Antarctic Melting Faster, Jacksonville still has no plan

[Ocklawaha]

Mess with your heads #1

"The engineer has learned vastly more from the steam-engine than the steam-engine will ever learn from the engineer."
    -- Prof John B. Fenn, Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 2002

...and now this comment just to mess with your heads. I'm not sure this is true! It has been said the Steam Locomotive is the closest thing to a living, breathing, animal that man has ever created. Even in this high tech world, EVERY steam locomotive is completely unique. Same blue prints, same builders, same parts and details and yet no two EVER are even close in what they'll do. Moreover, they behave differently in the hands of different people. Science has studied the hell out of the strange actions and reactions, in fact it is even called LIVE STEAM. Could it be that something is at work in the water, fire, and earth elements that go into the locomotive that make it an extension of the personality of the locomotive engineer and fireman? Why does one crew fight an engine all the way to the river and the next crew gets a free ride on the same engine? Swap engines and the opposite effect might happen, thus they do indeed seem to learn... Worse, there are hundreds if not thousands of storys of steam locomotives acting on their own, without apparent human assistance... Some would call it Ghost Trains, but to others there are tales of engines that saved their crews by making a seeming automatic move. Again do the elements play into this? at least they respond... strange indeed.

Mess with your heads #2

If that one missed, Stephendare, how about my questions on the Churches teaching one thing then denying it on Monday morning news? Recently I have had a scary thought, what if WE... THE USA are the evil great power of the end time? What if WE... THE USA are the ones judged with horrors beyond belief. We always want to lay this on the feet of Islam, or Catholics or some other group, but what if it is US? Would that be strange... Not a doctrine, not a dogma, just a weird thought. [/color][/b]

Ocklawaha

[RiversideGator]

Midnight.

The climatological model merely addresses DYNAMIC changes in temperature and weather patterns with cumulative global increases in temperature.

So regular weather within the boundaries of its normal extremes would not really fall within the parameters of the model.

However, freakish, bizarre and 'record setting' weather would be an indication that the model is correct.

River knows this and yet he continues to post the freakish weather that he sees as an extreme counter to 'warming'.   The irony is that the freakish weather he addresses is EXACTLY what someone who is trying to prove climate change would be pointing out.

No one denies that the globe has been very warm over the past 10 years.
Is river trying to pretend that the net result of these freakish cold spells will LOWER the global cumulative temperature this year?

So the Climate Change model really ISNT about getting 'every base covered', just the anomolies----which btw, are JUST what River is posting.

Weather is normally known to have dynamic changes. When was this not true?  When does it stay the same?  Also, looking back over the past temperature fluctuations for the past 450,000 years or so, what average temperature is normal, Stephen?

This figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the left.

The first two curves shows local changes in temperature at two sites in Antarctica as derived from deuterium isotopic measurements (δD) on ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999). The final plot shows a reconstruction of global ice volume based on δ18O measurements on benthic foraminifera from a composite of globally distributed sediment cores and is scaled to match the scale of fluctuations in Antarctic temperature (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). Note that changes in global ice volume and changes in Antarctic temperature are highly correlated, so one is a good estimate of the other, but differences in the sediment record do no necessarily reflect differences in paleotemperature. Horizontal lines indicate modern temperatures and ice volume. Differences in the alignment of various features reflect dating uncertainty and do not indicate different timing at different sites.

The Antarctic temperature records indicate that the present interglacial is relatively cool compared to previous interglacials, at least at these sites. The Liesecki & Raymo (2005) sediment reconstruction does not indicate signifcant differences between modern ice volume and previous interglacials, though some other studies do report slightly lower ice volumes / higher sea levels during the 120 ka and 400 ka interglacials (Karner et al. 2001, Hearty and Kaufman 2000).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

So actually, we are in an interglacial period at present and a relatively cool one.  Would you prefer that it was cooler and we had glaciers in Illinois?  Do you really believe we have the power to control this?  Stop trying to foist this nonsense upon us.  The truth is this is a massive scam designed to fleece the public and convince them to cede to the government important powers over their lives, such as how much power can a person use.

[RiversideGator]

In fact, looking at the above chart, I am far more concerned about another ice age than I am about additional warming.  It looks like we are more than due for a plunge in global temps.  Wake up and smell the rainforests...   

[RiversideGator]

Here is a good piece from National Review Online by Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville:

At the risk of losing my tongue-in-cheek position as Rush Limbaugh’s “Official EIB Climatologist,” I’m going to weigh in on his argument against Jim Geraghty’s view that the Republicans’ chances in the next presidential election are being hurt by those of us not willing to give in to the scientific “consensus” on global warming.

First, the science. After many years in this line of work, I’ve come to the firm conclusion that global warming is one of those research areas where scientists think they know much more than they really do. In many ways, putting a man on the Moon was far easier than understanding the climate system. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas â€" a minor one. And, yes, humans burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide: one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every five years.

But is this a recipe for a global warming Armageddon? I’m betting my reputation on: “No.” Recent research has made me more convinced of this than ever.

So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a 56-percent majority? (That is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans,)

While there are several answers to this question, here I’ll mention only one. Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2, and 24,000 times as much water vapor (Earth’s primary greenhouse gas), back and forth between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, every day.

Scientists have simply assumed that these natural processes have been in balance for centuries. But, what if there have always been some small â€" but natural â€" imbalances in those large up-and-down flows that slowly change over time? In that case, our measured increases in greenhouse gases and global temperatures might well turn out to be more natural than manmade, lost in the noise of natural variability.

Can I prove any of this? No â€" not yet, anyway. But neither have any scientists produced one single scientific paper showing that Mother Nature isn’t the dominant source of what we are seeing. Mankind is one possible explanation, and our measurements of natural variability in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries are simply not good enough to find out how many natural sources of variability are also out there.

On the political side, all of this talk of a supposed scientific consensus puts politicians between a rock and a hard place. Long-range scientific predictions of environmental gloom and doom have had a terrible track record, historically, and yet for some reason we are always willing to accept the next one that comes along. Maybe it’s their entertainment value.

So, what is a politician to do? Go with the currently popular flow, or ignore what most of the experts, pundits, and media are saying and just stick with their gut instincts? Certainly, politicians who want a better chance of winning an election should go for the popularity contest.

But in the case of global warming, Rush Limbaugh has decided to go with his gut instinct. Scientists can be (and have been) spectacularly wrong when pontificating on natural systems as complex as the Earth’s climate â€" or the human body. This instinct has served Rush well over the years, and in the case of global warming, I agree with him.

This position is also consistent with Rush’s recent emphasis on conservative principles over specific politicians. He frequently reminds listeners that America’s success has not come from its politicians, but from its people. Not from soaring (yet ambiguous) speeches, but from enduring ideals, creativity, hard work, and most of all â€" freedom.

But what if sticking to one’s guns on such an issue is just enough for the Republicans to lose the White House? Well, what is more important for the future of America: the party affiliation of the next president, or the decision to let government control how much energy people and business can use from now on?

Once the government gains control over energy decisions, do we really think they will relinquish it after manmade global warming is realized to be a false alarm? It has been said that whoever controls energy, controls life. Right now, the free market (which means you) controls those decisions.

Do we need to remind ourselves how well things went in the former Soviet Union when the bureaucrats made the economic decisions, rather than letting the collective will of the people, expressed though a free market, govern the economy?

I can certainly appreciate Jim Geraghty’s concern over the short-term political risks of doubting the paradigm of manmade global warming. But the long-terms risks of giving in to it are far greater.

How much easier this would all be if it was only as simple as buying hybrid cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and building more energy efficient homes. But the public needs to know that all of these meager efforts will have no measurable effect on global temperatures, no matter how much warming you think there will be in the future.

This is the one subject for which I believe “hoax” is an entirely appropriate label when it comes to people’s motives for advancing such solutions. Either “hoax,” or “stunning stupidity.” Rush is right â€" mankind depends mostly on petroleum and coal for its energy, and nothing is going to change that until human creativity, fueled by the extra wealth created by free markets, leads to new energy technology breakthroughs.

Are we “addicted to oil”? Sure, just like we are addicted to food. Try quitting.

What will people do when they realize that going along with the 56-percent scientific majority has resulted in them giving up much of their personal freedom in the process? I wouldn’t trade that freedom for any presidential candidate.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFjMDkyNTljYmEwYzUyNTkwZWJkMjEyODJjZTM3Nzc=

His credentials: 

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He >>> received > his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, >> Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of > satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring > global > temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/author/?q=NDE0Nw==

[gatorback]

National Review

Give  me  a  break.   

[gatorback]

I remember seeing  William F. Buckley, Jr. speak to the student body at the University of Florida during the mid 1980s.  His public speaking is as eloquence as his his writing style.  Dad subscribed to the Nation Review so I naturally read it for years.  Bill Buckley is now speaking out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming.   Funny that Riversidegator fails to mention and that the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff concluded last month that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare.

[RiversideGator]

National Review

Give  me  a  break.   

Please dispute the facts cited, not the source.  And, rolling eyes is not an argument.

[RiversideGator]

He has been doing this for the past two years, Gatorback, stifling any possibility of discussing positive actions or making plans.

Ive saved the various threads for replay later.

Its so irresponsible that I feel that he should have to review the cost of the vapid obstructionism hes engaged in.

Whats worse, is the more the entire world realizes that climate change is indeed occurring, the less reliable the charts become.....but whose counting?

So, the ice core temperature charts are fabricated and/or unreliable?

[RiversideGator]

I remember seeing  William F. Buckley, Jr. speak to the student body at the University of Florida during the mid 1980s.  His public speaking is as eloquence as his his writing style.  Dad subscribed to the Nation Review so I naturally read it for years.  Bill Buckley is now speaking out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming.   Funny that Riversidegator fails to mention and that the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff concluded last month that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare.

Please cite sources for all of this. 

[gatorback]

Let’s start with “consider the source.”  You’re referring a publication that was started by old oil money. The founder, William F. Buckley Jr., father was an oil mogul.  Don’t you think there’s just a little bias in the publication?

[RiversideGator]

Let’s start with “consider the source.”  You’re referring a publication that was started by old oil money. The founder, William F. Buckley Jr., father was an oil mogul.  Don’t you think there’s just a little bias in the publication?

I thought you just said that Buckley has come out in support of the global warming theory?  Now you claim that his magazine is hopelessly biased against GW theory because of his father working in the oil business?  Which is it?

[gatorback]

Janet Wilson and Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:36 PM MST
 

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency’s staff concluded last month that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare, which would require federal regulations to rein in emissions from vehicles, factories, power plants and other industrial polluters under the Clean Air Act, sources in the agency told the Los Angeles Times.

[gatorback]

I'm not going to play games with you. Put down the pipe.  Read.  That the White House edited reports.

[RiversideGator]

The EPA is a agency of the federal govenment rife with liberals who obviously would fall for this. No surprise there.  I was really talking about Buckley. 

And, let me say that I am not being paid anything by "big oil" or any other special interest group.  I am on the side of finding the truth and fashioning the best society for mankind possible.  Obviously, if I truly believed that there was some eminent and dire threat, I would not be saying all of this.  It is my conclusion that GW is nonsense.  It is possible I have been duped by "big oil" but I really doubt it at this point.  Time will tell.

[gatorback]

Although I could not find the specific date that I attended Mr. Buckley's lecture at UF, the link here says enough for even simpletons to deduce that Bill was part of the series.

http://www.stetson.edu/administration/marcom/media/06dec/5apgar.pdf

Lastly, thank you.  I never knew "the EPA is [sic] a agency of the federal goverment."