http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html
I wonder if they will label River an enemy noncombatant when they come for him?
QuoteThe heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist.
Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, sounded the alarm about global warming in testimony before a Senate subcommittee exactly 20 years ago.
He returned to the topic Monday with a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., given to the Worldwatch Institute, before which he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing.
"Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.
"Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming," Hansen continues. "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
Later in the day, Hansen appeared at an informal briefing on Capitol Hill with Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., head of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Hansen told reporters and members of the public that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels.
He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.
"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," said Hansen, who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."
Asked by a reporter about the feasibility of putting corporate CEOs on trial, Hansen dodged the question, stressing instead the need to take stronger measures against global warming.
To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030.
That carbon-capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.
Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million.
Hansen said he'll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.
"The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this."
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for many U.S. utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a scientist, his "stop them all approach is very simplistic" and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise.
The year of Hansen's original testimony was the world's hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.
"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen said during his appearance at the National Press Club. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
Longtime global-warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., citing a recent poll, said in a statement, "Hansen, [former Vice President] Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."
But Rep. Markey said, "Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
Can you say thought police. Are the reeducation camps next? What a fruitcake!
"nobody expects the spanish Inquisition"!!!
Quote from: civil42806 on June 25, 2008, 10:05:34 AM
"nobody expects the spanish Inquisition"!!!
Yes! Great Monty Python tie-in...so appropriate in this case.
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 10:10:33 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 25, 2008, 09:59:50 AM
Can you say thought police. Are the reeducation camps next? What a fruitcake!
Things to think about when you don't have habeus corpus anymore.
I wonder if climate change denying makes you merely an american criminal or a global one?
In any case, at least Gitmo is all broken in. Tell Inhofe we said hello.
(http://www.ziopedia.org/images/080207gitmo2.jpg)
Stephen: Your usual comical absurdity is veering into lunacy.
Quote
I wonder if climate change denying makes you merely an american criminal or a global one?
And who's laws would one be persecuted under? Sovereign nations in Europe? Japan? China? The U.S.? Russia? The E.U.? The UN? Scary proposition.
In the meantime, are we talking about people who deny climate change entirely or doubt the affect/extent of
anthropogenic climate change? And again, why can't there be doubters in the increasing hypothesis-turned-theory-turned-hysteria?
Great article here: http://www.europeancourier.org/37.htm
Specifically:
Quote
Worldwide, the media has taken a particular interest in the issue of global warming. One prominent advocate of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theories was recently hailed by Time Magazine as an “environmental prophet†and, in that same article’s headline, even likened to Jesus Christ. [7] Such journalistically-questionable use of religious rhetoric in reference to AGW, a scientific subject, has only complicated the issue for both governments and the general public.
This reminds me of a comment Stephendare made to me earlier in another, related, forum about detractors pulling out the 'great fire from above' religiosity. Whereas, IMO, both side are equally guilty.
This just goes to show how this GW nonsense has become a new religion for those lefties who have long ago abandoned Christianity. It does prove that the religion instinct is very strong in mankind.
The title of this thread is a lie.
Read the story.
Prosecutions are, in fact, NOT coming for anyone who denies global warming. Because one looney climatolist says a prosecution should take place does not mean any district attorney in any state or district of the U.S. has decided to prosecute a case.
Lying propaganda. Par for the course though.
Quote from: Driven1 on June 25, 2008, 11:59:08 AM
The title of this thread is a lie.
Read the story.
Prosecutions are, in fact, NOT coming for anyone who denies global warming. Because one looney climatolist says a prosecution should take place does not mean any district attorney in any state or district of the U.S. has decided to prosecute a case.
Lying propaganda. Par for the course though.
Oh but he wants to... he "dodged" the question... he wanted to answer in the affirmative. ::)
Driven: Good point. There are no imminent prosecutions and the title of this is yet another Dare falsehood. It is truly bizarre that he gleefully awaits the day this might happen.
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 25, 2008, 02:26:48 PM
Driven: Good point. There are no imminent prosecutions and the title of this is yet another Dare falsehood. It is truly bizarre that he gleefully awaits the day this might happen.
Oh, is it truly that bizarre? I think people by nature are fasicinated with current events and for the most part bored and looking for new things. Kind of not unlike rubberneckers. You shouldn't look, but you can't not.
QuoteA Desperate Man
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 6/23/2008
Radicalism: In another example of junk science run amok, NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory. Is this where society is headed?
If so, we are headed for a dangerous place. Only in totalitarian systems is dissent a criminal offense.
Hansen, who 20 years ago Monday cranked up the global warming scare with his congressional testimony, is a clever promoter. By fusing his pseudo science with the wild-eyed efforts of eco-activists, media dupes and pandering politicians, he's been able to convince the public that his flawed theory is actually holy writ.
Out of this has emerged a madness that has divided Westerners into "us," the believers, and "them," the skeptics who are looked down upon as socially irresponsible reprobates.
That's not enough for Hansen, though. He now wants to ratchet his machine up a few notches.
Put the oil men on trial, he says, because it's "a crime" for them to "have been putting out misinformation" that places doubt on his unproved â€" and unprovable â€" premise that man's use of fossil fuels is warming Earth.
We wonder: Will it be up to NASA's secret police to make the arrests that will be necessary to drag these men before the tribunal?
Al Gore, the most famous face of the global warming-industrial complex, has been saying for years that the debate is over, that science has declared humans are responsible for climate change.
He, of course, is wrong. There are skeptics in the scientific community, literally thousands of them.
Many are on the leash, however, afraid to speak out for fear of being bullied, denied research grants and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect doubt. For them, the debate is indeed over.
Those who refuse to be browbeaten, though, are in danger of seeing their careers ruined or, perhaps someday, sharing a prison cell with the oil executives Hansen wants to try.
Criminalize dissent: That's one way to ensure the debate is over.
Hansen's comment is revealing. It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to his declining relevance.
Hansen knows the climate of fear he has stoked is receding as more people start to see through his nonsense. He's just trying to stir up some storm clouds.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=299112954905500
Have you ever notice that all of your Global Warming articles come from investment and business news sites?
Evidently, Lunican, you have failed to notice the others that have been posted here from science journals and science organizations. Here is another
non-investment news article, which proposes litigation against Hansen that would be actually considered legitimate (added emphasis through bold text mine):
QuoteJames Hansen: Abusing the Public Trust
By Brian Sussman
Monday, James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), addressed Congress and brought a new twist to his tired global warming song and dance routine. Hansen now seems to be calling for the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity. Their crime? Spreading doubt about global warming.
Actually, it is Hansen who is guilty. Guilty of abusing the public trust.
James Hansen is the recognized international arbiter of the global temperature record-past, present and future. Armed with a network of thermometers, state-of-the-art satellites, computers and a huge chunk of NASA's near $18 billion budget, Hansen is the man who is deemed the final authority on Al Gore's constant claim that "the earth has a fever."
All this despite the fact that GISS' own data clearly illustrates that the Earth's temperature has been flat since 1998 and recently has been dipping downward. Hansen's shenanigans on Capital Hill are not about climate-they are about money.
As is the case with all government agencies, maintaining a budget is critical. The bureaucrats at NASA boast of their obvious needs for cash: completion of the International Space Station, furthering the Space Shuttle Program, and, of course, preventing the world from spontaneously combusting in a ball of flames. Hansen is a zealous promoter of the latter, and, since the 1980s, has been able to keep the funds flowing-both into NASA, as well as into his personal pocket-to study the world's climate. A slick marketer, Hansen possesses an insatiable appetite for media attention -- as long as the person asking questions is favorable to his point of view.
In 2007, Hansen agreed to an interview conducted on a rooftop in downtown San Francisco with a counterculture, internet-based outfit called TUC Radio (TUC is an acronym for "Time of Useful Consciousness"-the time between the onset of oxygen deficiency and the loss of consciousness"). During the interview Hansen hardly sounded like an honorable director of a U.S. government agency, but rather more like an underground community agitator:
"I tell young people that they had better start to act up. Because they are the ones that will suffer the most. Many of the changes will take time, but we're setting them in motion now. We're leaving a situation for our children and grandchildren which is not of their making, but they're going to suffer because of it. So I think they should start to act up and put some pressure on their elders, and on legislatures, and begin to get some action."
I assume that prior to the interview, Hansen made it clear that all his comments were his own and not representative of NASA. That is a line he uses from time to time to appear as pure as the wind driven snow. But the truth is, Hansen a proclivitiy for popping off at the mouth.
Early in 2006, a major story in the New York Times pointed a finger at the Bush Administration for supposedly trying to censor Hanson. In part, it read:
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Can you blame the administration for wanting to review his content? As a NASA Director, his role should be collecting data and truthfully sharing results, not trying to influence policy and legislation.
Congressman Darryl Issa (R-San Diego) called Hansen on his continual talking out of turn. During a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his abuse of his government status, Issa said, "You're speaking on federal paid time. Your employer happens to be the American taxpayer." Issa went on to say that an internet search showed Hansen had had stated on more than 1,400 occasions in over a year's worth of interviews and appearances (15 interviews alone in the month that the congressional hearings were taking place) that the Bush Administration had censored him.
According to the Associated Press:
"Hansen said...as a matter of free speech, government scientists should not be restrained in their remarks or have public affairs officers listening in on interviews."
I agree with Congressman Issa. Government bureaucrats should not be allowed to use their job as a soapbox; nor should they be allowed to receive huge sums of cash for work they have conducted on the taxpayer's dime, from private, liberal interests with a global warming agenda.
Examine the largess culled by Hansen.
In 2001, the Heinz Foundation "awarded" James Hansen with a payment of $250,000 for his work on global warming. According to the foundation:
"It was Dr. Hansen who, in the sweltering, drought-scorched summer of 1988, went where few scientists were willing to go-before Congress, to explain just how serious the potential for global warming truly was."
The Heinz Foundation, directed by the wife of U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate, John Kerry, is widely known for its support of liberal causes. Is it any surprise that James Hansen also endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004? The quarter of a million was just a tease of additional monies to come. In 2007, Hansen split a $1 million prize from the Dan David prize category of "Future Quest for Energy" (layman's translation: a world without oil). In addition he also reported to have acted as a consultant to Gore's global whining slide show, which was the impetus to the Prince of Peace's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." In fact, in 2006 Hansen had the gall to appear on a New York City stage with Mr. Gore to promote the then upcoming film-though he did reportedly inform the audience, "I'm not speaking as a government employee."
Topping it all, Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming. According to Investors Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower' standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice'? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship ‘philanthropy' by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's ‘politicization of science' program."
Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor's Business Daily refused to back off on their story, "claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media."
With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster?
In talk-radio such conflicting activities would be deemed "payola" with the guilty party booted out the door. For the sake of truth, and the proper use of the taxpayer's dollar, James Hansen needs to be relieved of his NASA duties.
Show Mr. Hansen the door -- for the sake of humanity.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html
Abusing the public trust, bribery...River, do you think there could be some traction to this idea? I think those 2 charges alone would be enough to prosecute. Let's see how Hansen would feel being on
that side of the roasting stick.
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 10:49:17 AM
Jim Hansen: Correctly predicts 20 sequential years of development extrapolating from massive data from which he brilliantly deduced the future...
This is completely untrue. The world's oceans haven't submerged coastlines or more (erosion and temporary flooding are
constant changes with any coastal areas), ice is being re-formed at a fast rate in the Arctic and Antarctic, and hurricanes haven't dramatically increased. Any brilliance he has would be in duping government agencies to donate him money and suckering people who practically worship him as some sort of prophet.
The American Thinker has far more credibility than many of your sources you've posted here, Stephen. I noticed that you didn't even address the point of the article...since the statements are pretty accurate.
And uh, since when is the promotion of Israel as a legitimate nation considered a negative against a publication?
Quotenvestors.com: Cannot predict from quarter to quarter the outcome of something as comparatively simple as a national economy.
I think it is clear that there are only two online authorities as it relates to global warming (and all other matters actually):
1) wonkette.com
2) huffingtonpost.com
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 11:37:01 AM
...Additionally, your attempt to smear this brilliant man is made evident by your apparent lack of realization that he is the chair of climate science for NASA, not some nonprofit. He doesnt have to 'beg' for backers or funding. It is our actual govt in action. The same people that took us to the Moon and are presently exploring Mars.
Quite the opposite, hes had to deal with a 24 year old political thought governor named George Deutsch treating him like a bad child and cutbacks and outright overwriting his findings from the Bush administration and their multiple oil men in appointed office.
Stephen, I'm well aware of his position at NASA. The article I posted addresses that. Besides, chairs for any government association do have to petition for funding on many projects that they want done within their organization.
As a government official, I would expect him to leave his personal politics out of his work, but like a good little liberal, this is impossible for this man to do. Smearing him? I just call him on his bullshit and his influences. And please, stop it with the Bush/Oil men conspiracy theories. If he was in oil's pocket, we would already be drilling for it right now.
Driven, don't forget dailykos.com
Charleston, Thanks for that very scientific opinion piece written by a radio talk show host.
So, an article has to be scientific in order to call a scientist with tremendous political influences on his bullshit? Oooooooookay... ::)
Poetic justice rarely comes so swiftly.
I think from Lunican and Stephen's posts, we can deduce that once a man becomes a scientist, he is completely above reproach, especially from anything other than scientific criticism.
Free speech...continuing to be the thorns amongst the roses from which the liberals sniff.
Uh, other scientists who vehemently disagree with Hansen should qualify as ample credibility and legitimacy to take Hansen to task scientifically, and they have done so.
The article I posted merely outlined Hansen's lack of credibility based on his political affiliations and influences, not his theories. Hence, it was from a political journal. There was no scientific criticism.
Apples and oranges...I get tired of saying it, but that's what it is.
Other scientific criticisms have been posted in previous threads. You missed my point. It is ludicrous to say that you can't criticize a man on his politics when he uses it to influence his science.
Stephen, you can't be serious. You actually think Hansen's work has no political motivations or influences? What he says is complete fact......no wait, it's "law"? You've managed to basically throw out what science is all about. You have, in essence, placed Hansen into a God-like figure.
There is no desperation in finding science that merely questions the lunacy of other scientists who adhere to politically corrupt dogma. Talk about stereotyping.
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 10:49:17 AM
Well River, lets just step back a little.
Jim Hansen: Correctly predicts 20 sequential years of development extrapolating from massive data from which he brilliantly deduced the future.
Stephen: You conveniently left out some of the facts. Here is a temperature chart of the last 20 years:
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 11:37:01 AM
Ice is absolutely not being reformed at a fast rate in the arctic, nor is it reforming on the ice shelf surrounding the antarctic.
Really? Check this out:
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/June22NHIce.jpg)
Oh, and scientists may have discovered the reason for the ice melt:
QuoteVolcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
Wed Jun 25, 4:13 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.
Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.
But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.
What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.
Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.
"On land, explosive volcanic eruptions are nothing exceptional, although they present a major threat," said Vera Schlindwein, a geologist with Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Sea and Polar Research, which took part in the study.
But the new findings, published in Nature, showed that "large-scale pyroclastic activity is possible along even the deepest portions of the global mid-ocean ridge volcanic system."
The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometres (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.
But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape.
Sohn and his colleagues gathered their data in July last year aboard the ice breaker Oden, using state-of-the-art instruments including a mutlibeam echo sounder, two autonomous underwater vehicles and a sub-ice camera designed for the mission.
Both sonar and visual images showed an ocean valley filled with flat-topped volcanos up to two kilometres (1.2 miles) wide and several hundred metres high.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080625/sc_afp/sciencegeologyoceansvolcano
BTW, did I mention that Antartic ice coverage (the other pole, you know) is at the highest point in the last 30 years?
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22ANTARCTIC.jpg)
And, global sea ice appears to be quite normal:
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22globeice.jpg)
Stephen, there is a word for worshipers at the altar of global warming and its prophets Al Gore and James Hansen: SUCKERS! :D :D
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 26, 2008, 02:17:39 PM
Oh, and scientists may have discovered the reason for the ice melt:
QuoteVolcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
Wed Jun 25, 4:13 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.
Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.
But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.
What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.
Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.
"On land, explosive volcanic eruptions are nothing exceptional, although they present a major threat," said Vera Schlindwein, a geologist with Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Sea and Polar Research, which took part in the study.
But the new findings, published in Nature, showed that "large-scale pyroclastic activity is possible along even the deepest portions of the global mid-ocean ridge volcanic system."
The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometres (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.
But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape.
Sohn and his colleagues gathered their data in July last year aboard the ice breaker Oden, using state-of-the-art instruments including a mutlibeam echo sounder, two autonomous underwater vehicles and a sub-ice camera designed for the mission.
Both sonar and visual images showed an ocean valley filled with flat-topped volcanos up to two kilometres (1.2 miles) wide and several hundred metres high.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080625/sc_afp/sciencegeologyoceansvolcano
Water from magma is melting the ice??? Now I feel foolish.........
Interesting interview here with the recently deceased dean of climatology, Dr. Reid Bryson:
Quote“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,†he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?â€
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,†Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.â€
Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidenceâ€â€"assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring dataâ€"helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.
We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,†he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.â€
Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?â€
We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,†he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.â€
What Leads, What Follows?
What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,†various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of cloudsâ€"water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?â€
Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving upâ€"or downâ€"and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Are you counting him as part of your scientific consensus now that he is no longer alive to defend himself? :D
Quote
Yes I do think that there is no politics behind the science.
The science has nothing to gain from being right.
You're absolutely right on that one. The science has nothing to gain whatsoever. Science is about discovery and advancement. How the results of science are applied are another matter.
However, politics and politicians have
plenty to gain from the science being right, and thus will be more inclined to encourage discovery in a certain direction - i.e. they want the ends to justify their means.
1) Buy a hybrid, or a plug-in electric car. Maybe I don't want to? Maybe I prefer an SUV? Can't haul around a dance team, or soccer team, and all their gear in a Prius or an Insight very well. And now even hybrid SUVs are being villified because they're still SUVs. WTF? I drive a hybrid SUV but I'm still anti-green?
2) No one but evil big-oil benefits from you owning an SUV (I don't, but I'm trying to explain a point).
And you're helping destroy the planet in the process. Not true. *I* benefit from owning one. And why are my choices in vehicles being steered in a certain direction? Why am I being made to feel guilty about what I'm in the market to purchase for my own private use? Can't I make my own choices anymore? The answer is no - not without being labeled an evil planet-hater for driving an SUV or truck.
3) You need to only buy CFL lighbulbs from now on. They're more energy efficient. I don't deny that for one millisecond. But why does the government (ANY government) need to come in and decree that companies which produce lightbulbs will be punished if they produce any other kinds of lightbulbs than CFLs after a certain date? And then sell it as a "gradual phase-out"? Shouldn't it be more like: "CFLs are better than incandescents and here's why..."? Let the people, and subsequently the market, decide.
In fact, in a bit of a stretch, (and saure to earn me some enemies from 'the other side of the aisle'), you could counter-argue that Catholicism shoved the concept of Jesus-as-Saviour down the throats of the pagans in order to broaden their influence, similarly to what's happening with the Green movement.
1) Jesus the Christ died for your sins. End of discussion. Not "here's what we believe..." Just, "here it is, swallow it." No choice. "Otherwise you die and burn in hell for eternity." Are you sure? Can't I just take that nugget and make my own choice on the matter? See the SUV argument.
2) Jesus was born on Christmas, in December. Henceforth it's the most important day of the year. Actually, the historical Jesus (if there even was one) was born more likely sometime in the spring, since shepherds were watching their flocks by night. They didn't do that in the dead of winter, when pastures lay fallow. The Church moved the feast of the Birth of the Christ to coincide with an established pagan holiday, in order to ease future assimilation. See the lightbulb argument.
Short story long, I don't like politicians ultimately making my most basic, personal decisions for me. It's very much Orwellian, IMO.
(And yes, after ALL that, smoking looks like the leading contributor to cancer. However, given the whole 'give science time' thing, who really knows? ;))
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 04:59:42 PM
River,
I leave you with the lyrics to a well known song.
bad boy. bad boy, whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? ;)
"They" will never come for me. I have committed no crime.
BTW, I see you are still dodging the actual science which discredits the entire GW theory.
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 05:01:50 PM
Do you believe that smoking causes cancer?
Yet another straw man argument (add this to the GW-theory-doubters-are-equivalent-to-flatworlders "logic" which Stephen attempts to employ from time to time).
QuoteA straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
Followed by an ad hominem attack. Powerful logic. ::)
i love hominems. the were my favorite topic in english. i love ading to...it was my favorite math skill.
tell me - all of you if you'd like - what you think your pointless rambling on and on and on in a forum in jax, fl about this subject is going to do to change the actual course of history as it relates to global warming?
You make your own arguments, I will make mine.
I have to run, but I will leave you with a chart of temperature data obtained from satellite and ocean buoys since 2002 (when they were deployed):
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg)
hey Charleston - do you believe in global warming?
Uh, can't I get my work done? ;)
I think River and Doctor K summed up what I would've said. On most counts.
The science indeed has nothing to gain, which is why science can and should counter any theory that is deemed as law merely by a vote of the masses or politicians. Government has TONS to gain by deeming the science as law.
Agree with the nuclear as an alternative long term. Need oil short term. Straw men. Studies have shown that smoking correlates with lung cancer, but it is not deemed as the one and only cause. Man-made global warming/climate change is a hoax while natural, solar cycles have fluctuated the temperature on the earth.
OK, sorry to keep it short, but now I've got to go and get ready to leave town. Wife is in a wedding, and I'll be Mr. Mom for almost the whole weekend in a hotel. Laters.
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 11:37:01 AM
Ice is absolutely not being reformed at a fast rate in the arctic, nor is it reforming on the ice shelf surrounding the antarctic.
Looks pretty close to normal in the Arctic right now:
(http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png)
National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
And the Antarctic actually has more ice than in 1980:
(http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/05_1980-2008_antarctic_ice_concentration_extent.jpg)
National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
So, please explain why Antarctic ice is not responding to the "global warming". Thanks. :)
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2008, 06:30:22 PM
so you have no input and cant finish your little tirade?
How unexpected.
No input?? Look at the data. Apply critical thinking.
Quote
So Charleston. Do you believe that Smoking Causes Cancer?
Stop raising silly, irrelevant nonsense. No one is impressed. ;)
Is this article true?
QuoteExclusive: No ice at the North Pole
Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic â€" and worrying â€" examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
Full Article (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html)
By the way River, nice graphic. Did you use your Commodore 64 to create that?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/245624341_edc43a15b8.jpg?v=0)
Lol. Well River and Charleston are not the only ones who simply cannot answer a simple fairly innocuous question Stephen. I think what's more imporant is when will the prosecution call its first witness? And hopefully, it's Al. Oh wait, he wont speak without knowing the questions a head of time and will not take cross exam question. But I'd love to see him up on the stand.
I personally wrote at lease 1 program or more on all 3 of these relics.
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Lunican on June 27, 2008, 11:25:39 AM
By the way River, nice graphic. Did you use your Commodore 64 to create that?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/245624341_edc43a15b8.jpg?v=0)
ROFLOL!!
rolls on floor, laughing out loud. nearly dies of oxygen deprivation.
Very funny.
Actually, the National Snow and Ice Data Center at University of Colorado has one of the worlds fastest computers. Of course, it's an IBM supercomputer. We are very proud of that installation.
River's screen shot couldn't have even been done on the 64.
Quote from: gatorback on June 27, 2008, 11:46:44 AM
I personally wrote at lease 1 program or more on all 3 of these relics.
a Radio Shack Tandy we got for Christmas was my first computer programming experience. massive amounts of textual lines of code to get the thing to print out a bit-by-bit graphic and sing "Noel". :)
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 11:20:56 AM
So you simply cannot answer a simple fairly innocuous question.
Well River, Charleston. If the simple asking of a question like "Do you believe that Smoking Causes Cancer" can shut both of your mouths and strike such fear in your hearts that you dare not speak the answer at all, then I think any reasonable reader can see right through your disingenuousness.
You cannot answer this question.
No one wonders why.
Smoking causes cancer in some people, causes emphysema in others, and causes no harm in others.
There is no parallel however between smoking and the GW theory.
Quote from: Lunican on June 27, 2008, 11:24:50 AM
Is this article true?
QuoteExclusive: No ice at the North Pole
Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic â€" and worrying â€" examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
Full Article (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html)
We will see. Talk with me again in August. ;)
Quote from: Lunican on June 27, 2008, 11:25:39 AM
By the way River, nice graphic. Did you use your Commodore 64 to create that?
The images came from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, although the C64 does bear some relation to your ability to think critically. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 11:53:53 AM
I think the following two quotes just about sum it up.
Reserve one bunk at Gitmo for unreconstructed southern lawyer please.
Actually Stephen, my post contained actual current data from researchers. The newspaper article contains mere speculation by researchers from the same place. Time will tell. This will all be cleared up by August, as I stated earlier.
In any case, please explain the ice increasing in Antarctica. Why is this ice not responding to GW?
In any case, please explain the ice increasing in Antarctica. Why is this ice not responding to GW?
Heat rises.
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 07:42:52 PM
Jeez, it’s almost like … I don’t know … the whole friggin’ planet is melting, and we are to blame! If only we had a group of scientists who would, like, report regularly on the impending catastrophe and explain to us how to avoid it….
Gosh, this sounds scientific. Is this GW for dummies? :D
BTW, it looks like the recent ice loss in the Arctic might be part of a multidecadal cycle involving ocean currents. The bad news is things should be getting colder soon:
QuoteMultidecadal Ocean Cycles and Greenland and the Arctic
By Joe D'Aleo
Monday, May 12, 2008
The last two weeks we showed how the natural multidecadal cycles in the Pacific (called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) and Atlantic (called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO) affected the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas and combined to correlate strongly with temperatures over the United States.
In early May, a paper appeared in Nature that created quite stir in the media by showing how by including long term ocean cycles in models the recent global cooling or at least lack of warming may continue to 2020. The same week, a story by NASA’s Earth Observatory reported on the flip of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool mode. “This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,†said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.â€
You heard these first here on Intellicast (in fact even in the prior incarnation of Dr. Dewpoint, we often talked about the importance of these ocean cycles in climate cycles). This week we will talk about temperatures and ice in Greenland and the Arctic, topics sure to dominate the news this summer. Already recent media stories have some scientists predicting another big melt this summer. We will show how that is not at all unprecedented (happens predictably every 60 years or so) and is in fact entirely natural.
GREENLAND
Many recent studies have addressed Greenland ice mass balance. They yield a broad picture of slight inland thickening and strong near-coastal thinning, primarily in the south along fast-moving outlet glaciers.
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_0.jpg)
Figure 1: Greenland ice thickness changes as determined from NASA satellites
However, interannual variability is very large, driven mainly by variability in summer melting and sudden glacier accelerations. Consequently, the short time interval covered by instrumental data is of concern in separating fluctuations from trends. But in a paper published in Science in February 2007, Dr. Ian Howat of the University of Washington reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, "average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk."
Dr. Howat in a follow-up interview with the New York Times went on to add:
"Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930's and 40's, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950's to the 1980's. Of course, we don't know very much about how the glacier dynamics changed then because we didn't have satellites to observe it. However, it does suggest that large variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate variability.â€
Thomas, et al. (2000) showed great variance in mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet with highly variable thickening and thinning depending on location. This February during a bitter cold winter, Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland reached its greatest extent in 15 years.
Temperatures were warmer in the 1930s and 1940s in Greenland. They cooled back to the levels of the 1880s by the 1980s and 1990s. In a GRL paper in 2003, Hanna and Cappelen showed a significant cooling trend for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland from 1958 to 2001 (-1.29ºC for the 44 years). The temperature trend represented a strong negative correlation with increasing CO2 levels.
Shown below in figure 2, see the temperature plot for Godthab Nuuk in southwest Greenland. Note how closely the temperatures track with the AMO (which is a measure of the Atlantic temperatures 0 to 70N). It shows that cooling from the late 1950s to the late 1990s even as greenhouse gases rose steadily, a negative correlation over almost 5 decades. The rise after the middle 1990s was due to the flip of the AMO into its warm phase. They have not yet reached the level of the 1930s and 1940s.
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_1.gif)
Figure 2: Godthab Nuuk, Greenland annual mean temperatures (NASA GISS) top and the AMO bottom (annual dark blue and 5 year running mean purple) source CDC Climate Indices
A SIMILAR STORY IN THE ARCTIC
Warming in the arctic is likewise shown to be cyclical in nature. This was acknowledged in the AR4 which mentioned the prior warming and ice reduction in the 1930s and 1940s. Warming results in part from the reduction of arctic ice extent because of flows of the warm water associated with the warm phases of the PDO and AMO into the arctic from the Pacific through the Bering Straits and the far North Atlantic and the Norwegian Current.
Polyakov et al (2002) created a temperature record using stations north of 62 degrees N. The late 1930s-early 1940s were clearly the warmest of the last century. In addition, the numbers of available observations in the late 1930s-early 1940s (slightly more than 50) is comparable to recent decades. The annual temperatures are plotted in figure 3.
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_2.jpg)
Figure 3: Arctic Basin wide temperatures (Polyakov 2003)
Pryzbylak (2000) says:
“There exists an agreement in estimating temperature tendencies prior to 1950. Practically all (old and new) of the papers which cover this time period concentrate on the analysis of the significant warming which occurred in the Arctic from 1920 to about 1940. Estimates of the areal average Arctic temperature trend in the second half of the 20th century are inconsistent.
“The second phase of contemporary global warming in the Arctic [since 1970] is either very weakly marked or even not seen at all. For example, the mean rate of warming in the last 5-year period in the Arctic was 2â€"3 times lower than for the globe as a whole.
“In the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s. Moreover, it has been shown that even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years.â€
Polyakov (2003) showed ice extent time series with a combination of decadal and multidecadal tendencies, with lower values prior to the 1920s, in the late 1930s to 1940s and in recent decades. They showed higher values in the 1920s to early 1930s and 1960s-1970s, similar to variability in temperature records. It is impossible to find a consistent long term trend in the data plots
The Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture observed in a story in Yahoo Asia News in 2005 an ice shrinkage in the western Arctic Ocean from 1997 to 1998 that they attributed to “… by the flow to the area of warm water from the Pacific Ocean, not by atmospheric impact as previously thoughtâ€. This was related to the super El Nino of 1997/98. JAMSTEC's Koji Shimada, the group's sub-leader, said the shrinkage was particularly severe in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. The ocean's ratio of area covered with ice during the summer stood at about 60-80 percent from the 1980s to mid-1990s, but it went down to 15-30 percent after 1998, he said. Trenberth (1999) also has acknowledged this warming effect of El Nino on the arctic.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ATLANTIC
Of the two oceans, for the larger arctic basin, the Atlantic may be more important. Przybylak (2000) noted that
“For arctic temperature, the most important factor is a change in the atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic†The influence of the atmospheric circulation changes over the Pacific (both in the northern end and in the tropical parts) is significantly lowerâ€
Rigor, et al (2002) suggest that the Arctic Oscillation (AO) affects surface air temperatures and sea ice thickness over the Arctic in a profound way. Ice thickness responds primarily to surface winds changes caused by the AO. Positive AO values (as have been observed in recent years) correspond to higher wind speeds (and generally thinner ice).
The North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation (also referred to as the NAM) are related to the AMO as we reported on in the last post here.
As noted in the IPCC AR4, the relationship is a little more robust for the cold (negative AMO) phase than with the warm (positive) AMO. There tends to be considerable intraseasonal variability of these indices that relate to other factors (stratospheric warming and cooling events that are correlated with the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation or QBO for example).
Hass and Eicken (2001) and Proshutinsky and Johnson (1997) showed how arctic circulations vary from cyclonic to anticyclonic depending on strength and position of Icelandic low and Siberian highs. The latter paper noting the tendencies for the regimes to last 5-7 years and help explain the basin scale changes in arctic temperatures and the variability of ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean. Vennegas and Mysak (2000) noted penetration of Atlantic waters into the arctic is affected by the North Atlantic Oscillation and multidecadal changes in the Norwegian Current.
As was the case for US temperatures, the combination of the PDO and AMO Indexes (PDO+AMO) again has considerable explanatory power for Arctic average temperature, yielding an r-squared of 0.73 (figure 4).
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_3.jpg)
Figure 4: Arctic basin wide temperatures from Polyakov (2003) versus PDO+AMO (STD). Dark blue is annual and purple 5 year running means.
Karlen (2005) reported on historical temperatures in Svalbard (Lufthavn, at 78 deg N latitude), claiming that the area represents a large portion of the Arctic. It is reported that the “mean annual temperature increased rapidly from the 1910s to the late 1930s." Later, temperatures dropped, “and a minimum was reached around 1970." Once again, "Svalbard thereafter became warmer, but the mean temperature in the late 1990s was still slightly cooler than it was in the late 1930s."
Karlen goes on to say that similar trends (warm 1930s, cooling until about 1970, minor warming since) have occurred in Arctic areas of the North Atlantic, in northern Siberia, and in Alaska. At Stockholm, where records go back 250 years, "changes of the same magnitude as in the 1900s occurred between 1770 and 1800, and distinct but smaller fluctuations occurred around 1825."
Finally, in view of the fact that "during the 50 years in which the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased considerably, the temperature has decreased," Karlen concludes that "the Arctic temperature data do not support the models predicting that there will be a critical future warming of the climate because of an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere."
Drinkwater (2006) concluded that "in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the air and ocean temperatures in the northern North Atlantic and the high Arctic, with the largest changes occurring north of 60°N," which "led to reduced ice cover in the Arctic and subarctic regions and higher sea temperatures." This was “the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century."
During the late 1920s, "average air temperatures began to rise rapidly and continued to do so through the 1930s." In this period, "mean annual air temperatures increased by approximately 0.5-1°C and the cumulative sums of anomalies varied from 1.5 to 6°C between 1920 and 1940 with the higher values occurring in West Greenland and Iceland." Later, "through the 1940s and 1950s air temperatures in the northernmost regions varied but generally remained relatively high." Temperatures declined in the late 1960s in the northwest Atlantic and somewhat earlier in the northeast Atlantic.
Hanna, et al (2006) estimated Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) near Iceland over a 119-year period based on measurements made at ten coastal stations located between latitudes 63°'N and 67°'N. They concluded that there had been “generally cold conditions during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; strong warming in the 1920s, with peak SSTs typically being attained around 1940; and cooling thereafter until the 1970s, followed once again by warming - but not generally back up to the level of the 1930s/1940s warm period."
THE EFFECT ON ICE COVER
Both the Atlantic and Pacific play roles in arctic ice extent.
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_4.jpg)
Figure 5: USGCRP Arctic sea ice extent (2000)
The sea ice extent diminished following the Great Pacific Climate Shift (flip of the PDO to positive) in the late 1970s (figure 5). It stayed relatively stable until the last few years when a more precipitous decline began (figure 6), related to a spike in North Atlantic warmth and a positive AO.
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_5.jpg)
Figure 6: Northern Hemispheric Sea Ice Anomaly (UIUC Cryosphere)
Dmitrenko and Polyokov (2003) observed that warm Atlantic water in the early 2000s from the warm AMO that developed in the middle 1990s had made its way under the ice to off of the arctic coast of Siberia where it thinned the ice by 30% much as it did when it happened in the last warm AMO period from the 1880s to 1930s. Polyakov had previously concluded (2002)
“Arctic and northern hemispheric air-temperature trends during the 20th century (when multi-decadal variability had little net effect on computed trends) are similar, and do not support the predicted polar amplification of global warming. The possible moderating role of sea ice cannot be conclusively identified with existing data. If long-term trends are accepted as a valid measure of climate change, then the SAT and ice data do not support the proposed polar amplification of global warming.â€
Rutger’s Jennifer Frances (GRL) in 2007 showed how the warming in the arctic and the enhanced ice melting was in part the result of warm water (+3C) in the Barents Sea in the far North Atlantic moving into the Siberian arctic. The positive feedback of changed “albedo†or reflectivity due to open water then acts to enhance the warming.
We can see in figure 7 how the Atlantic warmth peaked in 2004 and 2005 several years ahead of the major decline. Cooling since suggests the ice may slowly recover year to year.
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_6.jpg)
Figure 7: Annual Average AMO
The University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) summarized the role of the ocean cycles very well in October 2007 in this way:
“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.
Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marineâ€"Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss.
Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.â€
(http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_7.jpg)
Figure 8: What Me Worry?
SUMMARY
Multidecadal Oscillations in the Pacific and the Atlantic are acknowledged to be the result of natural processes. We have shown the warm phase of the PDO leads to more El Ninos and general warmth and the cold phase to more La Ninas and widespread coolness. The warm mode of the AMO also produces general warmth across much of the Northern Hemisphere including Greenland and the Arctic. When you combine the two cycles, you can explain much of the temperature variances of the past 110 years for the United States, Greenland and the Arctic.
Warm waters from both ocean basins during the ocean’s warm modes contribute to periodic summer ice decreases approximately every 60 years going back two hundred years.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=128
Quote from: stephendare on June 30, 2008, 04:17:50 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 07:42:52 PM
Jeez, it’s almost like … I don’t know … the whole friggin’ planet is melting, and we are to blame! If only we had a group of scientists who would, like, report regularly on the impending catastrophe and explain to us how to avoid it….
Gosh, this sounds scientific. Is this GW for dummies? :D
Considering your 100 percent wrong statements, I certainly wouldnt be laughing at ANYTHING for dummies if I were you.....lol ;D
Sorry but I dont recall you ever proving me wrong about anything. ;)
Oh and perhaps Mr. Hansen should be more concerned about his own possible criminal prosecution for advocating for candidates in partisan races while on the public dime. From Stephen's beloved National Review:
QuoteHansen Unhinged
Having the wrong opinions on climate science constitutes a crime against humanity?
By Patrick J. Michaels
This week marks 20 years since NASA’s James E. Hansen testified before a joint Congressional hearing that there was a strong “cause and effect†relationship between “current†climate conditions and emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Current conditions in 1988 were a big heat wave and drought in the eastern U.S. The public bit. Two days later, 70 percent of the respondents to a CNN poll agreed with the proposition that 1988’s misery was caused by global warming. Yet in fact, no climate scientist can ever blame an individual weather event, like a heat wave or drought, on global warming.
Hansen’s testimony that year included a graph of annual temperatures, with a dramatic spike on the last point, the January-May temperatures. He knew, as does any scientist, that a sample of monthly data will vary much more than year-to-year temperatures, and that monthly data could give a false impression of extremely hot (or cold) conditions, compared to annual temperatures.
Hansen has long employed stagecraft for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room. Why was it so warm? As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.â€
Hansen offered three scenarios for future warming. “Scenario A,†was business as usual, meaning carbon dioxide emissions would continue with no stringent curbs. It forecast an ever-increasing rate of emissions, but the rate of increase turned out to be constant. So this scenario predicted too much warming. Indeed, even though there was no major curb on emissions, they still didn’t increase exponentially.
“Scenario B,†which forecast a slower increase, is pretty close to what has happened, as far as global carbon dioxide emissions go. It projected that increasing CO2 concentrations would result in global temperatures about 1.48°F above the 1951-80 average in 2007. But that’s 33 percent more warming than has actually been observed, according to data published by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Scenario C†stopped the growth of carbon dioxide emissions altogether in 2000, which obviously hasn’t happened.
Every climate scientist knows there’s been no â€" zero â€" net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Unless you throw in a volcano (there hasn’t been a decent one in the last decade), none of Hansen’s valid 1988 models predict what’s actually happened. He simply predicted too much warming, especially for the last ten years. Why should we believe what he forecasts for the rest of the 21st century?
Hansen’s 1988 predictions were flatly wrong about the extent of global warming. Yet on the 20th anniversary of his original testimony, Hansen said that people “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature†for spreading doubts about the promised global warming holocaust. He named names, too: the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy.
Excuse me, Inquisitor Hansen, but what exactly are their crimes against humanity? Being demonstrably wrong about climate science?
Speaking of crimes, what about the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from electioneering? In the hotly contested state of Iowa, on October 26, 2004, Hansen gave a public speech in which he stated that “John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face.†Kerry lost Iowa by a mere 10,000 votes.
Yet Hansen persists. He recently said “the 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen,†maybe we’ll be able to save the planet from the doom he envisions this century. Hansen also wants to tax fossil fuels, making them much more expensive than they are already.
So even though he predicted too much global warming, and his numbers couldn’t explain the ten-year hiatus we’ve experienced, Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public.
The fact of the matter is: Hansen is out of control. NASA employees aren’t supposed to call for tax hikes, endorse candidates, or attack businessmen. Any other federal employee would be warned for doing so, and if he continued, fired (or worse). You have to hand it to him, though: he’s a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people.
â€" Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI
Whoops. Those are some inconvenient truths. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on June 30, 2008, 04:31:57 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 30, 2008, 04:17:50 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 07:42:52 PM
Jeez, it’s almost like … I don’t know … the whole friggin’ planet is melting, and we are to blame! If only we had a group of scientists who would, like, report regularly on the impending catastrophe and explain to us how to avoid it….
Gosh, this sounds scientific. Is this GW for dummies? :D
That makes you a candidate for early alzheimer's.
Read back two pages.
Considering your 100 percent wrong statements, I certainly wouldnt be laughing at ANYTHING for dummies if I were you.....lol ;D
Sorry but I dont recall you ever proving me wrong about anything. ;)
I looked back 2 pages and found nothing on page 4 to substantiate your claim. Just because you imagine that something has happened doesnt mean that it actually did.
Your statement was nonsensical and attempted to put words into my mouth. I did not accept any such thing. Nice try though.
Try actually reading my posts.
You do have a vivid imagination, I will give you that. :D
Right... ::)
not true. no prosecutions coming. just clearing that up.
There may be a psychological basis for the belief in the increasingly unbelievable global warming theory:
QuoteWhen Prophecy Fails [Chris Horner]
The Bret Stephens piece that Ed Craig excerpts below also brings to mind the work of Leon Festinger, whose pioneering work on cognitive dissonance theory is so applicable to a movement whose noisiest champions often lead the most incompatible lifestyles imaginable.
Festinger co-wrote (with Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter) the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled a fairly typical cult following: a housewife claimed to be receiving doomsday messages from aliens, who nonetheless offered hope for those who listened to their counsel. (Quick, someone check James Hansen’s immigration status, and bone up on the Alien Tort Claims Act climate litigation.)
Festinger et al. detailed how the failure of a prophecy to come about can often yield the opposite effect of what the rational person would expect: the cult following gets stronger and its adherents ever more convinced of their truth. One reading of Festinger, as to why the rational response should not follow in that situation, is that such prophesying is not rational, or the act of rational beings.
We should not have been surprised with the current mantra, of “Cooling? Why, that’s just another sign of warming.†It is the logical next step of a movement neatly captured by Greenpeace’s Steven Guilbeault’s incantation, “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that’s what we’re dealing with.â€
Beam me up.
Festinger deliciously penned the following assessment about this phenomenon:
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.
As a meteorologist colleague commented to me last night about a recent manifestation of precisely this, “these people are no different than the guys sitting around waiting for the spaceship.â€
07/01 09:30 AM
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
BTW, still no prosecutions... :D
Here is the Bret Stephens piece referenced in the above post:
QuoteGLOBAL VIEW
By BRET STEPHENS
Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
July 1, 2008; Page A15
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH813_glovie_20080630171632.jpg)
The New True Believers
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore â€" population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations â€" and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=todays_columnists
Keep dreaming. :D
Thank GOD that me, my yet unborn children, and my grandchildren will be able to stave off this fierce and very real, very dire threat by throwing our money to our savior, the government, in the form of a carbon tax.
any convictions lately in this arena?
I heard they are looking for Midway... ;D
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2008, 11:20:56 AM
So you simply cannot answer a simple fairly innocuous question.
Well River, Charleston. If the simple asking of a question like "Do you believe that Smoking Causes Cancer" can shut both of your mouths and strike such fear in your hearts that you dare not speak the answer at all, then I think any reasonable reader can see right through your disingenuousness.
You cannot answer this question.
No one wonders why.
Um, did you read my last post? I said that smoking has a correlational relationship to cancer, but as usual, you're using another apples and oranges comparison for this glo-bull warming. Please read above.
Oh yeah, we might as well add this group of
50,000 physicists to Stephen's fantasy of people up for prosecution, even though Al Gore's "science" is continually derailing (granted, this is not APS's official statement, but there is acknowledgement of a large group of scientists in the organization that are skeptics):
Quote"Considerable presence" of skeptics
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403
I love this quote from one of the commenters (although his spelling could use improvement):
QuoteHow many more nails?
By karkas on 7/17/2008 12:37:25 AM , Rating: 5
How many more nails will it take before MMGW is buried. I'd like to see the media call APS quacks like the rest... Na, they will prolly just ignore it like all the other evidence which proovs the earth is round not flat.
Once the GW nonsense is definitively proven to be wrong, you will not see any apologies from the left. They will just move onto the next hysterical myth, like DDT or acid rain, to advance their agendas. It never stops with them. They use lies and propaganda to advance a hidden agenda which is socialism and a worship of the Earth and its creatures which is both anti-religious and perverse.
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 02, 2008, 04:16:03 PM
There may be a psychological basis for the belief in the increasingly unbelievable global warming theory:
QuoteWhen Prophecy Fails [Chris Horner]
The Bret Stephens piece that Ed Craig excerpts below also brings to mind the work of Leon Festinger, whose pioneering work on cognitive dissonance theory is so applicable to a movement whose noisiest champions often lead the most incompatible lifestyles imaginable.
Festinger co-wrote (with Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter) the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled a fairly typical cult following: a housewife claimed to be receiving doomsday messages from aliens, who nonetheless offered hope for those who listened to their counsel. (Quick, someone check James Hansen’s immigration status, and bone up on the Alien Tort Claims Act climate litigation.)
Festinger et al. detailed how the failure of a prophecy to come about can often yield the opposite effect of what the rational person would expect: the cult following gets stronger and its adherents ever more convinced of their truth. One reading of Festinger, as to why the rational response should not follow in that situation, is that such prophesying is not rational, or the act of rational beings.
We should not have been surprised with the current mantra, of “Cooling? Why, that’s just another sign of warming.†It is the logical next step of a movement neatly captured by Greenpeace’s Steven Guilbeault’s incantation, “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that’s what we’re dealing with.â€
Beam me up.
Festinger deliciously penned the following assessment about this phenomenon:
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.
As a meteorologist colleague commented to me last night about a recent manifestation of precisely this, “these people are no different than the guys sitting around waiting for the spaceship.â€
07/01 09:30 AM
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
At this point, whether global warming is real or not, I happen to believe it is, we are still RAPING this planet with no remorse.
But for the sake of future generations pull your head from the dark part of your anatomy and wake up.
I can hear the responses now, "blah, blah, blah....the planet is always changing and going through changes....but usually drastic change has taken place over a very long period of time.....
There will always be boths sides of the agrument, but there is evidence that man has been slowly chipping away at the health of the planet for years now.
Is it okay that we have polluted the St Johns River to the extent we have? Our disregard of its health will cost millions of dollars to clean up and we still have the capactiy to destroy this precious and beautiful resource if we don't wake up.
The same with the Everglades. Greed and bad judgment has damaged one of the most unique and amazing ecosystems on the planet, the only one of its kind....And guess what, it is costing taxpayers MILLIONS of not more to save it.
All of this puts hardship on people and their quality of life.
If you don't believe mans abuse can cause irreversable damage just take a look at the Aral Sea in Russia. This is a man made disaster that has brought misery and suffering to many people and robbed them of their livelihood
I would rather err on the side of saving the environment, just in case the global warming side is right....
If you want to call me a tree hugger, thank you in advance for the greatest compliment you could give me....
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 18, 2008, 12:17:17 PM
Once the GW nonsense is definitively proven to be wrong, you will not see any apologies from the left. They will just move onto the next hysterical myth, like DDT or acid rain, to advance their agendas. It never stops with them. They use lies and propaganda to advance a hidden agenda which is socialism and a worship of the Earth and its creatures which is both anti-religious and perverse.
Yes you should not worship the earth, but you should protect it. Man was put here to take care of it not destroy it. Quoting from the KJ Version of the Bible it says that God "shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."
That seems clear to me.....
To share my view of the creatures of the earth, we should not abuse, be cruel or torture animals, and I respect peta for their desire to protect animals, but I think they go too far. I believe that it is okay to use animals for research if it benefits humans, but I think using cruel and torturous means to do it is equally wrong....
I love our planet and the creatures on it, but I certainly don't worship either and just because other people feel like me doesn't makes us fanatic or wrong....
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 18, 2008, 12:17:17 PM
Once the GW nonsense is definitively proven to be wrong, you will not see any apologies from the left. They will just move onto the next hysterical myth, like DDT or acid rain, to advance their agendas. It never stops with them. They use lies and propaganda to advance a hidden agenda which is socialism and a worship of the Earth and its creatures which is both anti-religious and perverse.
Wow, guy, where do you come up with this stuff?
You realize that actual scientists-- real people who actually know what they are talking about-- have, as a massive group, almost ACROSS THE BOARD stated, and shown with studies, that this is a real phenomenon. Further, actual journalists, not just people posting on message boards, have proven that the very tiny, infinitely small group who disagree with GW as being real are almost all funded by oil companies or other industries whose financial interests very much hinge upon the idea that GW is not real.
How you cannot take this seriously is beyond me. Your idea that some amorphous huge group of people, republicans and democrats alike, as well as people worldwide, would make this up as a means of imposing some socialist agenda are so crazy that I
almost think you are some sort of hilarious political satirist. Sadly, I know I am mistaken.
And while you keep your head stuck in a black hole, real people in places across the world are reaping the havoc of GW as it destroys their crops and their lands and forces them to starve.
So, while it's fun for you and Rush to pretend this doesn't exist, and use it for political gains, I would say the disguisting and horrible effects it's having on people across the world are exactly the kind of causes Jesus Christ would champion.
And, while we're on it-- you actually think respecting and caring for our Earth is anti-religious? Because God didn'r create Earth as probably His single greatest achievement?
Overall, I am incredibly saddened that someone would even type the words you did as a serious statement. This is all made up, just like Katrina caused no oil spills, right?
He reads it in Petro Weekly. He's on the side of big oil. Lol. (I don't know this for sure.)
Al Gore says global-warming skeptics are a group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers.
Myron Ebell begs to differ.
Hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, and droughtsâ€"sure, they've stirred some fears. And some corporate allies that used to mock global warmingâ€"such as Detroit's Big Three automakers and oil giant Texacoâ€"have, like the glaciers, melted away from the fight. But, for the hardest of the hard core, these are glorious days.
Like holdouts in the Alamo, the last of the skeptics plug away at the thousands of mainstream scientists now arrayed against them. They take potshots at the scores of studies that say global warming is here, aiming for small incongruities. And they bridle when asked if they take money, as nearly all do, from ExxonMobil.
Many of the skeptics are curmudgeons: old, bald, and bitter. But not Myron Ebell. Tall, slim, and youthful at 53, his blond hair swept back from a handsome face set off by serious glasses, Ebell is one of that rare breed, an elegant nerd. On television, facing interrogation by moderators who clearly feel he should be tarred and feathered for his views, he stays cool and fires back with withering zingers. In the recent surprise hit movie Thank You for Smoking, based on Christopher Buckley's novel, actor Aaron Eckhardt played a tobacco lobbyist who jokes about being a merchant of death and gleefully outdebates all comers. Ebell could easily star in the sequel, Thank You for Warming.
Ebell is a public-policy wonkâ€"not, he hastens to clarify, a lobbyist for the energy industry, as many of his fellow skeptics are, or a scientist whose research is underwritten by the energy industry, or a politician who takes contributions from the energy industry. He lives in a suburb of Washington, D.C., where he and his wife are raising four children, ranging in age from an 11-year-old son to a 21-year-old daughter, all of whom, Ebell says proudly, take a skeptical view of global warming. He goes to work at a think tank on Connecticut Avenue called the Competitive Enterprise Institute (C.E.I.), where his office is modest, but not his influence.
Every day, journalists around the world call C.E.I. for its take on the latest global-warming studies, and Ebell, or one of his colleagues who also deal with the pressâ€"Marlo Lewis, Iain Murray, and Christopher Hornerâ€"happily obliges. The journalists like to air all viewsâ€""on the one hand, on the other"â€"so they plug in Ebell's latest retorts, giving them equal weight with new scientific findings. Gore is right in one sense: almost no scientist doubts that global warming is here, that man-made greenhouse gases are to blame, or that if we don't cut back on those gases fairly soon we'll be in a heap of trouble. But as the "other hand" in all those news stories, Ebell and his quotable cohorts sustain the impression that a scientific debate is still raging. The more studies that confirm global warming, the more ink Ebell gets. Journalist Ross Gelbspan, a longtime skeptic-tracker, says that's how the skeptics operate. With those doubts neatly planted in the press, the public shrugs, politicians push the problem off to another day, and ExxonMobil parries new fossil-fuel regulations, earning more windfall profits in exchange for a pittance to the skeptics and their work.
Like its ideological soulmates, C.E.I. has taken moneyâ€"a considerable amountâ€"from ExxonMobil. Ebell says that's irrelevant. "We're not beholden to our donors, because we don't say, 'If you give us this money, we'll do this project,'" he explains, tilting back nonchalantly in a C.E.I. conference-room chair. "I can't even quite tell you who supports us on global warming." In fact, Ebell could go to the ExxonMobil Web site and see that in 2005 the oil giant gave C.E.I. $270,000, a not inconsiderable portion of the institute's $3.7 million budget, and that between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil gave it more than $2 million. He could also ask one of his colleagues and learn that C.E.I. gets money from the American Petroleum Institute, various pharmaceutical companies (Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly), and William A. Dunn of Dunn Capital Management. But he says he's never done that. Since its founding, 23 years ago, by free marketer Fred Smith as an all-purpose bullhorn against government regulations, C.E.I. has simply tinkered with issues it choosesâ€"from higher mileage standards in cars (bad) to the Endangered Species Act (worse)â€"trying to affect public policy and hoping donors come along for the ride.
That may be how C.E.I. sees it. To ExxonMobil, though, C.E.I. has been one of the brightest stars in its constellation of climate skeptics. Other oil companies fund global-warming-skeptic think tanks through the American Petroleum Institute, and various coal interests weigh in, too. But, for the skeptics, ExxonMobil is Big Daddy.
From 1998 to 2005, ExxonMobil spent a reported $16 million funding climate studies at some three dozen institutes. The recipients range from the well-known right-wing clearinghouse American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ($240,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005) to the obscure Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($90,000 in 2005), bookends to a Who's Who of skeptics. None of these groups has any standing in mainstream climate science. Their fellows and scholars crank out policy papers that purport to disprove the latest findings about global warming and only rarely publish studies in peer-reviewed technical scientific journals. Instead, the institutes publish the papers themselves or get sympathetic newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times to run them as op-ed pieces. From there, the papers are taken up by a handful of lawmakersâ€"such as Oklahoma Republican senator James Inhofe and Texas Republican congressman Joe Barton, who deride global warming as an alarmist hoaxâ€"and get disseminated on the Internet like viral advertising. It's an all too effective approach.
:D The response of the Climate Changers is truly hilarious. Eazy, I would love to know what website you found that article on. I notice that you didn't provide a link...probably because the source is some liberal propaganda piece.
You can't possibly tell me that this movement is not socialist driven. Every aspect of it points to socialism. I guess ignorance is bliss; or in this case, ignorance makes you feel significant and relevant as you drive a SmartCar, eat grass, and use CFLs in belief that you're saving the world.
Avonjax, I also would like you to find that specific quote in Scripture...then give me the whole chapter where it comes from so we can see the quote's context.
I guess 31,000 scientists from Oregon and thousands among the APS don't really count. Not to mention the prominent scientists from the International Conference on Climate Change.
Remember, there is a consensus "ACROSS THE BOOOOOOARD"! :D :D
Quote from: Charleston native on July 18, 2008, 02:05:00 PM
:D The response of the Climate Changers is truly hilarious. Eazy, I would love to know what website you found that article on. I notice that you didn't provide a link...probably because the source is some liberal propaganda piece.
You can't possibly tell me that this movement is not socialist driven. Every aspect of it points to socialism. I guess ignorance is bliss; or in this case, ignorance makes you feel significant and relevant as you drive a SmartCar, eat grass, and use CFLs in belief that you're saving the world.
Avonjax, I also would like you to find that specific quote in Scripture...then give me the whole chapter where it comes from so we can see the quote's context.
I guess 31,000 scientists from Oregon and thousands among the APS don't really count. Not to mention the prominent scientists from the International Conference on Climate Change.
Remember, there is a consensus "ACROSS THE BOOOOOOARD"! :D :D
Revelation 11:18
If you don't understand the context I will try to enlighten you....
I am still in the undecided camp on this issue. I do not deny that there is some evidence of warming, I am slao aware that the earth was much warmer than it is now or that it is predicted to be. In fact we are still coming out of the last ice age. For most of the time life has existed on earth there HAS NOT been ice in the arctic nor the antarctic. Only since humans came on the scene has there been ice in either place. In addition there seems to me to be waaay to much info that is infered thru core samples and such that can be open to interpretation. Humans have really only been making accurate measurements of temperatures and weather for the past hundred years or so and even those measurements were not under uniform conditions that are expected today.
I am all for steps to reduce pollution and carbon emissions and conserve energy and move towards alternatives. There is no reason that an non GW believer cannot uphold the cleaner planet ideology. I have seen too many of these "crisis" come and go over time. I clearly remember "Global cooling"... the rhetoric between the two sides was the same...
$.02
Quote from: stephendare on July 18, 2008, 02:40:19 PM
...By the way, the idea that there are 31,000 'scientists' in Oregon alone, much less such a vast group of climate change deniers is pretty laughable.
Why not a gazillion?
Did someone build an Institute for the Scientifically Insane in Portland without telling anyone?
Are they counting all the sperms active in the climate changed deniers as potential scientists?
Stephen, please tell me you're joking here. You do know that I meant the 31,000 scientists affiliated with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? Just because an institute is located in Oregon doesn't mean all the petition signers are from there. Good grief.
You would think that somebody who agrees with Carlin's statements wouldn't buy into this hoax. This is probably the only issue I agreed with Carlin on, albeit from a different premise source.
Quote from: stephendare on July 18, 2008, 03:03:56 PM
Well I certainly agree with you, BT. But I have to remind you of the immortal words of St. George Carlin.
"Saint" Carlin?? What a joke!
Again, no linked sources. How about add that to your articles so we can see them ourselves?
Also, in this day and age, petitions and their signatures can be created via email. I would think the scientific community tried to use technology in the 21st century, last I checked.
For some reason, my work computer is blocking the links out. Odd.
BTW, that still doesn't completely negate the petition's relevance, though in the eyes of liberals, it must have some sort of "mainstream" seal of approval.
That also doesn't negate the other thousands from APS and ICCC.
The point is that mostly universal consensus on this hoax is BS.
Quote from: stephendare on July 18, 2008, 03:37:51 PM
um. ok. btw, here is the actual truth on DDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt
and acid rain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
Do you ever bother to check up on things in the reality based community before you post this bizarre crap?
Do you expect the "Left" to apologize to someone because scientists were RIGHT about the dangers of Massive deployment of synthetic chemicals without testing first?
Or maybe hide in shame because of the discovery of Dead Lakes and Acid Rain by Naturalists and Biochemists dating as far back as 1857?
Seriously River. These little daisy chains of illogical connections and conclusions are troubling to say the least.
Based on that twisted logic, shouldnt Reaganites apologize because by undermining the Soviet Union they empowered and armed the Mujehaddin while it was being led by Osama Bin Laden?
Dont you owe us all a big apology for international terrorism?
Interesting that you would cast yourself as part of the "reality based community". :D
In any event, I really dont have time to refute all of your straw man arguments because I have a job but as for DDT its ban, it has been very harmful to people while its use may have caused some problems for wildlife due to overuse (which was a correctable problem). Estimates are that millions of people in the Third World have died from the ban on DDT.
QuoteSoon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuseâ€"not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/text4.html
I would also note that your wikipedia source has been changed recently as it used to have an extensive explanation of the disputes regarding DDT. Now it has fallen victim to the enviro-censors who are common on wikipedia.
Here is a nice piece on the DDT issue:
QuoteDDT, Fraud, and Tragedy
By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin
Published 2/25/2005 12:08:42 AM
"Fraud in science is a major problem." So begins "DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud" by the late J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University in San Jose, California.
The article was published shortly after his death last July in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall, 2004. It is based in part on his 34-page manuscript discussing fraud in acid rain, ozone holes, ultraviolet radiation, carbon dioxide, global warming, and pesticides, particularly DDT.
His publications distinguish Edwards as the leading authority on the environmental science and politics of DDT.
In World War I, prior to the discovery of the insecticidal potential of DDT, typhus killed more servicemen than bullets. In World War II, typhus was no problem. The world has marveled at the effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria, yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice.
Today, the greatest killer and disabler is malaria, which kills a person every 30 seconds. By the 1960s, DDT had brought malaria near to extinction. "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable," said the National Academy of Sciences.
But the handwriting was on the wall when William Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in an address to the Audubon Society in Milwaukee in 1971, clearly stated his position:
As a member of the Audubon Society myself, and knowing the impact of this chlorinated hydrocarbon in certain species of raptorial birds, I was highly suspicious of this compound [DDT], to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions.
"As you know, many mass uses of DDT have already been prohibited, including all uses around the home. Certainly we'll all feel better when the persistent compounds can be phased out in favor of biological controls. But awaiting this millennium does not permit the luxury of dodging the harsh decisions of today.
Rachel Carson began the countrywide assault on DDT with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson made errors, some designed to scare, about DDT and synthetic pesticides. "For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to death," she intoned.
"This is nonsense," commented pesticide specialists Bruce N. Ames and Thomas H. Jukes of the University of California at Berkeley. (Ames is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, world renowned. Jukes, who died a few years ago, was a professor of biophysics and a leader in the defense of DDT.) "Every chemical is dangerous if the concentration is too high. Moreover, 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural... produced by plants to kill off predators," Ames and Jukes wrote in Reason in 1993.
Carson, not very scrupulous, implied that the renowned Albert Schweitzer agreed with her on DDT by dedicating Silent Spring "to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said 'Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.'" Professor Edwards doubted the implication. He got a copy of Schweitzer's autobiography. Dr. Schweitzer was referring to atomic warfare. Professor Edwards found on page 262, "How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us."
But Miss Carson's skillful writing was enough to direct a new-born environmental industry looking for a hot issue into a feverish campaign against DDT. "Rachel Carson set the style for environmentalism. Exaggeration and omission of pertinent contradictory evidence are acceptable for the holy cause," wrote Professors Ames and Jukes.
THE FIRST CHARGE AGAINST DDT was that it causes cancer. No search has ever turned up any evidence, despite massive use of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s. Wayland Hayes, U.S. Public Health Service scientist, for 18 months, fed to human volunteers, daily, three times the quantity of DDT that the average American was ingesting annually. None experienced any adverse effect, then or six to ten years later.
Workers without wearing protective clothing, with nine to 19 years of continuous exposure to DDT in the Montrose Chemical Company which manufactured DDT, never developed a single case of cancer. DDT caused no illness in the 130,000 men who sprayed it on the interior walls of mud and thatched huts, nor the millions of people who lived in them. Professor Edwards in his classroom occasionally ate a tablespoon of DDT to illustrate to his students that it is not harmful. Indeed, DDT is so safe that canned baby food was permitted to contain five parts per million.
"There has never been any convincing evidence that DDT (or pesticide residues in food) has ever caused cancer in man," concluded Ames and Jukes.
In fact, DDT prevents cancer. "DDT in the diet has repeatedly been shown to enhance the production of hepatic enzymes in mammals and birds. Those enzymes inhibit tumors and cancers in humans as well as wildlife," wrote Professor Edwards in 1992.
Unable to find harm to human health, DDT opponents turned to bird health, alleging a decline of bald eagles and other birds of prey, which they associated with heavy DDT usage. Rachel Carson led the accusation. It has been repeated so often and so passionately that the public is still convinced of it.
The charge is that DDT thinned the shells of eggs. When nesting parent birds sat on the eggs, the shells cracked and no babies hatched. Carson charged that DDT was bringing bald eagles and robins to the "verge of extinction" -- while noted ornithologist Roger Tory Peterson was reporting that the robin was the most abundant bird in North America.
Bald eagles between 1941 and 1960 migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, doubled during the first six years of DDT-use. Their numbers increased from 9,291 in 1946 -- before much DDT was used -- to 16,163 in 1963 and 19,765 in 1968.
Professor Edwards reviews how bald eagles died of non-DDT causes. In Alaska, 128,000 were shot for bounty payments between 1917 and 1956. Between 1960 and 1965, 76 bald eagles found dead were autopsied: 46 had been shot or trapped; 7 had died of impact injuries from flying into buildings or towers. Between 1965 and 1980, shootings, trappings, electrocutions, and impact injuries chiefly accounted for their deaths.
Although some birds declined before DDT, they became much more abundant during the years of greatest DDT-use. But facts have not impeded the endless repetition of Carson's bird myth.
Scientists tested the popular shell-thinning hypothesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed birds for 112 days on a diet with 100 times as much DDT as they were getting from the environment. No thinning of egg shells was found. The DDT had no effect on the birds.
One experimenter, to demonstrate eggshell-thinning, fed quail a diet with DDT but containing only one-fifth of the normal amount of calcium. His experiment succeeded in producing thinner eggshells, but his deception was exposed.
IN 1969, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (then, three guys with a clipboard; now "Environmental Defense"), Sierra Club, and National Audubon Society petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to ban DDT, claiming it is carcinogenic to humans. He agreed to partially phase it out by December 31, 1970, which did not satisfy the environmentalists.
The Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, to stop exports of DDT to third-world countries, instituted a number of lawsuits, ultimately gaining the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1977.
EPA appointed Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney to evaluate DDT. In 1971-2 he conducted a seven-month hearing. EPA actually participated, testifying against DDT!
Judge Sweeney, after 80 days of testimony from 150 expert scientists, ruled that DDT "is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man" and does "not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wild life. There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case."
The Environmental Defense Fund appealed Sweeney's decision. The appeal should have been passed to an independent jurist, according to Ruckelshaus's general counsel, John Quarles, but Ruckelshaus decided to rule on it himself. Not surprisingly, he upheld his own ban "on the grounds that 'DDT poses a carcinogenic risk' to humans." (In 1994, he was to deny that that was the basis for the ban.) He had banned DDT though he had not attended a day of the 80-day hearing nor read a page of the transcript (as he told the Santa Ana Register, July 23, 1972).
In 1979, on April 26, Ruckelshaus wrote the American Farm Bureau Federation that his ban was imposed for political, not scientific, reasons: "Science, along with other disciplines such as economics, has a role to play, but the ultimate judgment remains political," he wrote. But in 1994 he wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, "The scientific basis for the ban was solid then and still stands. DDT is a highly persistent chemical that moves up the food chain, and it accumulates in the fatty tissue of humans." However, according to Professor Edwards, it does no harm. Professor Edwards says that "DDT residues do not 'build up' in animal food-chains, because they are metabolized and excreted by fish, birds and mammals."
In his March 24, 1994 Wall Street Journal letter, Ruckelshaus wrote that the direct ecological effect, and the basis for his decision, "was its proven impact on the thickness of egg shells of raptors, birds such as the brown pelican and the peregrine falcon. The decision was not based on any claim of human carcinogenicity." But in 1972, he had overridden Judge Sweeney on the ground that DDT does pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.
THE BROWN PELICAN AND the peregrine falcon did suffer declines in population, but not because of DDT, according to Professor Edwards's article, "DDT Effects on Bird Abundance and Reproduction."
Brown pelicans suffered, not from fish they ate but from their catastrophic reproductive failure caused by the great Santa Barbara oil spill surrounding their nesting colonies on the island of Anacapa. Federal and California officials ignored the oil spill and attributed pelican difficulties "solely to DDT in the environment."
In Texas, peregrine falcons declined from 5,000 in 1918 to 200 in 1941, three years before DDT. Around the Gulf of Mexico, they declined from 1918 to 1934 by 82 percent, but the 1935 survey was done 15 years before any DDT appeared.
Likewise, in the East, peregrine falcons declined long before there was any DDT present there, because of egg-collectors and falconers. Falconers "raided every nest they could find" and shot falcons on sight.
Ruckelshaus, besides ruling on the appeal to uphold his own reversal of Sweeney's decision, refused Freedom-of-Information-Act demands for papers relating to the case -- he called them "internal memos" -- effectively preventing scientists from refuting his Opinion. He also refused to file an Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of his DDT ban.
In 1970, in a brief supporting the Secretary of Agriculture in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Ruckelshaus praised DDT: "DDT is not endangering the public health and has an amazing and exemplary record of safe use. DDT, when properly used at recommended concentrations, does not cause a toxic response in man or other mammals and is not harmful. The carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproved speculation."
Subsequently, Ruckelshaus, alleging adverse effects of DDT, signed fund-raising letters on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund. On his personal stationery, he wrote, "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."
In a January 12, 2005, letter to the editor of the New York Times, Ruckelshaus rose to the plight of the poor by urging more spending. "If the world were to invest on an annual basis even a small percentage of the funds pledged to tsunami relief toward improving health care systems, transportation, infrastructure and communications systems, we would improve the quality of life for millions of poor people around the world . . ." He said nothing about how his ban on DDT was causing the death of millions from malaria.
FOLLOWING RUCKELSHAUS'S BAN, the USAID, prodded by a lawsuit by the Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, undertook to discourage other countries from using DDT by threatening to stop foreign aid to any country using it. Its threat spread Ruckelshaus's ban worldwide.
The effects of giving up DDT were immediately felt in the malarial areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Sri Lanka (Ceylon), reacting to Silent Spring, in the 1960s gave up DDT. Its malarial cases had decreased from 2.8 million down to 17. After Sri Lanka gave it up, malaria shot back up to over 2.5 million.
South American countries gave up DDT and suffered the customary rise in malaria. Ecuador, which manufactures DDT, resumed using it in 1993. By 1995, Ecuador had reduced its malarial cases by 61 percent.
Spraying the inside walls of huts with DDT once or twice a year stops the spread of malaria by repelling mosquitoes from huts. USAID agreed, but it determined that insecticide-treated bed nets are "more cost-effective."
The search for an effective substitute for DDT continues to fail 30 years after the Ruckelshaus ban. The search for a treatment for malaria continues to fail; the mutations of the malaria virus soon make a drug ineffective. The search for a malaria-vaccine continues to fail.
The environmentalists' ideological opposition to pesticides has no basis in science. It is a death sentence to millions.
Gerald and Natalie Sirkin write the "Natalie's Corner" column for Citizen News, a weekly in New Fairfield and Sherman, Connecticut.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7812
http://science.jrank.org/pages/5371/Polar-Ice-Caps-Polar-ice-caps-geologic-history.html
Polar ice caps and geologic history
Although the polar ice caps have been in existence for millions of years, scientists disagree over exactly how long they have survived in their present form. It is generally agreed that the polar cap north of the Arctic Circle, which covers the Arctic Ocean, has undergone contraction and expansion through some 26 different glaciations in just the past few million years. Parts of the Arctic have been covered by the polar ice cap for at least the last five million years, with estimates ranging up to 15 million. The Antarctic ice cap is more controversial; although many scientists believe extensive ice has existed there for 15 million years, others suggest that volcanic activity on the western half of the continent it covers causes the ice to decay, and the current south polar ice cap is therefore no more than about three million years old.
At least five times since the formation of the earth, because of changes in global climate, the polar ice has expanded north and south toward the equator and has stayed there for at least a million years. The earliest of these known ice ages was some two billion years ago, during the Huronian epoch of the Precambrian era. The most recent ice age began about 1.7 million years in the Pleistocene epoch. It was characterized by a number of fluctuations in North polar ice, some of which expanded over much of modern North America and Europe, covered up to half of the existing continents, and measured as much as 1.8 mi (3 km) deep in some places. These glacial expansions locked up even more water, dropping sea levels worldwide by more than 300 ft (100 m). Animal species that had adapted to cold weather, like the mammoth, thrived in the polar conditions of the Pleistocene glaciations, and their ranges stretched south into what is now the southern United States.
The glaciers completed their retreat and settled in their present positions about 10â€"12,000 years ago. There have been other fluctuations in global temperatures on a smaller scale, however, that have sometimes been known popularly as ice ages. The 400 year period between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries is sometimes called the Little Ice Age. Contemporaries noted that the Baltic Sea froze over twice in the first decade of the 1300s. Temperatures in Europe fell enough to shorten the growing season, and the production of grain in Scandinavia dropped precipitously as a result. The Norse communities in Greenland could no longer be maintained and were abandoned by the end of the fifteenth century. Scientists argue that data indicate that we are currently in an interglacial period, and that North polar ice will again move south some time in the next 23,000 years.
Quoteso now wikipedia has been 'infiltrated' by 'secret enviro-agents'.
Yea, it's kind of like those mad scientists who don't agree with the current "climate science" who always seem to be tied in with evil oil.
Oops. So much for the vaunted scientific consensus. The Physics and Society Forum of the American Physical Society (the second largest organization of physicists in the world) has now reached a consensus that global warming is bunk:
Quote"Considerable presence" of skeptics
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
Updated 7/17/2008
After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2008, 01:53:06 PM
Quote from: jaxnative on July 19, 2008, 01:47:53 PM
Quoteso now wikipedia has been 'infiltrated' by 'secret enviro-agents'.
Yea, it's kind of like those mad scientists who don't agree with the current "climate science" who always seem to be tied in with evil oil.
Jax native, you are more than welcome to produce a roster of credible climatologists who arent backed by one of the oil companies that dispute the overwhelming consensus.
In fact I look forward to it.
Here is one prominent climatologist (Dr. Roy Spencer) who disagrees with your theory:
QuoteABSTRACT
This article addresses new satellite and modeling evidence that previous satellite diagnoses of high climate sensitivity--which directly translate into predictions of dangerous levels of global warming--contain a large spurious bias. It is shown that those exaggerated estimates were the result of faulty assumptions regarding clouds when analyzing variations in average global temperature and average reflected sunlight off of the Earth.
Specifically, it has been assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that, for global averages on time scales of three months or more, temperature variations cause clouds to change, but that cloud variations do not cause temperature to change. But when properly filtered, the satellite data reveal evidence of cloud variations indeed causing temperature changes, and that this source of natural climate variability biases the estimate of climate sensitivity in the direction of a very sensitive climate system.
The new interpretation suggests a very low sensitivity. If the new sensitivity estimate is accurate, it would suggest only 0.5 deg. C of manmade warming by the year 2100. The new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century can not be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
Here is another one (recently deceased though):
QuoteReid Bryson (7 June 1920 â€" 11 June 2008 [1] ) was an American atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist. He was a professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He completed a B.A. in geology at Denison University in 1941 and a Ph.D. in meteorology from University of Chicago in 1948. In 1946 he joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and in 1948 he became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970.
Views
Bryson was skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. While he argued that climate change and a global increase in temperature are real, he did not believe that they are caused by human activity. Rather, he argued that they are part of natural global climate cycles, particularly the end of the Little Ice Age:
"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd," Bryson continues. "Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
Oh and here is another real prominent one. Dr. William Gray:
QuoteGray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[1] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[2]. He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[3]. He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"[4]
Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.[3]
Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."[5]
According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Aschenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream [2].
In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15â€"20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.[5]
In 2006, Gray predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
I would note also that we have seen a cooling trend begin just a year or two earlier than Dr. Gray predicted.
And another:
QuoteGeorge Kukla is retired professor of climatology at Columbia University and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Kukla was co-author of a chapter in the book "Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales" published by the National Research Council.
Kukla believes all glacial periods in Earth's history began with global warming (understood as an increase of area-weighted average global mean temperature). He believes Earth's recent warming is mostly natural and will ultimately lead to a new ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kukla
And another:
QuoteWilliam Kininmonth is noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes on the topic of climate change. He believes that the warming trend of the recent century is not unusual, and he is critical of the simple model of climate systems represented by the IPCC. While Kininmonth believes that anthropogenic sources may make a small contribution to global warming, he believes the natural variability far exceeds that contribution, and this poses serious hazards for human kind.
Kininmonth suggests that it would be unwise to commit scarce resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. Like other global warming skeptics, such as Bjørn Lomborg, he believes that the diversion of resources from infrastructure projects, particularly in developing countries, would be counterproductive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_%28meteorologist%29
Yet another:
QuoteMarcel Leroux is a French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment.
Marcel Leroux argues on his book "Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology" that the case for global warming is based on models which, with their insufficiencies in the understanding and explanation of weather phenomena, are not reliable to support this prediction: "So we do not have to resort to complicated models to tell us that CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature... . However, this hypothesis has never been demonstrated as far as climate is concerned, and remains in the realm of the virtual." He also poses the question if warming may be considered a benefit in some regions.
On the causes of climate change, he writes in a section entitled "Conclusion: The greenhouse effect is not the cause of climate change": "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, with climatic consequences slowed by the inertial effect of glacial accumulations; solar activity, thought by some to be responsible for half of the 0.6°C rise in temperature, and by others to be responsible for all of it, which situation certainly calls for further analysis; volcanism and its associated aerosols (and especially sulphates), whose (short-term) effects are indubitable; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (Leroux 2005, p. 120)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux
The good Dr. Tim Patterson:
QuoteClimate change
Patterson appeared before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2005 and testified:
“ There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years... On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?[1] â€
In June 2007 he authored a general interest article in the Financial Post (part of the National Post) predicting general climatic cooling as the sun enters Solar cycle 25 about 2018. He based his prediction on the close correlation between solar and climate cycles in his high resolution analysis of late Holocene cores deposited under anoxic conditions within deep Western Canadian fjords.[2] Solar cycle 25 will be as weak as solar cycles in the early 19th century during a very cold phase of the Little Ice Age. At this time drought and short growing seasons would have made present day agricultural practices used in areas like the grain growing region of western Canada impossible. In a June 2007 presentation to the annual meeting of the Ontario Agri Business Association in Huntsville, Ontario he stated that "climatic cooling associated with Solar Cycle 25 should be of concern to the Canadian agricultural sector. During any climatic warming agricultural methods used to the south can be immediately adapted. However, cooling such as may occur beginning about 2018 would be an agricultural and national disaster as no one is farming north of us."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Patterson
I wont continue but I can post more if you would like. Try linking all of them to Exxon-Mobil. ::)
Meanwhile, temperatures are still falling:
(http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/images/figure1.gif)
QuoteSince the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
'In his book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Charles H. Hapgood revealed that the 1513 Piri Re'is map exhibited a knowledge of the true ice-free portions of Antarctica. The longitudes for twenty-four sites are accurate within one half a degree of the true positions. This standard accuracy could not be matched until 1735 when John Harrison invented the marine chronometer.
'In the mid-1960's Hapgood and his students at Keene State College began to study a series of ancient, yet amazingly accurate, maps of the globe. Strangely, the charts revealed areas of the world, such as China, North America, South America, and ice-free portions of Antarctica, long before they had been drawn by European explorers. The ice cap in those portions of Antarctica are presently about a mile thick.
If we do not truly know what the earth’s climate was in the past how can we predict the future.
We should not wean ourselves from energy sources that pollute the enviromet because of a fear that we as humans are great enough to change the planets temperature, we should do it because it’s the right thing to do and I don't intent to say stop using oil now, Over the years we should make an attempt to use less and less.
'
So, what does he know?
Obviously not as much as the inhabitant of riversidegatorworldtm.
Talk about delusional, Stephen. What's the point in debating with you? You cling to this nonsense even better than us "bitter religious folk who cling to their guns".
Here is something to chew on: any climatologist who ignores the principle source of light, warmth, and energy on this planet as the primary mover of climate on it is a quack. They can spit out horse manure from a computer...it's not going to make it accurate.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2008, 12:53:50 AM
So, one is dead
So the statements he made just a year or so ago do not count because he is now dead? That makes sense. ::)
Quote, another is actually a 'forum' which you originally read to be 50 thousand physicists associated with the APS (not climatologists) turns out to merely be a subforum that has since been distanced by the APS
I did not cite the forum in the same passage as the list of climatologists but yes those are actual scientists who disagree with the GW theory. Actual scientists disagreeing means the almighty consensus is that much weaker than you claim.
Quote, a meteorologist (Kukla)
Uhh no. According to the item I posted this is his background: "George Kukla is retired professor of climatology at Columbia University and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory". Certainly a "professor of climatology" should be deemed a "climatologist".
Quotea well known pawn of exxon (Patterson)
Source please. Pardon me if I dont take your word for this. ;)
Quoteand a french climatologist(Leroux) whose last work on the subject was 2005, from a french scientific body that is part of the global consensus and who has since changed his opinion.
1) He is French. Does this somehow invalidate his conclusions? Are we to believe that only American scientists produce valid research now? :D
2) 2005 was just 3 years ago. The facts since then are that the climate has cooled fairly significantly which does not exactly support your belief system.
3) I find no evidence that he changed his position. Please post cite evidence of this. Pardon me again if I do not take your word for this. ;)
QuoteOh and lest we forget you also included William Kininmonth, a leading proponent of extreme climate change who acknowledges human contributions to Global Warming, but feels that natural causes are going to be far more important but just as devastating.
He states that CO2 is not the main culprit but that natural variability of temperatures is the primary driver of climate change. This doesnt exactly support your ideology of global warming either.
QuoteDo you ever bother to actually research ANYTHING before you post on it?
Actually yes. Do you ever provide sources which are not off some far left kook fringe blog?
QuoteNice work, Riverside. And typically dishonest.
Unlike you Stephen, I have not been accused of dishonesty by anyone else. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2008, 01:07:42 AM
by the way, statements of this sort expose you to be either a liar or a fool.
Name calling rarely carries the day in debates which are decided by facts and logic.
Quote
Please read your statement and compare it to the last sentence of your post.
I read the entire piece and the disclaimer. Had I been "typically dishonest" I might have left off the last sentence rather than including it in the quoted text. The fact remains that there are significant numbers of physicists who disagree with your precious "consensus". This again weakens one of the main pillars of the global warming religion.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2008, 08:28:50 AM
wow River, How embarrassing for yor point. If your argument keeps relying on new psuedo science that keeps getting debunked sometimes simultaneously as you are posting it, most people with a smidgeon of intelligence would abandon ship.
What pseudo-science did I post? The temperature chart showing cooling over the last 10 years? Please be more specific and clear rather than just attempting to claim some imagined victory over me. BTW, please explain to us why temperatures are declining as CO2 levels are rising. While you're at it, please explain why temperatures in the past have been warmer when CO2 levels were lower:
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg)
QuoteGlobal average temperature reconstruction based upon 18 temperature proxies for the period 1 A.D. to 1995, combined with the thermometer-based dataset from the UK Met Office and University of East Anglia, covering the period 1850 to 2007. Note that for both datasets each data point represents a 30-year average.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Quote from: Midway on July 20, 2008, 07:28:48 PM
So, what does he know?
Obviously not as much as the inhabitant of riversidegatorworldtm.
Gosh that little trademark thingie is funny. :D ::)
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2008, 01:17:50 AM
additionally, Roy Spencer is NOT a climatologist, he has a degree in meteorology and is notable for his research in microwaves NOT climatology.
Source please for your contentions. According to wikipedia:
QuoteRoy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Sounds like a "climatologist" to me. In any case, he is FAR more of a climatologist that you or I are. ;)
QuoteHere is a list of the far right wing, fundamentalist groups that he belongs to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19#src2
Ahh the noted scientific website "Exxon Secrets". :D
I actually clicked on the link and found that it was not exactly as you described. Instead I found that he appears to be a mainstream conservative. Are scientists not allowed to hold political views? If not, are the views of those scientists with a leftist persuasion similarly discredited?
Quote
and here is the rest of the wikipedia post on william gray that you 'conveniently' left out.
QuoteGray's statements on Global Warming have been the subject of criticism. Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, has been part of the anonymous peer review on several of Gray's National Science Foundation proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray's hurricane research be funded.[6]
Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. "Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years," says Webster. "All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree with. And they're getting a lot of pressâ€"more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical."[6]
So, because Dr. Gray criticizes other scientists with whom he disagrees you think this discredits his research and findings? If so, your boy Hansen is also out since he is one of the most vitriolic people around with his attacks on those with whom he disagrees about the cult of GW. :D :D
Meanwhile, temperatures are still falling:
(http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/images/figure1.gif)
QuoteSince the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Below are some recent quotes by Al Gore. Al was on "Meet the Press" Sunday... He actually put the blame on High oil prices where they belong... I was quite surprised to hear him say "increased consumption by China and India" rather than some obscure conspiracy by "Big oil".
The quotes below illustrate MY problems with the GW debate and how to solve them....
Quote“The idea that we can drill our way out of this is just so absurd,†he said, comparing the push for offshore oil drilling â€" which has gained popularity and put environmentalists on the defense â€" to dealing with a hangover by having another drink.
Of course it is... I do not think there is a person alive who thinks we can do so. But that is not the question. The idea is to lessen our reliance in foriegn oil. Alternatives are great... but we will still and always need oil. It only makes sense that we exploit our own oil reserves.
Quote"They will say we can’t switch away from oil."
I dont think anyone is saying this... But to do so will take time... longer than the 10 years proposed by Al and even then there will still be a significant need for oil.
Seems to me that a smooth economic transition to new power sources is much more desireable than forcing oil prices higher to curb usage and force the populace into alternatives...
I copied the quotes from here...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Gore_compares_offshore_drilling_to_invasion_of_Iraq.html
I cannot verify the veracity of the quotes but they are only used to illustrate my frustration with some of the arguments used...
Here is yet another scientist expressing his doubts as to the GW theory:
Quote
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
BTW, Stephen, your source for the "debunking" of the OISM is highly biased and full of horse manure, since SourceWatch is a project stemmed from the Center for Media and Democracy, a far-leftist organization at that. Let's see where SourceWatch gets its funding:
QuoteCenter for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 310, Madison, WI 53703
Phone 608-260-9713 | Fax 608-260-9714 | Email editor@prwatch.org
The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.
Their books Mad Cow U.S.A. and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! were produced and promoted using grant monies from the Foundation for Deep Ecology ($25,000) and the Education Foundation of America ($20,000), among others. Along with the more recent Trust Us: We’re Experts, these books are scare-mongering tales about a corporate culture out of control, and each implies that the public needs rescuing. Guess who the heroes in this fantasy are?
Despite his wild claims that federal agencies have covered up U.S. mad cow disease cases, John Stauber has become a quotable celebrity on the subject. In 1997, at the height of the initial mad-cow panic, a CMD press release warned: Evidence suggests there may already be a mad-cow-type of disease infecting both U.S. pigs and cattle. Rampton and Stauber have never provided any documentation to back up this reckless claim; no cases of mad-cow disease have ever been documented in U.S. livestock. John Stauber was one of only four mad-cow experts offered to reporters by Fenton Communications’ media arm, Environmental Media Services.
As the liberal Village Voice commented in April 2001, “These guys come from the far side of liberal.†Seen through this dynamic duo's socialist lens, society’s major problems are capitalism in general and corporations in particular. If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it. Unless, of course, that food is vegetarian, organic, certified fair-trade, shade-grown, biodynamic, or biotech-free â€" in which case, the sky’s the limit!
Rampton and Stauber’s latest book (Trust Us, We’re Experts! ) was delivered to the media with a slick press kit, citing favorable reviews from media experts. The packet also included a prewritten list of questions for reporters to ask when interviewing the authors. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel blew the whistle, though, noting that “a somewhat sheepish Stauber†offered the following feeble excuse: “What you see is a true PR campaign around our book. This is how book publishing is done. I think it’s bad. I hate it.â€
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/12
Here are some
facts about the OISM:
QuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a small research institute in southern Oregon. It was founded in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to improvements in human life - especially in biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and the molecular biology of aging.
The Institute is entirely supported by donations and the independent earnings of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept government funds.
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p945.htm
Now I already know what you're going say: "This institute is not a climatology center, so anything that comes from it is bunk." This would be a fallacious statement. All the institute did was send out a survey/petition to scientists from around the world.
I guess Gallup shouldn't do a poll on what scientists think...since it's not a "climatology organization". ::)
Quote from: Charleston native on July 21, 2008, 10:56:20 AM
BTW, Stephen, your source for the "debunking" of the OISM is highly biased and full of horse manure, since SourceWatch is a project stemmed from the Center for Media and Democracy, a far-leftist organization at that. Let's see where SourceWatch gets its funding:
Oops. CN debunked Stephen's source which Stephen thought had debunked my source. :D
Here are some more
facts about OISM: their petition was endorsed and introduced by professor and physicist Frederick Seitz, President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He was a "vigorous" supporter of the Petition Project since it began in 1998. He passed away earlier this year, so using your logic, Stephen, that would invalidate his analysis and conclusions, right?
Another interesting bit of information about OISM is the fact that their findings are
peer-reviewed. Researchers Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, and Willie Soon published their findings in a science journal, subject to scrutiny among many Ph. D.'s and other scientists. This article was attached with the petition for the petitioners to read before signing it. Therefore, it wasn't just some out-of-the-blue question sent to these people. And there were scientists who did not respond to the petition/survey for multiple reasons.
Before going off on a legitimate organization, regardless of its size or location
--which, BTW, weren't you chastising me for using geographic location as a premise for an argument in another thread?--I would look into the important facts about it such as:
QuoteNote: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 21, 2008, 11:05:31 AM
Oops. CN debunked Stephen's source which Stephen thought had debunked my source. :D
Isn't that just hilarious? ;D
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2008, 01:51:28 PM
This is a lie.
More accusations of lying. Is this more projection? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
QuoteA few discredited sources outside of the field of climatology, and you are ready to call them significant numbers.
Who says they are discredited? Certainly none of them have been discredited by anything you have posted.
QuoteAnd incidentally, calling Sourcewatch "Far Left" isnt 'debunking' anything.
I disagree.
QuoteNeither of you two are capable of debate in any meaningful way, you cannot assimilate new information and you are hellbent not on discerning the truth, but on finding something that supports your presupposition.
Which you have never adequately defined.
Translation: You have posted a lot of stuff to which I have no real answer. I will therefore sidestep the questions raised by simply calling you liars.
QuoteAs I understand it, from the multiple contradictory statemtents made by the two of you, it is as follows.
Quote
Climate Change is occurring, possibly, but due to natural causes such as long term weather cycles, solar activity, and the gradual warming that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age.
Several spurts of warming have occurred in the past, such as the medieval warming period.
IN no way is the pace of warming or climate change either caused by, nor accelerated by the introduction of new gasses in the air which change the proportional gas composite called the atmostphere arising from the activities of Humanity.
CO2, particularly is non contributory to an acceleration in warming the atmosphere, and certainly the amount of carbon produced by industry and man made activities is not a contributing factor to warming.
Is that basically your argument?
No, that is your argument. Please do not try to put words into my mouth. Thanks. :)
Quote from: gatorback on July 21, 2008, 02:23:01 PM
Straw man argument again Stephen. Lol. Just kidding. I think this atlantic hurrican season will cause people to take a step back and say, you know what, maybe there's some truth to this Global Climate Change thingy after all. I mean, this season is way busy and so soon early too.
If an above normal hurricane season (which may happen this year) proves global warming, then why does a below normal hurricane season (the past two seasons) not disprove global warming? Cant have it both ways. Either both do or both do not prove/disprove the GW theory or they are largely unrelated.
Meanwhile, we are below the temperatures of 1989:
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SAT_TEMPS_1989.JPG)
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2008, 01:51:28 PM
This is a lie.
A few discredited sources outside of the field of climatology, and you are ready to call them significant numbers.
Discredited? You haven't discredited anybody Stephen.
QuoteThis is bunk.
And incidentally, calling Sourcewatch "Far Left" isnt 'debunking' anything.
It shows that there is a huge ideology and agenda hidden behind what you consider an "objective" source, thereby making it highly subject to scrutiny and debunking.
QuoteNeither of you two are capable of debate in any meaningful way, you cannot assimilate new information and you are hellbent not on discerning the truth, but on finding something that supports your presupposition.
How is this different from your information and discernment of "truth"? Please...you hardly have the intellectual high road.
Gatorback, are you serious or kidding?
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 21, 2008, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: gatorback on July 21, 2008, 02:23:01 PM
Straw man argument again Stephen. Lol. Just kidding. I think this atlantic hurrican season will cause people to take a step back and say, you know what, maybe there's some truth to this Global Climate Change thingy after all. I mean, this season is way busy and so soon early too.
If an above normal hurricane season (which may happen this year) proves global warming, then why does a below normal hurricane season (the past two seasons) not disprove global warming? Cant have it both ways. Either both do or both do not prove/disprove the GW theory.
Nobody said it didn't. ;D Isn't that the deal with Global Climate Change...bizzaro wild swings in either direction? But, let's cut to the chase. What is it going to take for you to change your mind?
Sustained warming outside the norms of at least the past several thousand years for an extended period of time.
I am willing, BTW, to go to nuclear power in a huge way regardless of whether or not GW is real. And, if the GW crowd was really concerned with CO2 emissions, they would be all over nuclear. Oh and Al Gore would not be riding in private jets and limos and heating the pool in his huge mansion with natural gas. As it stands now, it appears that they are more concerned with using the GW hype for their ulterior purposes.
Indeed. I'm also for nuclear power, regardless if MMGW is real or not.
The bottomline is that I wish many of these vain people would realize if GW was not man-made, there's nothing they can do to change it. Just like we can't change the course of a hurricane or tornado. Just like we can't control when a volcano erupts.
Quote from: Charleston native on July 21, 2008, 02:49:36 PM
Gatorback, are you serious or kidding?
Yes I'm serious. Remember, it was snowing a few weeks back and they opened up a skiing in CO while the heat was killing in the midwest...that's wacked dude.
Um, when I lived out west, many locals said that it does snow in April and May...and it has for years.
In Cheyenne, WY, it has snowed in June.
That's not "wacked"...that's normal for that region.
Call me when it starts snowing in South Carolina in May.
Quote from: avonjax on July 18, 2008, 02:17:52 PM
Revelation 11:18
If you don't understand the context I will try to enlighten you....
Hey avon, where do you get your theology? Why don't you read the entirety of Revelation 11 before using one verse as a misinterpretation to satisfy your desires for pro-capitalists to be destroyed? Your interpretation and use of that verse is
WAAAAAAAY off: Revelation 11 is a prophecy of the two witnesses that will serve God during The Tribulation, and your verse in particular is talking about the nations who morally and emotionally destroyed the earth. That verse is hardly a future depiction for those who drill for oil.
I'm late on this argument, but it needed to be addressed. Stephen, it's pointless to further this battle with you, and I will not make my argument based on liberal premises, because the premise itself is disingenuous.
Bottomline, I believe that we are not in control of this world, and for any man or woman to think so is utter vanity and foolishness.
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2008, 03:57:22 PM
ok fine, river, and charleston.
we can at least use the statement as a starting point.
Please edit it to accurately state your argument.
here it is again:
Climate Change is occurring, possibly, but due to natural causes such as long term weather cycles, solar activity, and the gradual warming that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age.
Several spurts of warming have occurred in the past, such as the medieval warming period.
IN no way is the pace of warming or climate change either caused by, nor accelerated by the introduction of new gasses in the air which change the proportional gas composite called the atmostphere arising from the activities of Humanity.
CO2, particularly is non contributory to an acceleration in warming the atmosphere, and certainly the amount of carbon produced by industry and man made activities is not a contributing factor to warming.
Let me take the bait... While I am not a denier perhaps I can be called a skeptic. I am open minded enough however to be open to the facts and being persuaded provided we stick to factual arguments and keep the name calling so often found on this site to a minimum.
QuoteClimate Change is occurring, possibly, but due to natural causes such as long term weather cycles, solar activity, and the gradual warming that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age.
Change may very well be occurring quite possibly for the reasons you cited above. There is plenty evidence to support this...I do know however that many climatologists do agree that we are still coming out of the last ice age.
QuoteSeveral spurts of warming have occurred in the past, such as the medieval warming period.
Absolutely... in addition... Ice at the poles is a relatively new thing for planet earth. Granted it has been there since humans came on the scene but you will agree that humans are a relatively new creature to this planet.
QuoteIN no way is the pace of warming or climate change either caused by, nor accelerated by the introduction of new gasses in the air which change the proportional gas composite called the atmostphere arising from the activities of Humanity.
Quite possibly... I am not convinced by the evidence at this time. I can blame some of my skepticism on the hysteria surrounding global cooling that was touted as fact a few decades ago. Regardless... I do not share the "sky is falling" attitude of many.
QuoteCO2, particularly is non contributory to an acceleration in warming the atmosphere, and certainly the amount of carbon produced by industry and man made activities is not a contributing factor to warming.
Once again... there seems to be plenty of contradictory evidence. I clearly think we can do more to prevent belching all pollutants into our atmosphere to improve quality of life for all.
Stephen... I took the bait because I think these discussions need to continue... in a thoughtful, factual manner. Perhaps common ground can be reached even though certain parties disagree...
Stephen, did you even read my last post entirely?
If you recall, we've been through this territory before, and I've answered your questions about my stance on climate change. Why do you continue to plod through this like a broken record?
Stephen, the world you live in must truly be amazing, especially when you make wild claims suggesting fraudulent charts from River, that in itself a lie. Is living on lies a fulfilling experience, or is the constant acting like a self-important pseudo-intellectual perpetuated with liberal lies an exquisite art of fulfillment for you?
You definitely live true to one mantra: keep repeating the lie, and it will eventually sound like truth.
Midway has never proven that any chart or information I posted was incorrect. I also notice that your little friend has been strangely absent from the scene lately. Perhaps he was frustrated by his inability to prove that any of his GW beliefs are true. ;)
Well River, maybe he has been inundated with work at the hamburger grill.
Incidentally Stephen, just because I refuse to take your bait AND refuse to rehash old arguments spent ad nauseum with this subject doesn't mean this is my last post here, so please quit trying to project your intentions and implications as mine.
I'm thinking when New Orleans is off the map, we'll have a few more deniers on our side.
You see, you need to read my posts more carefully and you would have seen that earlier. That would've have prevented my response about regurgitating my argument. River has also made similar arguments, but I'll let him explain it fully. I've mentioned my argument before in other threads, too.
I guess that is the crux of my argument. Much evidence supports it, especially since it deals with the sun.
People don't like feeling helpless. They like to think they are in control, and we have all learned through the years that control is an illusion.
Good night, gatorback. What do you expect from a city that is built below sea level?! Even the fricking native Indians thought it was utterly stupid to build a city on that land.
You Climate Changers are really...interesting.
Why dont you accurately state your position and let him accurately state his.
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 01:17:08 PM
I'm thinking when New Orleans is off the map, we'll have a few more deniers on our side.
The earth is not and never has been static. The landforms we are familiar with now will be and have been different. This is an everchanging and dynamic planet.
Gee Stephen, talk about buzz killer. you're taking all the fun out. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2008, 02:21:55 PM
Here is a link to the source of all the disagreement.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
It is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report on the scientific basis of Global Warming.
That's right, Stephen. Set the argument up where the foundation is already affirmed on MMGW's behalf, therefore making it the law, or "the Bible" from which all knowledge of this phenomenon is derived. Even though the IPCC has been discovered to be corrupted by government and policy makers who merely want to expand government and power. Nice try.
QuoteIt is the most conservative gold standard of the Global Warming hypothesis.
:D "Conservative"? Maybe if you get most of your MMGW paranoia from the far-left, environmental whacko sites. This is just laughable...I'm sorry, but it is.
In keeping with the main subject of this thread, I'm waiting for the cops to come to my door for prosecution of being a "denier".
OK. Let me ask you this Charleston. When New Orleans is off the map and is basically beach front, will you then agree that "something" is up? That humans have caused this "Whatever?"
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2008, 01:27:47 PM
Thanks Bridge!
Ok, Im going to see if I can distill your position from the post you left...
Please change or add to it in any way necessary to make the statement accurately represent your position.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 21, 2008, 05:45:47 PM
Let me take the bait... While I am not a denier perhaps I can be called a skeptic. I am open minded enough however to be open to the facts and being persuaded provided we stick to factual arguments and keep the name calling so often found on this site to a minimum.
QuoteChange may very well be occurring, possibly, but due to natural causes such as long term weather cycles, solar activity, and the gradual warming that has been occurring may be because we are still coming out of the last ice age which may be a good explanation for the signs of warming we are presently observing.
Several spurts of warming have occurred in the past, such as the medieval warming period. Ice at the poles is a relatively new thing for planet earth. Granted it has been there since humans came on the scene but you will agree that humans are a relatively new creature to this planet.
I am not convinced by the evidence at this time that the pace of warming or climate change either caused by, nor accelerated by the introduction of new gasses in the air which change the proportional gas composite called the atmostphere arising from the activities of Humanity.
I can blame some of my skepticism on the hysteria surrounding global cooling that was touted as fact a few decades ago. The popular opinion seems to be inflated to hysteria and a sense of doom, which I do not share.
There seems to be plenty of contradictory evidence about the role of CO2, particularly, as a contributor to the acceleration in warming the atmosphere, and whether or not the amount of carbon produced by industry and man made activities is a contributing factor to warming.
I made one change as indicated by italics... I would like to add that our measurable history of climatology is very limited and in my view very innaccurate. Modern techniques for the measurement of temperatures and pressures and other observable factors have only been standardized in the last century or so. This is hardly enough history to base what a "normal temperature" or climate should be.
No, gator, and it would be foolish to even suspect so. That region probably should never have been developed as a large city...maybe rice farms would've sufficed, I don't know. If I was looking for a site for the city, the current location of Covington might have been better.
Even if GW was indeed happening and we lost NO because of it, it would be foolhardy to think we could have prevented it. The city is a mixture of bad planning, lack of foresight, and man constantly trying to fight off the dynamics of God's creation. As BridgeTroll has stated, this is a dynamic planet with ever-changing weather, oceans, and land.
Even if the ice core samples, which are proof, state otherwise?
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 03:39:33 PM
Even if the ice core samples, which are proof, state otherwise?
And what do they prove... exactly?
I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what they prove.
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 02:51:40 PM
OK. Let me ask you this Charleston. When New Orleans is off the map and is basically beach front, will you then agree that "something" is up? That humans have caused this "Whatever?"
Call me when this happens. :D
Charleston. Please review the following webiste. The site won a webby by the way. Other then that, it's the NSF Office of Polar Programs. This is just the Year in Review section. Would you even consider the work they sponsor and the vast discoveries of their principles proof?
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111049&org=OPP
Quote from: Charleston native on July 22, 2008, 11:18:01 AM
Well River, maybe he has been inundated with work at the hamburger grill.
Incidentally Stephen, just because I refuse to take your bait AND refuse to rehash old arguments spent ad nauseum with this subject doesn't mean this is my last post here, so please quit trying to project your intentions and implications as mine.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. In addition to the regular members of the"quarter ton club" that frequent our establishment, we have had an influx of newly unemployed mortgage brokers, bankers, health care workers, financial planners, builders, real estate lawyers, SUV salesmen and other assorted hangers on of the "new economy" who all crave our high fat, high sugar, high carbohydrate, salty, crunchy and strangely satisfying and filling comestibles on the cheap.
The ongoing economic collapse has offered a panoply of opportunity in the "budget consumer nutrition industry", wherein your craving for that 3000 calorie meal can be satisfied for a mere $3.99!
Thank you all for supporting the Bush initiatives that have led to this state of affairs, it is now boom time!
I look forward to the US Government bailout of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as I am sure that the assumption of that additional several trillion in debt will further devalue the dollar, thereby compelling more people than ever to dine at our establishment for their "night out". Hope to see you there soon, charleston & river.
And river, may I suggest the following for your avitar:
(http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/IMP/IMP180/high-angle-view_~1525R-78204A.jpg)
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 04:25:42 PM
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 02:51:40 PM
OK. Let me ask you this Charleston. When New Orleans is off the map and is basically beach front, will you then agree that "something" is up? That humans have caused this "Whatever?"
Call me when this happens. :D
What's the number down there? Lol. Cuz that's where you'll be when it happens. Just kidding. You must be one of those "if the tree falls in the woods and there's nobody around it doesn't make a sound kind of guy."
Quote from: Lenton
Lenton's research group surveyed climate and glacial experts around the world and the consensus is that the recent evidence shows that rising temperatures will soon reach the Greenland Ice Sheet's "tipping point", where it will break up within 300 years, raising sea levels by seven metres and flooding millions out their homes long before the year 2300.
Quote from: Midway on July 22, 2008, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: Charleston native on July 22, 2008, 11:18:01 AM
Well River, maybe he has been inundated with work at the hamburger grill.
Incidentally Stephen, just because I refuse to take your bait AND refuse to rehash old arguments spent ad nauseum with this subject doesn't mean this is my last post here, so please quit trying to project your intentions and implications as mine.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. In addition to the regular members of the"quarter ton club" that frequent our establishment, we have had an influx of newly unemployed mortgage brokers, bankers, health care workers, financial planners, builders, real estate lawyers, SUV salesmen and other assorted hangers on of the "new economy" who all crave our high fat, high sugar, high carbohydrate, salty, crunchy and strangely satisfying and filling comestibles on the cheap.
The ongoing economic collapse has offered a panoply of opportunity in the "budget consumer nutrition industry", wherein your craving for that 3000 calorie meal can be satisfied for a mere $3.99!
Thank you all for supporting the Bush initiatives that have led to this state of affairs, it is now boom time!
I look forward to the US Government bailout of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as I am sure that the assumption of that additional several trillion in debt will further devalue the dollar, thereby compelling more people than ever to dine at our establishment for their "night out". Hope to see you there soon, charleston & river.
And river, may I suggest the following for your avitar:
(http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/IMP/IMP180/high-angle-view_~1525R-78204A.jpg)
:D :D :D
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 04:25:42 PM
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 02:51:40 PM
OK. Let me ask you this Charleston. When New Orleans is off the map and is basically beach front, will you then agree that "something" is up? That humans have caused this "Whatever?"
Call me when this happens. :D
What's the number down there? Lol. Cuz that's where you'll be when it happens. Just kidding. You must be one of those "if the tree falls in the woods and there's nobody around it doesn't make a sound kind of guy."
No, I am the kind of guy who demands strong evidence before reordering society to prevent a problem which is not exactly certain to occur. :)
Right. So what you’re doing is asserting some sort of “Privilege†that the rest of the planet is not "privy" to. You "invoke" this :D without regard to the body of evidence that mankind has come to understand….Perfect! Doesn’t this sound like Bill Gates argument as to why he’s not an industrial predator/monopolist? Wow. It’s all making sense now. You’ll never get it just like Bill and Martha, both which have either gone to jail for months or paid hundreds of millions of dollars because the they just don't get it." But, we're glad you get it. Bravo! Way to assimilate current understandings.
Except I am not the only one who has serious doubts as to your theory. In fact, a recent poll of Britons showed a significant majority did not believe it was true or as serious as the hype indicates.
You remind of the Catholic Church...whenever Copernicus theorized that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. Forget the evidence…
Why don't you admit that with the body of evidence you have, that you are still the center of the universe.
Yet another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_%28argument%29
Gator, pot meet kettle.
You all are so deluded with evidence that came from a government-cooperated report, and as a result, you refuse to look at other legitimate evidence that disputes it. Sounds to me like you guys are pretty equivalent with the Catholic Church...you and your ilk even want to bring back a "Spanish Inquisition" to jail the people who speak "heresy".
Oh my god....Okay. Step 1. Answer this question:
The Earth is the center of the universe. True (T) or False (F).
Be real in your answer.
Nice red herring. Won't bite.
Of course. I get it now.
(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.gif)
Continue projecting your disingenuous manure, gator. That's not what I mean and you know it.
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 10:47:24 AM
so, dave, we have your thesis.
Still waiting on Rivers, since he just denied that every point he has made over the past two years has anything to do with reality.
We have bridge Trolls.
Just waiting on River.
What would yours be Stephen?
Quote from: gatorback on July 23, 2008, 09:27:27 AM
Of course. I get it now.
(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.gif)
Another straw man argument. Attempting to equate those who disagree with the premise or extent of man-made global warming with people who thought the Earth was flat and people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe is a logical fallacy. Rather than attempting to disprove what the individual is saying you merely attempt to lump him in with a group who is easily disproven thereby "winning" the argument. Sorry but this nonsense wont fly here. I really would have thought that a UF graduate would know better. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 10:47:24 AM
so, dave, we have your thesis.
Still waiting on Rivers, since he just denied that every point he has made over the past two years has anything to do with reality.
We have bridge Trolls.
Just waiting on River.
I do not believe that rising CO2 levels will cause temperatures to rise to the extent prophesied by the GW crowd if at all. I think CO2 may have a minor greenhouse effect but this pales in comparison to other factors such as water vapor and it can be dealt with naturally by the atmosphere with various natural feedbacks. It is really as simple as that.
Oh and please stop attempting to put words into my mouth. You need to focus on yourself and formulating a logical, fact based argument.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 23, 2008, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 10:47:24 AM
so, dave, we have your thesis.
Still waiting on Rivers, since he just denied that every point he has made over the past two years has anything to do with reality.
We have bridge Trolls.
Just waiting on River.
What would yours be Stephen?
Find the most far fetched, Chicken Little scenario on any issue and there you will find Stephen boldly stating that the end is nigh. :D
I'm not the one ignoring the body evidence acquired by scientist all over the world.
Neither am I.
I have already found consensus with you and I am a skeptic.
QuoteI do know that we are a surprising species capable of amazing feats of imagination and engineering.
Quotethat natural changes will occur that will be catastrophic to our civilization unless we start planning for those changes now. By this, I mean our city planning, evacuation routes, building policies and trending towards coastal development.
QuoteIf we are going to live near coasts, that we should take the same measures that californians who live on or near fault lines do. Our building and infrastructure should begin converting towards dealing with flooding and water. We had a great case study in New Orleans
Quotereducing emissions, cleaner air etc. But I support these ideas anyways because the alternatives they support are preferable to our present way of doing things. We need to never again be held hostage by the middle east--or any other monopolist of energy. If we can produce all the energy that we need without poisoning the ground or killing things in general, and at the same time return to the rock solid principles of self sufficiency that made this country every good thing that it became, then what the hell are we waiting for?
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 11:25:57 AM
QuoteFind the most far fetched, Chicken Little scenario on any issue and there you will find Stephen boldly stating that the end is nigh.
I wonder what I look like in these little dream excursions of yours River. Its obvious that you have created for yourself a fully realized "Stephen Dare Avatar" with which you concoct fantasy conversations and scenarios.
Reality: Lifelong Republican nonsmoking, nondrinking, drug and disease free fan of Ayn Rand who was raised in a pentecostal holiness tradition before converting to Baptist with a debt aversion so extreme that he has never taken an interest bearing loan becomes transformed into:
Riversidegator's Stephen. Left wing liberal who was recently nominated for the Vice President of Free Love.
its an interesting fantasy construct, River.
Am I naked in these fantasies? Do I wear uniforms? Or maybe something more natural and gauzy. Do I drink little umbrella drinks while eating arugula? Or do I feed you grapes while you loll about on the throne of Riverside?
You do have a truly bizarre imagination. Stating that you fall for every Chicken Little scenario does not logically lead to the above in any way.
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 11:10:57 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 10:47:24 AM
so, dave, we have your thesis.
Still waiting on Rivers, since he just denied that every point he has made over the past two years has anything to do with reality.
We have bridge Trolls.
Just waiting on River.
I do not believe that rising CO2 levels will cause temperatures to rise to the extent prophesied by the GW crowd if at all. I think CO2 may have a minor greenhouse effect but this pales in comparison to other factors such as water vapor and it can be dealt with naturally by the atmosphere with various natural feedbacks. It is really as simple as that.
Oh and please stop attempting to put words into my mouth. You need to focus on yourself and formulating a logical, fact based argument.
So you do believe that Climate Change is occurring?
"Climate change" is always occurring to some extent. I do not think it is occurring in any disastrous fashion and to claim that there is the chance of extinction is laughably absurd.
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 11:25:57 AM
QuoteFind the most far fetched, Chicken Little scenario on any issue and there you will find Stephen boldly stating that the end is nigh.
I wonder what I look like in these little dream excursions of yours River. Its obvious that you have created for yourself a fully realized "Stephen Dare Avatar" with which you concoct fantasy conversations and scenarios.
Reality: Lifelong Republican nonsmoking, nondrinking, drug and disease free fan of Ayn Rand who was raised in a pentecostal holiness tradition before converting to Baptist with a debt aversion so extreme that he has never taken an interest bearing loan becomes transformed into:
Riversidegator's Stephen. Left wing liberal who was recently nominated for the Vice President of Free Love.
its an interesting fantasy construct, River.
Am I naked in these fantasies? Do I wear uniforms? Or maybe something more natural and gauzy. Do I drink little umbrella drinks while eating arugula? Or do I feed you grapes while you loll about on the throne of Riverside?
Well you gotta admit his fantasy land Stephen Dare is a little bit more fun the reality Stephen Dare. Lol.
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 01:19:47 PM
who knows, maybe ill truly bloom in my 40s.
River, theres hope yet.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a confirmed heterosexual and married.
As I stated one page (and hours) ago my position is this:
I do not believe that rising CO2 levels will cause temperatures to rise to the extent prophesied by the GW crowd if at all. I think CO2 may have a minor greenhouse effect but this pales in comparison to other factors such as water vapor and it can be dealt with naturally by the atmosphere with various natural feedbacks. It is really as simple as that.
Sounds "simple".
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 02:25:08 PM
As I stated one page (and hours) ago my position is this:
I do not believe that rising CO2 levels will cause temperatures to rise to the extent prophesied by the GW crowd if at all. I think CO2 may have a minor greenhouse effect but this pales in comparison to other factors such as water vapor and it can be dealt with naturally by the atmosphere with various natural feedbacks. It is really as simple as that.
OK. What body of evidence do you have to support your argument?
Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 03:43:07 PM
Sounds "simple".
I knew you would appreciate this, midway. ;)
Well, first consider that CO2 levels have gone up dramatically in the last century yet the temperature has advanced hardly at all. This, in and of itself, probably disproves the idea that CO2 increases cause temperature increases.
So this is crap?
http://sparkleberrysprings.com/v-web/b2/?p=827
Ottawa: 45.40N, 75.72W
Temperatures: Winter temperatures have increased by 2.1 degC since 1970. All other seasons show an increase in temperature, with spring the least: 0.8 degC. All seasonal temperatures have been on the rise since 1900.
Athens: 33.26N, 83.24W
Temperatures: Winter temperatures have increased by 0.8 degC since 1970, an acceleration from 0.3 degC since 1900. All other seasons show an increase.
(http://sparkleberrysprings.com/v-web/b2/images/climate/ahntemps5yr1900snow.png)
Did you mean to post a graph with the data from Athens, GA?
Quote from: RiversideGator
yet the temperature has advanced hardly at all...
So, your argument is that you know what "hardly at all" is?
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
(http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg)
So why did the temperatures go up dramatically in the 1930s and 40s (a time of relatively low CO2 levels and industrialization) and then drop in the 1960s and 70s (a time of relatively higher CO2 levels and industrialization)? It seems clear that, even if CO2 plays some role, natural variability is far more of a factor in climate.
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 04:33:43 PM
So why did the temperatures go up dramatically in the 1930s and 40s (a time of relatively low CO2 levels and industrialization) and then drop in the 1960s and 70s (a time of relatively higher CO2 levels and industrialization)? It seems clear that, even if CO2 plays some role, natural variability is far more of a factor in climate.
I don't know yet; however, I was looking for the data to support your theory and can't find any.
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 04:33:43 PM
So why did the temperatures go up dramatically in the 1930s and 40s (a time of relatively low CO2 levels and industrialization) and then drop in the 1960s and 70s (a time of relatively higher CO2 levels and industrialization)? It seems clear that, even if CO2 plays some role, natural variability is far more of a factor in climate.
The variance from the mean is large in the 1800's and early 1900's, decreases in the 40's to the 80's, then increases in the opposite direction in the past 30 years. This would indicate an upward shift in temperature.
What role does the fact that we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the early 20th Century have in the fact that temperatures increased? Also, how do you account for the lack of warming and indeed cooling over the last 7-10 years?
I don't account for anything. I'm just trying to help you read a very simple chart.
Quote from: Lunican on July 23, 2008, 05:24:27 PM
I don't account for anything. I'm just trying to help you read a very simple chart.
I am very familiar with reading charts. This chart, by itself, proves nothing however. That is the point.
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 01:19:47 PM
who knows, maybe ill truly bloom in my 40s.
River, theres hope yet.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a confirmed heterosexual and married.
So was Jim McGreevey
I love how all the Climate Changers now have resorted to "wolf-packing" one person, despite the data and evidence provided. Keep talking, comrades. Your delusional radicalism is becoming more apparent as more skeptics come out and more evidence debunking IPCC's conclusion.
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 05:31:07 PM
Quote from: Lunican on July 23, 2008, 05:24:27 PM
I don't account for anything. I'm just trying to help you read a very simple chart.
I am very familiar with reading charts. This chart, by itself, proves nothing however. That is the point.
Ok, this chart by itself proves nothing.
How about this chart with a burger, fries and a large shake? I bet it would prove something then!
Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:18:42 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 23, 2008, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 01:19:47 PM
who knows, maybe ill truly bloom in my 40s.
River, theres hope yet.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a confirmed heterosexual and married.
So was Jim McGreevey
Maybe you and Stephen could make a love connection on this very site, midway. You boys have so much in common. :D
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2008, 05:52:12 PM
OK River, So your contention is that CO2 probably isnt a green house gas, and therefore you do not believe that we are experiencing climate change.
Is that a fair summation?
Basically, yes. Although I think that CO2 may have a minor greenhouse effect but nothing near as dire as the GW extremists would have us believe. Also, climate change always occurs. I do not believe however that we are experiencing any sort of serious or catastrophic change and in fact temperature have been trending down.
BTW, we have some good news from Dr. Spencer on this topic. After describing the Clinton/Gore muzzle treatment he received in the 1990s, he discusses new climate data which indicates that the climate is far less sensitive to CO2 levels than had been previously thought:
QuoteOn the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject. . . .
Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . . .
If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end â€" if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now. . . .
Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100. . . .
Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback. . . .
I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated â€" not attacked and maligned. And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.
Read the rest of the testimony here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
BTW, there is now satellite data regarding global temperatures for the last 30 years. Note that satellite provided temperature data is not subject to being corrupted by new development around the weather stations, changes in the numbers and locations of such stations or the heat island effect. It should measure global temperatures on a consistent basis using consistent methods over time so it is more accurate. If rising CO2 levels cause temperatures to increase, it is not reflected here. Here is the chart. Decide for yourself:
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/UAH_LT_since_1979.jpg)
Serious question (as opposed to taunting question): If Global Warming doesn't exist/occur as some have asserted, why did Cheney and his White House staff go so far to edit reports, suppress reports, redact reports, etc. by gov't scientists? Wouldn't this seem to fly in the face of Charleston's assertion, above, that scientists tailor their findings to who is in charge? Further, why would GOP pollster/researcher Frank Luntz feel the need to invent the euphism of "global climate change" as the new buzzword to save his boy W from having to say "global warming"?
Look, I think debate is healthy, and it would truly, truly make me very happy if GW were proved to be some overarching conspiracy involving politicians of both parties in this country, politicians across the globe, scientists, media, corporations, and average citizens worldwide (which, by my phrasing, I am sure you can see I do not believe is true). However, from what I have read, GW seems to be wreaking havoc on very poor and desperate people across the globe, destroying their crops and ways of life, and until we realize there is more at stake than "But I want to set my A/C at 55 degrees and I want to drive a huge gas-wasting truck even though I'm just a sit-at-home soccer mom" more people's lives will be ruined by this phenomenon.
QuoteThe Grand Exaggerator [Patrick J. Michaels]
What is it with Al Gore? Why is he compelled to exaggerate climate change (excuse me, “the climate crisisâ€), and then to propose impossible policy responses? It’s like he’s inventing the Internet all over again!
OK, it’s pretty much standard rhetoric in Washington to say that if you don’t do as I say, there will be massive consequences. But to say, as Gore recently did: “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk;†and: “The future of human civilization is at stake†â€" that’s a bit much, even for the most faded and jaded political junkie.
Here’s how Gore works. He’ll cite one scientific finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that provides important context. Here’s a list of his climate exaggerations from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering facts.
Gore: “Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.â€
Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!
Gore: “Our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory. . . .â€
Fact: The reason there “seems†to be more tornadoes is because of national coverage by Doppler radar, which can detect storms that were previously missed (not to mention that every backyard tornado winds up on YouTube nowadays). Naturally, the additions are weak ones that might, if lucky, tip over a cow. If there were a true increase in tornadoes, then we would see a definite upswing in severe ones, too. If anything, the historical record indicates a slight negative trend in the frequency of major tornadoes, based upon death statistics.
Gore: “ . . . longer droughts . . . â€
Hogwash. The U.S. drought history, given by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, is readily available and extends back to 1895. There’s not a shred of evidence for “longer droughts†in recent decades. The longest ones were in the 1930s and 1950s, decades before “global warming†became “the climate crisis.â€
Gore: “ . . . bigger downpours and record floods . . . â€
It’s true, U.S. annual rainfall has increased about 10 percent (three inches) in the last 100 years. But it’s equally true that this is a net benefit. Temperatures haven’t warmed nearly enough to increase the annual surface evaporation by the same amount, so what has resulted is a wetter country during the growing season. Farmers love this, because most of the nation runs a moisture deficit during the hot summer growing season. Increasing rain cuts that deficit.
Gore: “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.â€
This is likely James Hansen of NASA, Gore’s climate guru. He has written and given sworn testimony that six feet of sea-level rise, caused by the rapid shedding of Greenland’s ice, could happen by 2100. Why didn’t Gore defer instead to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization with at least a few hundred bona fide climate scientists? Its 2007 compendium estimates that the contribution of Greenland’s ice to sea level during this century will be around two inches. Gore also forgot the embarrassing truth that there has been no net change in the planetary surface temperature, as measured both by thermometers and satellites, for the last ten years.
It would be easy to go on, particularly about the preposterousness of Gore’s “solution,†which is to produce all of our electricity from solar, wind and geothermal sources within ten years. I’ll leave that for the energy economists to tear apart.
â€" Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and an active member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzMwNzI1N2FjOWE1ZWNhMzg2MjBlODlhZjFlMTYyNDg
QuotePatrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., (born February 15, 1950) is a part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. He is a former university Climatologist for Virginia, a position he held from 1980 [1][2] until his resignation in 2007[3]. His professional specialty was the influence of climate on agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_J._Michaels
Stephen: Define "scientific treatise".
Here is something for you to read in the meantime:
QuoteGlobal Warming:
Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008
(The following is a simplified version of a paper entitled "Chaotic Radiative Forcing,
Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity" I submitted on
June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.)
ABSTRACT
This article addresses new satellite and modeling evidence that previous satellite diagnoses of high climate sensitivity--which directly translate into predictions of dangerous levels of global warming--contain a large spurious bias. It is shown that those exaggerated estimates were the result of faulty assumptions regarding clouds when analyzing variations in average global temperature and average reflected sunlight off of the Earth.
Specifically, it has been assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that, for global averages on time scales of three months or more, temperature variations cause clouds to change, but that cloud variations do not cause temperature to change. But when properly filtered, the satellite data reveal evidence of cloud variations indeed causing temperature changes, and that this source of natural climate variability biases the estimate of climate sensitivity in the direction of a very sensitive climate system.
The new interpretation suggests a very low sensitivity. If the new sensitivity estimate is accurate, it would suggest only 0.5 deg. C of manmade warming by the year 2100. The new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century can not be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.
1. Introduction
The prediction of how much manmade global warming we will see in the future (as well as how much past warming was manmade) depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". For many years, climate researchers have struggled to diagnose the Earth's climate sensitivity from measurements of the real climate system. It's almost a "holy grail" kind of search, because if we could discover the true value of the climate sensitivity, then we would basically know whether future global warming will be benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between.
Here I present a new method of satellite data analysis which I believe reveals the climate sensitivity, and I also show why it has been so hard to diagnose from observations.
2. Climate Sensitivity Background
When the Earth warms, it emits more infrared radiation to outer space. This natural cooling mechanism is the same effect you feel at a distance from a hot stove. The hotter anything gets the more infrared energy it loses to its surroundings.
For the Earth, this natural cooling effect amounts to an average of 3.3 Watts per square meter for every 1 deg C that the Earth warms. There is no scientific disagreement on this value.
Climate sensitivity is how clouds and water vapor will change with warming to make that 3.3 Watts a bigger number (stronger natural cooling, called "negative feedback"), or smaller (weaker natural cooling, called "positive feedback").
While there are other sources of change in the climate system, cloud and water vapor changes are likely to dominate climate sensitivity. The greater the sensitivity, the more the Earth will warm from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations being produced by humans through the burning of fossil fuels.
There are three possibilities for the impact of climate sensitivity on global warming predictions:
1.) If clouds and water vapor don't change as we add CO2 to the atmosphere, then the expected warming by 2100 would only be about 1 deg. C, which would not be a very big concern for most people. This is called the "zero-feedback" case.
2.) If low clouds decrease, high (cirrus) clouds increase, or water vapor increases, then warming will be magnified. Most, if not all, climate models predict that clouds and water vapor will change like this, resulting in an amplification of the CO2-only warming of 1 deg C to as much as 4.5 deg. C or more. This is called the "positive feedback" case, and the greater the positive feedback, the greater the warming. (NOTE: If the sum of all positive feedbacks more than cancel out the 3.3 Watt natural cooling, then the climate system is inherently unstable…this is why you sometimes hear of climate change "tipping points".)
3.) If the climate modelers are wrong -- and low clouds increase, high clouds decrease or water vapor decreases with warming -- then the effect will be to reduce the warming to less than 1 deg. C. For instance, if that 3.3 Watts of natural cooling mentioned earlier increased to as much as 8 Watts from cloud changes, the warming would be reduced to about 0.5 deg C by 2100. This is called the "negative feedback" case.
3. We Must Look to Mother Nature for Clues
To have any hope of figuring out the Earth's climate sensitivity, we must examine natural variations in the climate system for clues. For example, do clouds tend to increase with warming, or decrease? Our interpretations of these relationships find their way into the climate models, so that the models will hopefully behave like the real climate system.
Some researchers, like NASA's James Hansen, believe we can examine clues in the geologic record to estimate climate sensitivity …but I don't. We have a difficult enough time with our high-tech instruments on satellites covering the whole Earth and making direct measurements every day, and yet the climate sensitivity Holy Grail has still eluded us, so I don't see how we can reliably interpret any indirect clues from the geologic record.
4. Analyzing the Data
We need 3 kinds of observations to estimate climate sensitivity. When the Earth warms from natural climate variability, Earth-orbiting satellites measure how much the infrared radiation escaping from the Earth increases, as well as how much the reflected sunlight (a measure of cloud cover) changes as well. Global temperature measurements are also made by satellites.
To make climate sensitivity estimates, we need to compare how global-average temperature variations compare to variations in the amount of radiant energy (emitted infrared plus reflected sunlight) lost by the Earth. These measurements are usually averaged for 3 months or more to get a single pair of numbers to compare.
The increase in energy lost by the Earth per degree of warming during natural climate variability is believed to be a measure of the climate sensitivity. Researchers typically plot these temperature and radiant energy variations on a graph, and analyze the results. For purposes of discussion, I will call these "climate sensitivity graphs".
Let's look at the basic idea first…we plot temperature change on the horizontal axis, and radiant energy change on the vertical axis, with each pair of 3-monthly, global averages being one data point. This is shown in the following graph (Fig. 1):
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-sensitivity-chart-sensitive-case.gif)
Fig. 1. Conceptual plot of how the Earth's radiative cooling to outer space (vertical axis) changes with temperature (horizontal axis). Four lines are drawn illustrating how hypothetical satellite observations of these two variables might align themselves on the graph for different "climate sensitivities". Each climate sensitivity line (also called a feedback line) is labeled with how much global warming might be expected by 2100 as a response to manmade greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere, for that climate sensitivity.
I have drawn different lines on the above chart that represent different climate sensitivities; I have labeled them in terms of how much global warming by 2100 each line corresponds to (assuming some level of future greenhouse gas emissions).
Let's think about what one of these lines means: let's use the 0.5 deg C line as an example. That line has the steepest slope, which means for a certain amount of temperature increase, the Earth emits the maximum amount of extra radiant energy to outer space. (This increase in radiative energy could be from extra emitted infrared, extra reflected sunlight off of clouds, or both).
4.1 Hypothetical Case 1: HIGH climate sensitivity
Now lets pretend we have some actual satellite measurements to plot on the above graph, and it turns out they neatly align themselves along the 4 deg C line, as in Fig. 1 (above). This would suggest the climate system is VERY SENSITIVE, and that not very much extra energy is being lost to outer space for a certain amount of warming. What this would mean for global warming is that, in response to the extra infrared trapping by the extra carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere, the Earth will require a LARGE temperature increase in order to restore balance to the radiant energy flows in and out of the Earth ("in" meaning absorbed sunlight, and "out" meaning emitted infrared plus reflected sunlight).
4.2 Hypothetical Case 1: LOW climate sensitivity
Now let's assume that the satellite measurements of natural climate variability neatly cluster along the 0.5 deg C line, which is shown in Fig. 2 (below).
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-sensitivity-chart-nonsensitive-case.gif)
Fig. 2. As in Fig. 1, but now for low climate sensitivity.
In this case, the data suggests that the climate system is INSENSITIVE, that is, a certain amount of trapping of infrared energy by our greenhouse gas emissions will only cause a small increase in temperature to restore radiative balance of the Earth.
4.3 Hypothetical Case 3: HIGH climate sensitivity, but with NOISY data
In reality, the situation with real satellite data is not as clean as the previous two examples where all of the data fell neatly on a line. In the following graph we see an example of what is more typical (Fig. 3):
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-sensitivity-chart-noisy-case.gif)
Fig. 3. As in Fig. 1, but now the hypothetical data are "noisy", as in real satellite measurements.
In this "noisy data" case we see that the data seem to be somewhat aligned along an imaginary line between the "2 deg." line and the "4 deg." line, let's say 3 degrees. But since the data do not form a nice, neat line there is quite a bit of uncertainty - this is more like the case with real satellite data.
And, unfortunately, nature is even more complicated than this. Typically, depending upon what years we analyze data from, we get different clouds of points seemingly aligned along lines of different slopes. Some researchers interpret this to mean that climate sensitivity actually varies between different values.
And to make matters even worse, we don't have very much real satellite data to plot. Since there are only 4 totally independent data points per year (one data point every 3 months) to plot, and at best there are only about 20 years of satellite data to analyze, there are at most 80 data points to plot. We would prefer to have hundreds or thousands, but our satellite data record is still pretty short.
4.4 Real satellite data
Now let's explore why, in my opinion, the real satellite data have been so ambiguous. As we will see, researchers have been misinterpreting what Mother Nature has been trying to tell us.
First, I will show some data from 6 years of our best NASA and NOAA instruments on-orbit around the Earth since 2000. In the following chart I show weekly global oceanic averages, rather than 3-monthly, so you can see more data points and how they tend to form a "cloud". (I've plotted a 7-day average for every day in the 6-year record, making it look like there is more independent data than there really is.)
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-sensitivity-CERES-7-day.gif)
Fig. 4. Weekly global oceanic averages of total radiative (reflected solar plus emitted infrared) flux changes measured by NASA's CERES instrument on the Terra satellite, and corresponding tropospheric temperature measurements made by the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite.
We see that the data do tend to cluster along an imaginary line, and the slope of that line is 4.5 Watts per sq. meter per deg. C. This would indicate low climate sensitivity, and if applied to future global warming would suggest only about 0.8 deg. C of warming by 2100.
Now, it would be nice if we could just stop here and say we have evidence of an insensitive climate system, and proclaim that global warming won't be a problem. Unfortunately, for reasons that still remain a little obscure, the experts who do this kind of work claim we must average the data on three-monthly time scales or longer in order to get a meaningful climate sensitivity for the long time scales involved in global warming (many years).
OK, so let's average these data at 3-monthly time scales, which is shown in the following graph (Fig. 5).
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-sensitivity-CERES-91-day.gif)
Fig. 5. As in Fig. 4, but now for 91 day averages.
Now, we see that our 4.5 Watt line has suddenly turned into a 0.6 Watt line, which is a very high climate sensitivity - about 6 deg. C warming by 2100. Obviously, this is a very different story from the weekly averaging, which gave us a very low climate sensitivity. How are we supposed to interpret these very different results?
First, notice how "poorly behaved" the data are in Fig. 5. They don't cluster along the line very well at all. This is one reason why a few researchers have published papers saying not to trust this method of estimating climate sensitivity. Nevertheless, the climate modelers still use it to validate their models.
In fact, much of the the data in Fig. 5 seem to be arranged along a number of lines of much steeper slope, which I have indicated with the 4 thin lines I have drawn on the graph. What does all this mean?
These linear striations in the data were an accidental finding of mine. I was computing these averages in an Excel spreadsheet that had daily averages in it, so the easiest way for me to make 3-monthly (91 day) averages was to simply compute a new average centered on each day in the 6-year data record. But it turns out that when you do this, you get to see how the averages evolve in time. They form long, snake-like patterns (see Fig, 5), with adjacent dots representing adjacent days.
Each of those linear features represent different sub-periods of time in the satellite record which are indicating a different slope…about 8 Watts per sq. meter per deg. C. But why do the linear clusters of points spread out horizontally like that, all together giving the impression of a very sensitive climate system (only 0.6 Watts per sq. meter per deg. C)? We will find out shortly.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
Part 2 of the piece by Dr. Spencer:
Quote5. A Simple Climate Model, and a New Interpretation of Satellite Measurements
In order to answer questions like these, it is useful to build a climate model. While the climate models you hear about in the news represent a huge collaborative effort among many scientists and years of work, you might be surprised to learn that they still do not produce more accurate warming estimates than the simplest of climate models -- at least not for a global-average warming.
In fact, the global warming problem can be approximated with a single equation with only three terms. I will express that equation with the following description: (1) the change in temperature with time of the climate system is equal to (2) a net heating or cooling term plus (3) a feedback term representing the climate sensitivity. In fact, if I know the climate sensitivity (a coefficient in the feedback term) then I can make just as good an estimate of global warming with this one equation as can a state-of-the-art, multi-million dollar climate model running on a supercomputer.
I created such a simple model in an Excel spreadsheet. In the following graph we see a climate sensitivity chart for a model forced with only radiative forcing (representing, for instance, changing amounts of low cloud cover letting variable amounts of sunlight in). Just as I did for the real satellite data in Fig. 5, I have plotted 91-day averages for every day from the 85 years model run time. I have also specified a total feedback parameter (which is related to a specific climate sensitivity) of 6.0 Watts per sq. m. per deg. C in the model run.
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Simple-model-radiative-forcing.gif)
Fig. 6. As in previous graphs, but now the data come from a simple climate model forced only by variations in cloud cover and run for 85 years of model time. The feedback slope specified in the model is 6 Watts per sq. m. per deg. C.
Significantly, note that the feedback parameter line fitted to these data is virtually horizontal, with almost zero slope. Strictly speaking that would represent a borderline-unstable climate system. The same results were found no matter how deep the model ocean was assumed to be, or how frequently or infrequently the radiative forcing (cloud changes) occurred, or what the specified feedback was. What this means is that cloud variability in the climate system always causes temperature changes that "look like" a sensitive climate system, no matter what the true sensitivity is. This is a very significant result...it isn't entirely new, since at least one previously published paper suggested it, but the authors of that study did not appreciate its importance.
Now, lets force the model with only NON-radiative heating variations, such as might occur from changing amounts of evaporation from the model's water surface (faster evaporation causes a lower temperature). In this case (graph below in Fig. 7), we see that the data fit neatly along a line with the correct slope (correct climate sensitivity).
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Simple-model-non-radiative-forcing.gif)
Fig. 7. As in Fig. 6, but now the model is forced with NON-radiative variations in cooling of the ocean (such as through evaporation).
The only difference between these two graphs (Figs. 6 and 7) is that one involved RADIATIVE forcing (such as from varying cloud cover), while the other involved NON-radiative forcing (such as from evaporation).
Now, if we combine BOTH radiative and non-radiative forcings together, we get a model response seen in the following graph (Fig. 8 ):
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Simple-model-both-forcings.gif)
Fig. 8. As in Figs. 6 and 7, but now the model is forced with both radiative and NON-radiative variations in cooling of the ocean (such as through cloud variations AND variations in evaporation).
We ALSO see that the diagnosed slope (1.7 Watts per sq. m. per deg. C) is far from that specified in the model (6.0 Watts per sq. m. per deg. C) -- specifically, the diagnosed sensitivity is BIASED in the direction of high climate sensitivity (toward zero) even though a very low sensitivity was specified.
Significantly, note that we also begin to see in Fig. 8 a tendency for some of the data to align themselves along the parallel lines representing the true feedback. Thus, this model analysis (Fig. 8 ) supports the new data interpretation (Fig. 9, below) that the true feedback signal appears during certain sub-periods of time in the 6-year satellite record which is superimposed upon a slowly varying background of cloud-forced temperature change. It is that background signal for which we can not diagnose a feedback (see Fig. 6 again)...it instead contaminates and obscures the true feedback signal, spuriously biasing it in the direction of high climate sensitivity (low feedback number).
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-sensitivity-CERES-91-day-2.gif)
Fig. 9. 91-day global oceanic averages of total radiative (reflected solar plus emitted infrared) flux changes measured by NASA's CERES instrument on the Terra satellite, and corresponding tropospheric temperature measurements made by the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite. See above text for details about how cloud variability causes a contamination of the true feedback (climate sensitivity) signal.
6. Conclusions and Implications for Global Warming
So, what does all this mean? Here are the conclusions I have come to:
1) Current satellite estimates of climate sensitivity have a spurious BIAS in the direction of HIGH SENSITIVITY.
(2) This bias is probably due to small, natural fluctuations in cloud cover causing contamination of the true climate sensitivity signal.
(3) The true climate sensitivity only shows up during those shorter periods of time when non-radiative forcing (e.g. evaporation) is causing a relatively large source of temperature variability, compared to that from cloud variability which "tries" to push the diagnosed line slope toward zero (borderline unstable climate system).
Now let's use what we've learned from the model in our interpretation of the satellite observations, which I have reproduced in Fig. 9. The linear striations we saw (I call them "feedback stripes") represent the true signal of feedback (climate sensitivity) in the climate system. In that case, those feedback stripes are aligned along a line slope with the astonishingly high value of 8 Watts per sq. m. per deg. C. This is stronger negative feedback (lower climate sensitivity) than I think anyone has ever dreamed possible. If applied to the estimation of manmade global warming, it would result in only about 0.5 deg. C (less than 1 deg. F) of warming by 2100.
It still might be legitimately claimed that this strong negative feedback seen in the satellite data on short time scales might not apply to the long time scales of global warming. But our understanding of climate sensitivity will ALWAYS be limited to a short satellite data record, so the same can be claimed of any climate sensitivity estimates. After all, the data in Fig. 9 are 3-monthly averages, which others have assumed to be sufficiently long to diagnose climate sensitivity.
Now, let's turn to what this means for climate modeling. Since climate models are constructed based upon our understanding of "what causes what" to happen in the climate system, they have probably been constructed based upon a misunderstanding of how the climate system operates. We already know that ALL 20 models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have higher climate sensitivities than our best estimates from satellite data, even without this new interpretation of the satellite data. Why is this?
I believe that it comes down to a basic misinterpretation regarding cause and effect: Climate models have been built with natural climate variability as a guide, during which it has been assumed that observed temperature variability caused the observed cloud variability. But since causation also flows in the opposite direction (cloud variability causing temperature variability), the climate models have a built-in bias toward high climate sensitivity, and so they produce too much global warming.
Furthermore, there is a very important implication of what I have presented here for the PAST warming we have observed, that is, the approximate 1 deg. C warming over the last 100 years. IF the climate sensitivity really is low (somewhere approaching the feedback parameter of 8 Watts per sq. m. per deg. C estimated here) then manmade greenhouse gas emissions are NOT SUFFICIENT to explain the observed warming in the last 100 years.
You see, we know that the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere has caused something like 1.5 Watts per sq. m. of additional trapping of infrared energy in the climate system, but that is nowhere near enough to cause a 1 deg. C warming if the climate system is that insensitive.
One would need to find some additional, natural source of warming. And the most likely culprit? A small change in cloud cover. The question is, then, Have there been natural changes in cloud cover (only about 1% would be needed) in the last 100 years which have caused some, or even most, of our warming?
Unfortunately, we may never know, simply because our observations of global cloud cover are nowhere near long enough, or good enough.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
Meanwhile, Alaska is on pace to have its coldest summer ever. I especially like how the newspaper writer stated the facts about the weather and then had to editorialize basically that "of course global warming is coming soon". :D
QuoteGloomy summer headed toward infamy
CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.
By GEORGE BRYSON
gbryson@adn.com
Published: July 24th, 2008 12:10 AM
Last Modified: July 24th, 2008 04:56 PM
The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.
Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.
That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.
This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.
National Weather Service meteorologist Sam Albanese, a storm warning coordinator for Alaska, says the outlook is for Anchorage to remain cool and cloudy through the rest of July.
"There's no real warm feature moving in," Albanese said. "And that's just been the pattern we've been stuck in for a couple weeks now."
In the Matanuska Valley on Wednesday snow dusted the Chugach. On the Kenai Peninsula, rain was raising Six-Mile River to flood levels and rafting trips had to be canceled.
So if the cold and drizzle are going to continue anyway, why not shoot for a record? The mark is well within reach, Albanese said:
"It's probably going to go down as the summer with the least number of 65-degree days."
MEASURING THE MISERY
In terms of "coldest summer ever," however, a better measure might be the number of days Anchorage fails to even reach 60.
There too, 2008 is a contender, having so far notched only 35 such days -- far below the summer-long average of 88.
Unless we get 10 more days of 60-degree or warmer temperatures, we're going to break the dismal 1971 record of only 46 such days, a possibility too awful to contemplate.
Still, according to a series of charts cobbled together Tuesday evening by a night-shift meteorologist in the weather service's Anchorage office, the current summer clearly has broken company with the record-setting warmth of recent years. Consider:
• 70-degree days. So far this summer there have been two. Usually there are 15. Last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 49.
• 75-degree days. So far this summer there've been zero. Usually there are four. It may be hard to remember, but last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 23.
So are all bets off on global warming? Hardly, scientists say. Climate change is a function of long-term trends, not single summers or individual hurricanes.
Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it's "unequivocal" the world is warming, considering how 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.
So what's going on in Alaska, which also posted a fairly frigid winter?
LA NINA
Federal meteorologists trace a lot of the cool weather to ocean temperatures in the South Pacific.
When the seas off the coast of Peru are 2 to 4 degrees cooler than normal, a La Nina weather pattern develops, which brings cooler-than- normal weather to Alaska.
For most of the past year, La Nina (the opposite of El Nino, in which warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures occur off Peru) has prevailed. But that's now beginning to change.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web site, water temperatures in the eastern South Pacific began to warm this summer -- and the weather should eventually follow.
The current three-month outlook posted by the national Climate Prediction Center in Camp Springs, Md., calls for below-normal temperatures for the south coast of Alaska from August through October -- turning to above-normal temperatures from October through December.
http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2008, 12:05:52 PM
again, for the purposes of discussion, please confine your references to legitimate sources. Attacks on Al Gore, and reprinting editorials from the Alaska Daily News by non climatologists do not prove your points.
1) You are not in charge of this discussion and therefore you cannot limit what others post. Nothing that I posted was an ad hominem attack in any case;
2) You cannot declare some things legitimate and others not;
3) Evidence of local weather patterns do not disprove GW but I can guarantee that if it were hot in Alaska and the ice cap was melting, you would post it.
Although fiction the Movie The Day After Tomorrow is fun if you want to scare the young ones.
If you've not seen the movie, it covers all the current topics with lots of green screen fun.
Check it out at the Public Library it might be there if you want to see it for free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/The_Day_After_Tomorrow_movie.jpg/200px-The_Day_After_Tomorrow_movie.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2008, 12:29:18 PM
As it happens, If you bothered to read the thread, you will see that I have agreed to stick to the same rules, and more importantly have.
You stating something does not constitute an "agreement".
Quote
Riverside. These are the rules of this discussion if you wish to continue it. Otherwise start a thread and talk your own damned head off.
Again, you are not in charge of this discussion and therefore you cannot limit what others post. I will post what I deem legitimate and you post what you deem legitimate. This is the way a debate works.
QuoteHowever, this conversation out of all the threads you have hijacked will be conducted with civility and according to a reasonable debate. If you intend on being responded to, that is. However if your intention is to simply prove yourself a troll with no real interest in the truth, then please by all means, show your true colors.
I am very interested in the truth. And, I believe I have found it. Also, regarding trolls, you are the one who recently engaged in name calling and other ad hominem attacks. Focus on learning and discussing the facts and stop worrying about me. Thanks. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2008, 02:29:39 PM
Into this discussion I have included a link to the IPCC report on the scientific underpinnings of Climate Change. I have read it and believe I understand the material.
Has anyone else?
There has not been offered any other source material.
Still looking for additional evidence to be discussed.
I have read parts... I am familiar with what it is. I have no problem refering to any area for clarification. I have some reservation with using it as the base document since it argues GW in the affirmative already... but I can live with that.
Most definately... was hoping River would have remained. I will need research help... ;D. I do however appreciate a less confrontational give and take conversation...
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2008, 02:17:24 PM
Thanks river for showing your true colors and affirming that you are really interested in arguing rather than debating.
You apparently trust your own beliefs so little that you cannot be bothered to post them or you believe them to be scientifically indefensible.
I take it that you have not read the IPCC report and are therefore unqualified to post on it.
Your words and opinions apparently are to be counted for little as you do not have either the science or the character to defend them.
Perhaps Charleston has the ability to debate in a substantive way that isnt merely an opportunity to vent his many political opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
If not, then Im afraid you have ceded the argument by default.
Which leaves Bridge Troll and myself to continue.
Red herring alert! I have posted my position on multiple occasions. Please dont pretend that you dont know what it is and that therefore you have won the debate. Your tactics really are quite transparent. :D
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2008, 02:29:39 PM
Into this discussion I have included a link to the IPCC report on the scientific underpinnings of Climate Change. I have read it and believe I understand the material.
Has anyone else?
There has not been offered any other source material.
Still looking for additional evidence to be discussed.
Translation: Accept my premises and then let's talk about them. ::)
I have really got to hand it to Stephen for sticking in there for a month and trying to change the minds of people who will probably never accept that climate change is real, no matter how much evidence is thrown at them. I am sure that Stephen will agree that we will probably never reach scientific consensus on this issue, and there is always the outside chance that we all are wrong. However, the fact is that the vast majority of this planet's credible scientists have concluded based on an ever-growing body of evidence and scientific research that climate change is occuring and human activity is a significant contributor to this problem. As more research continues to be done on climate change, the findings continue to reinforce and justify those conclusions. In fact, many of the studies are finding that the impacts of climate change are actually occuring more rapidly and with more significant consequences than previously thought or predicted.
Unfortunately, (back to the original post that started this thread) many large corporations (especially the oil companies) have spent millions of dollars trying to distort the facts and cloud the debate with misinformation and the perception of scientific uncertaintly. They have paid for junk science, funded think tanks, and relied on entertainers like Rush Limbaugh to confuse the American people and politicians, and the results are a reluctance to take any meaningful actions that will address this impending crisis. Considering the suffering and economic hardship that so many people could experience and the significant environmental damage that has and could occur, this is not such a stretch to call these actions criminal. The deniers who have deliberately created a smoke screen to protect their own financial interests have done so at the expense of other people and our planet.
Let's face reality. This country and our politicians have taken action based on significantly less evidence and "proof" (does the Iraq war ring any bells?). Are we really willing to roll the dice and take our chances that so many well-respected scientists on this planet might be wrong? There is simply too much to lose.
By addressing climate change (even if the scientific predictions are wrong), we would help strenghten our economy (and Lord knows we need help), protect our environment and human health, and move us towards energy independence. Even if you don't buy into the climate change arguement, I hope you can at least recognize the need and the opportunity to create a more sustainable United States. Call it what you will will. We have got to move beyond the debate and start taking actions that are necessary either way.
I have been of the belief that the argument is being framed incorrectly by GW/energy independence advocates. There are several points that can and should be made that make the whole GW argument moot.
First. Will oil run out?
Answer is a simple yes. Be it tomm, 40 years, or 400 years, at some point the planet will not have the primary fuel for its economic engine. The sooner we find a renewable source of energy the better. (This then of course leads to the free market argument, but I think most of us can agree sometimes the free market needs a violent shove in the right direction)
Second. Should humans, regardless of their political tilt, be good wards of their environment?
Answer is, yes. Regardless of the implications of greenhouse gases and their effect on warming, we all know that emissions are bad for our health, bad for our children's health, and bad for our planets health, regardless of the GW issue.
Third, until alternative energy's supplement, replace, or oil depletes out right, is conservation a bad thing?
Certainly not. This is a place where government can have an effect, and in fact, its a legit function of government, as it related to energy policy. It can set gas standards, it can set smog and clean air standards, build bike and scooter lanes, and set speed limits, all outside of the GW debate.
Lastly, should city's focus on building denser cores, and focus on public transit?
I think most people on here, at the very least, agree with that statement.
As a person who tends to no buy into the GW hype, I am not only acknowledging all of these issues, but am acting on my own. I live in the urban core, I have sold my suv, downsized our other car, ride my bike to work, and am looking at possibly adding a scooter as a second vehicle.
You don't have to believe in human impact to GW for the rest to make sense.
Quote from: Lunican on June 27, 2008, 11:24:50 AM
Is this article true?
QuoteExclusive: No ice at the North Pole
Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic â€" and worrying â€" examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
Full Article (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html)
With one half or more of summer over, Arctic ice appears to be in very good shape still:
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/arctic_terra_ice_073008-512.jpg)
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/arctic_aqua_ice_073008-512.jpg)
And:
Quote
(http://web3.custompublish.com/getfile.php/660658.623.pppxyccaur/280x0/4498513_660658.jpg)
2008-07-24
Ice at Spitsbergen (Barentsphoto.com)
More ice than expected in parts of the Arctic
New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.
In most years, there are open waters in the area north of the archipelago in July month. Studies from this year however show that the area is covered by ice, the Meteorological Institute writes in a press release.
In mid-July, the research vessel Lance and the Swedish shp MV Stockholm got stuck in ice in the area and needed help from the Norwegian Coast Guard to get loose.
The ice findings from the area spurred surprise among the researchers, many of whom expect the very North Pole to be ice-free by September this year.
http://www.barentsobserver.com/?cat=16149&id=4498513
One more hysterical GW prediction disproved. ;)
They sure do look good, but looks can be deceiving. So in fantasy land, one disproves things simply by the way they look?
Well I'm definitly a global warming skeptic, but found this article very intriguing. Some actual research and possible break through in solar power.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2JLKEZDUPJZA0QSNDLSCKHA?articleID=209900956
Hey its real science!!!
I love the idea of solar but... It simply costs too much out of pocket and takes too long to break even. I found this solar cost calculator... How about everyone check it out just to see what you think. I selected a system to power my entire house rather than just a hot water system...
http://findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme
This is the problem with most energy sources. The thing that made oil king was how cheap it was. As that is no longer the case, hopefully some time and money will be spent further developing and adapting solar, hydrogen, and other renewable energy sources.
Just because I dont 100% believe that man is responsible for the warming trends (Although after looking at the Chinese photos from another thread, Its harder to argue) doesnt mean I want to stay a slave to oil, or not work to develop renewable energy.
Cool. I honestly feel if we're going to error, we should error on the side you mention above.
Quote from: gatorback on August 01, 2008, 08:50:54 AM
They sure do look good, but looks can be deceiving. So in fantasy land, one disproves things simply by the way they look?
The hysterical prediction: Ice will be gone by this summer in the Arctic.
The reality: Still plenty of ice. What better way to confirm (for laymen) that ice is still there than with a picture?
Just admit that this prediction was overblown scaremongering and let's move on. ;)
Hey anybody remember the ozone hole that al gore predicted in 92?
I have to agree with you on this one.
What ever happened to good old Acid Rain? That was the "we're all goona die" marching orders when I was in school.
Memories......
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2008, 12:14:42 PM
(ps, to civil and whitey: what I think you boys are reaching for is the brief theory of 'global cooling')
I wasn't reaching for anything, just remembering my youthful days in school. I specifically remember "acid rain" as one of the things that more than one teacher tried to drill into our heads. These days I never hear about it.
You cite that coal energy plants were a main cause of "acid rain", yet today there are many many more coal plants than there were in the past. Hell China was openning one new coal plant per week or so earlier this year.
How does that not bring "acid rain" back to forefront these days?
Yes, I am too lazy on a Sunday afternoon to do my own research.
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 01, 2008, 11:07:42 AM
Quote from: gatorback on August 01, 2008, 08:50:54 AM
They sure do look good, but looks can be deceiving. So in fantasy land, one disproves things simply by the way they look?
The hysterical prediction: Ice will be gone by this summer in the Arctic.
The reality: Still plenty of ice. What better way to confirm (for laymen) that ice is still there than with a picture?
Just admit that this prediction was overblown scaremongering and let's move on. ;)
At this moment, 100+ degrees in Austin in the shade, I don't care it's HOT.