained my points well enough. Challange that point if you must.

[Holt's Cat]

Does global warming exist in some shape or form? Sure. Is a 200 foot tidal wave due to a renegade glacier in the North Atlantic going to destroy the Eastern US seaboard? Probably not. What I hate about this debate is much like any other it boils down to fuckheads on both sides getting carried away with themselves and their self-proclaimed greatness that any hope of finding a rational, reasonable solution to the problem is lost. So drop your Messianic hopes and read a little. Thanks.

Sincerely,
The Rest of Humanity

[xrayzebra]

Does global warming exist in some shape or form? Sure. Is a 200 foot tidal wave due to a renegade glacier in the North Atlantic going to destroy the Eastern US seaboard? Probably not. What I hate about this debate is much like any other it boils down to fuckheads on both sides getting carried away with themselves and their self-proclaimed greatness that any hope of finding a rational, reasonable solution to the problem is lost. So drop your Messianic hopes and read a little. Thanks.

Sincerely,
The Rest of Humanity

Who is getting carried away with their greatness?

I and others have just ask is man really the cause of
the so called global warming? And what is the problem?
Man? I don't think so and there is no absolute answer
to the question. Some accuse the deniers of politicizing
the whole thing. But who is trying to pass laws and
impose taxes on everyone to counter the so called man
made warming. First, we need to find out if warming
is really occurring and then find out what is causing it.

[Holt's Cat]

As I said.

[xrayzebra]

Reference my post of 8-21, above, here is a nice little article to
back-up my comment on added taxes. Seems as those the
British are too happy about politicians answer to global warming.


PUBLIC WARY OF GREEN TAX MOTIVES



Monday September 3,2007


Nearly two-thirds of the public believe ministers are using environmental fears as an excuse to raise tax revenue, according to a poll.

And research suggests their cynicism is justified - with green taxes raking in £10 billion more for the Treasury than it would cost to offset the entire UK's carbon footprint.

The figures are contained in a dossier compiled by pressure group the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA).

The document is likely to provide grim reading for politicians of all colours - including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron - who are committed to making individuals pay for habits which damage the environment.

A survey carried out by YouGov for the TPA found that only a fifth of people thought politicians were genuinely trying to change behaviours using the tax system. In contrast, 63% believed they were using the issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.

Nearly four-fifths voiced opposition to the so-called "pay as you throw" schemes floated by the Government to encourage recycling - despite previous surveys indicating a majority backed the idea.

Some 60% said fuel duty was an unfair tax, while 45% thought the same about air passenger duty - which was recently doubled by the Government.

Opinion was evenly split over whether they approved in principle of extra "green" charges on motoring and air travel - with 46% saying they did not and 45% saying they did.

Using previous international research into climate change, the report estimated that covering the social cost of carbon emissions would have cost £11.7 billion in 2005.

But receipts from green taxes such as fuel duty, road tax and the Climate Change Levy totalled £21.9 billion. On average every household in the UK paid £400 more in levies than it cost to cover their own footprint, the TPA claimed.

==================================
I wonder if they will give the excess back to the taxpayer....
yeah, like fun they will. I'm sure they can put it to good
use, even if the taxpayer cant afford the tax.

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/science/earth/08polar.html

Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday.

...

The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.

...

[Yonivore]

The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.
And thrive elsewhere...

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml)


Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.
Indeed.

I will begin treating global climate change as a crisis when those claiming it is a crisis begin treating global climate change as a crisis.

http://www.drudgereport.com/gore1.jpg


'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET
Fri Sep 07 2007 07:48:23 ET

**Exclusive**

As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!

FOXNEWS host Sean Hannity is set to unleash the damning video this Sunday night, network sources reveal.

Developing...

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't it ironic how the polar bears have been used as a benchmark of global warming and all we ever see is the same one or two photo's.

I wish I had a photographic memory so I could recall all source information that I see. Like shown in Yoni's article, populations have been increasing in many places. Now consider this. Polar bears hunt for their food and one possibility is that overcrowding of an area has them migrating past areas of stable ice, looking for their own territory and/or food.

We can take any picture that may or may not suggest the whole picture and spin a tale. This is the most obvious conclusion.

How many times will we see the same polar bear on the same iceberg?

This whole concept that global warming is the cause is flawed as well. There is no solid evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause additional warming. All of the theory is soundly disputed. In fact, more recent studies by scientists only have 7% of them giving explicit endorsement that global warming has a man-made factor. 6% outright reject it. 48% are neutral. You have to use implicit endorsement to get a 45% consensus. Implicit only means you can make a connection theory. It does not mean cause and effect. This data comes from 528 papers. Of the 38 of them representing the 7%, only one paper indicated ‘catastrophic’ dangers.

The latest IPCC report cites over 2,000 scientists contributing. Only about 100 of them, about 5%, are climatologists. Only 52 of them contributed to the “Summary for Policymakers” Remember. This IPCC is a political group, not a true scientific group.

Why speak of consensus view? In 2004, a HISTRORY PROFESSOR, Naomi Oreskes surveyed papers from a scientific database on the web. These were papers written between 1993 and 2003. Shouldn't this be a concern? A source paper by someone who is a historian? does she use scientific methodology? This is where the Consensus View idea started. This would be like asking my mechanic for advice on stocks.

Look at some facts. According to the IPCC and the Gore-bastics, CO2 is a major threat. However, we have seen a 4% increase since 1998 with no increased temperatures. Since 1979, an increase of 17% with no significant increase. The minor increase since has other possible explanations, like the increased sun’s radiation. As solar studies are gathering better information and understanding, more scientists are ‘seeing the light’ of the suns influence.

Some source links:

Your View -- Global warming consensus more politics than science (http://www.mankatofreepress.com/letters/local_story_244191426.html?keyword=topstory); 9/1/07

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp); August 2007 Imprimis publication

Imprimis, PDF format (http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisAug07.pdf)

High price for load of hot air (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html), June 18, 2007

Well, I'm running out of time. Check this out if you understand science. It's a real scientific study, not IPCC propaganda:

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf), June 2007

[xrayzebra]

Hey smeagol, you will like this video clip. It is of
Puerito Moreno there in Argentinian. It is really
spectacular.

Is This Global Warming In Action (http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/?action=view&current=peritomoreno.flv)

[smeagol]

Hey smeagol, you will like this video clip. It is of
Puerito Moreno there in Argentinian. It is really
spectacular.

Is This Global Warming In Action (http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/?action=view&current=peritomoreno.flv)
Yes, it is spectacular.

I was there about 20 years ago. I did not see such big pieces of the glacier breaking, but I did see some cool ones.

That shit used to happen every 3 or four years (complete meltwown). Not sure if it still happens.

Nice video, thanks!

[Holt's Cat]

Global Warming is the War on Terror for the left.

[Wild Cobra]

Global Warming is the War on Terror for the left.
LOL... No kidding, and they fight it with "carbon credits"

[Wild Cobra]

You know what's funny. If environmentalists were less fundamental, and learned a bit of science, they would change their minds on so many things. Just a couple things many environmentalists like to block:

Nuclear power. We have solved the problems of threats like “The China Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome).” Waste management is the biggest concern today, but it is manageable. Using nuclear power solves the threat of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere past what the biosphere can sink.

Increase lumber operations. Now I’m not saying cut all the old growth, but the old trees are no longer efficient at absorbing CO2. New trees for at least two or three decades, become very efficient sinks of CO2. Using lumber rather than steel and concrete for construction projects where it is viable, would not only reduce the energy demands involved with concrete and steel, but use a renewable resource. Naturally, replanting must be required. Again, new trees just love taking CO2 out of the air.

Outside of normal environmental blockades;

Aluminum. Although the energy required in making aluminum is great, it recycles so easily. That process alone takes about 11 to 12 kwh (kilo-watt hours) of power per pound of aluminum. How much more does steel production and recycling take? I don’t know, but because steel easily oxidized and aluminum resists it, it recycles far easier, and because of the melting temperature differences. Aluminum is preferred when it is a viable option.

Now I have never feared CO2 as a greenhouse gas once I started learning the sciences of global warming. Still, CO2 does become toxic to life at higher concentrations. The concern for this is still a long way out, but it is possible and preventable.

Any other thoughts?

[xrayzebra]

Environmentalist to me are some of the most activist of the
activist. It seems that they and most liberals are the ones who
want to force things on to people. Our forest are a completely
renewable source of energy and building material. But they,
the environmentalist insist that they should be protected and not
touched. I remember a few years back when the acid rain was
killing the forest and even for a little while after the government
did a big study and found it all BS they still insisted it existed.
Now, you never hear much about it.

I like you don't see why old growth, with the exception of the
redwoods, which I think should be preserved because of their
size and age, should be cut. I also think that the
environmentalist have caused more damage to forest thru their
stand against clearing undergrowth and dead wood. Simply
dumb. Look at California and their wild fires and look at their
laws against clearing brush even around homes. It must cost
the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year just to
fight these fires and that is not counting the cost of fire insurance
and the anguish of watching your home go up in smoke.
The funny part I don't know of anyone who is in favor of
destroying our forest or any resource. But I find it extremely
peculiar that the big environmental folks on the East coast are
against the building of wind turbines off their coast because
that is where they boat, but think it is quite okay to do it
elsewhere to take down those awful smokestacks and eliminate
that terrible terrible pollution caused by generating electricity.
Or better yet, they are allowed to build homes and getaways
in refuse areas......yeah baby.

[smeagol]

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, chain myself to a tree type of guy, but trying to take care of the environment appears to be the common sense thing to do.

When I read what the hard core right wing, I love America, fuck the rest of the world kind of guys' opinions, the sense I get is that . . . well just that. Fuck the rest of the World, fuck Kyoto, fuck me polluting the air if that means I have to change my way of living.

And especially, fuck it because no Frenchie or Japanese dude will tell me how to live my life.

[xrayzebra]

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, chain myself to a tree type of guy, but trying to take care of the environment appears to be the common sense thing to do.

When I read what the hard core right wing, I love America, fuck the rest of the world kind of guys' opinions, the sense I get is that . . . well just that. Fuck the rest of the World, fuck Kyoto, fuck me polluting the air if that means I have to change my way of living.

And especially, fuck it because no Frenchie or Japanese dude will tell me how to live my life.

I think everyone with any common sense wants to take
care of the environment. Who the hell wants to destroy
their environment. But somewhere, somehow, there
has to be a middle ground. Unfortunately it seems in
the past years you must take a side in an argument
that is really not an argument. Everyone wants clean
air, clean water, beautiful forest and generally a nice
place to live. And I don't have the answer to how to
get both sides together. But God gave all of us the
abundance of nature and the ability to preserve that
abundance and I think we have done a pretty good job
of doing just that. And smeagol, I am not being a
smart butt, but Americans are pretty independent when
all is said and done and don't like to be preached to.
And unfortunately as time has gone by the principles
that founded this country has been forgotten. I really
don't apologize for being an old foggy, but I am, maybe,
one of the lucky ones on this forum, I was around when
Texas was really Texas. I could point in any direction
and find a relative. That is not bragging, just Texan. My
folks settled this country and it seems some of folks
have forgotten what made this country great. I cant
really think of what liberal idea that contributed. Can
you. Most folks that settled this country were
hard working and honest. They took care of their
neighbors and didn't depend on government to provide
anything. Look at things now.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, chain myself to a tree type of guy, but trying to take care of the environment appears to be the common sense thing to do.

When I read what the hard core right wing, I love America, fuck the rest of the world kind of guys' opinions, the sense I get is that . . . well just that. Fuck the rest of the World, fuck Kyoto, fuck me polluting the air if that means I have to change my way of living.

And especially, fuck it because no Frenchie or Japanese dude will tell me how to live my life.
You know, we all need to keep the radicals from blinding us to the realistic views that oppose our native thoughts. I wasn't going to respond to this, but will be posing a set of links after this.

About Kyoto. My major problem with it has to do with it mandating the USA to make cuts from levels after we took it upon ourselves to make cuts. We started in the late 60's, made major environmental regulations in the 70's, then Kyoto wants to dictate reductions from out levels of 1990... Get real... We have already made vast improvements. Maybe from our 1960 levels… Maybe we could have agreed on that now.

[Wild Cobra]

First of all, those of you who think they know Global Warming, take this test:

Global Warming Test (http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html)

Did you score 100%? You would if you studied...

There never was a scientific consensus that global warming exists, like I pointed out in my 9/8/07 posting. Here is an interesting article:

Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm)

A few quotes from it:


While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed "It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now". Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004. This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted." "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease."

"There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

Some other interesting links:

US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307.htm) By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, Thursday, September 13, 2007

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)By Timothy Ball, Monday, February 5, 2007

A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm) By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming072007.htm) By Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris, Friday, July 20, 2007

The gods must be laughing (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706.htm) By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006

[DarkReign]

So, I am wondering, is this some sort of wierd year for the climate?

I have been alive for 27 years and have yet to remember a year in Michigan when we might not have pumpkins for Halloween.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2001/2001-10-16-pumpkins.htm

Serious question (no I am not jumping to conclusions).

[xrayzebra]

So, I am wondering, is this some sort of wierd year for the climate?

I have been alive for 27 years and have yet to remember a year in Michigan when we might not have pumpkins for Halloween.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2001/2001-10-16-pumpkins.htm

Serious question (no I am not jumping to conclusions).


Why is that? No pumpkins? Too much rain, not enough
rain, not cool enough.

Never mind, I read the article. Really not that unusual
to have a crop failure because of weather. It
is something farmers don't like but it happens every
year somewhere.

[DarkReign]

Why is that? No pumpkins? Too much rain, not enough
rain, not cool enough.

Never mind, I read the article. Really not that unusual
to have a crop failure because of weather. It
is something farmers don't like but it happens every
year somewhere.

Never before in my life. This is the first year, what if it happens next year? The year after?

At what point does it graduate from "one-year phenomenon" to "understood normal activity"?

[xrayzebra]

Never before in my life. This is the first year, what if it happens next year? The year after?

At what point does it graduate from "one-year phenomenon" to "understood normal activity"?

Well DR, in my 75 years, I have seen it happen for
several years in a row. I know it gets old, but when I
was a youngster and my Grandfather grew corn and I
can remember it getting six feet tall and then bam,
Texas weather kicked in, hotter than you know what and
no rain at all, he was a dry land farmer, in just a matter
of days brown stalks in the field. You don't like it, but
nothing can be done.

I guess it is like anything, until you experience something,
it is really unknown to you. Even when you read about it.

Changing the subject a tad. I heard something the other
day on the TV which I have thought about many times.
I know I thought of it when I lost of my Grandfather,
Father and Mother. What a source of information and
knowledge was lost with their death. Anyhow, this man made the statement that when you lose someone it is like a
library is burned down, I never thought of it that way,
but it is true, isn't it?

[DarkReign]

Well DR, in my 75 years, I have seen it happen for
several years in a row. I know it gets old, but when I
was a youngster and my Grandfather grew corn and I
can remember it getting six feet tall and then bam,
Texas weather kicked in, hotter than you know what and
no rain at all, he was a dry land farmer, in just a matter
of days brown stalks in the field. You don't like it, but
nothing can be done.

I guess it is like anything, until you experience something,
it is really unknown to you. Even when you read about it.

Fair enough. Thanks for the info.


Changing the subject a tad. I heard something the other
day on the TV which I have thought about many times.
I know I thought of it when I lost of my Grandfather,
Father and Mother. What a source of information and
knowledge was lost with their death. Anyhow, this man made the statement that when you lose someone it is like a
library is burned down, I never thought of it that way,
but it is true, isn't it?

Quite true. We all have loved ones that passed.

But, as the great Johnny Cash so eloquently put it...

We'll meet again.
Dont know how....Dont know when.
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day.

[xrayzebra]

Fair enough. Thanks for the info.



Quite true. We all have loved ones that passed.

But, as the great Johnny Cash so eloquently put it...

We'll meet again.
Dont know how....Dont know when.
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day.

Yep, how true. I remember when my
Father died and I was there with him in ICU and
the strangest thing happen to me, it was just like
my Mom, who has passed away a few years prior,
came into the room and told me, don't worry, I am
here waiting on him. She had the biggest smile.
Yeah, so now the rest of you can start the: Take your
meds, but I still like to think it really happened.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yeah, so now the rest of you can start the: Take your
meds.


I'm pretty sure I started that one. Lolz. I kill myself sometimes.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a recent scientific study attributing the Sun to Global Warming:

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich –
The persistent role of the Sun in climate
forcing (http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf)

Another interesting article of Paleoclimatology:

Questioning 20th Century Warmth (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/)

Another about warming:

Study finds CO2 didn't end ice age (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895)

Everything I've been saying for some time is supported.

[xrayzebra]

Little story I lifted off of Drudge Report this morning.

Gore gets a cold shoulder

Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
Advertisement

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html