I am willing to wager that you never looked at or read the two books I recommended. Why don't you give it a shot ?? :)

I haven't yet. At the moment, besides working and trying to do my best to raise 11-year-old twins, I'm reading a great book called "The Brothers K" (fiction). I've had my fill of climate books for a couple of weeks.

I'll offer no wager, but did you read the book I recommended?

I haven't yet. At the moment, besides working and trying to do my best to raise 11-year-old twins, I'm reading a great book called "The Brothers K" (fiction). I've had my fill of climate books for a couple of weeks.

I'll offer no wager, but did you read the book I recommended?


There you go! Giving too much personal information. It's now going to be tough telling you how crazy your ideas are as I imagine your twins looking over your shoulder asking why that nasty Texas says such things! ;)

I'll find your book and read, it promise. I have dug up a boatload of CO2 info. Ain't draggin it in here. If you get reallybored, I'll post it up. If the nay Heaters, nee non haters, are right, we will enter a solar controlled cooling within two years. And that should make even Texas happy !!! My guy is 13 and just finished football, dropped basketball to concentrate on school, and is taking pitching lessons. Really wierd the school grade part. I think I may have failed as a parent !!!

"Yours in Gas" :)

Opec Sucks

So far this season, at least in Baltimore, fall was practically non-existant. We went straight to winter weather.

So far this season, at least in Baltimore, fall was practically non-existant. We went straight to winter weather.

Ah! Proof that global warming is wrong! Brilliant! zzyzzx, now that the price of oil is $50 per barrel does that mean we have no petroleum problems? Yeah! The world is perfect once again. Thank you!

It is entirely possible to dislike petroleum without believing that the carbon created by humans is creating global warming.

Yikes! Did I wake up in some bizzaro world of peace and hapiness with calm, rational discourse between disagreeing adults? Pteewey, let's end this hippie love in right here.

MikeO said: "It is entirely possible to dislike petroleum without believing that the carbon created by humans is creating global warming."

That problem with most discourse on this subject is in the abject beliefs. Anthropogenic global warming is a science question, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with politics , environmentalism, religion, etc. These "beliefs" only serve to cloud ones judgement in assessing the facts. If one enters this scientific discussion looking for global warming, they will surely see it. Likewise, if one enters with an image that global warming was invented and prosletized by environmental alarmists then they will surely disbelieve it.

AGW is a very complex scenario and science has not clearly defined what it entails. The predicted affects run the gamit from nothing to doomsday. It is this total lack of consensus that fuels so much debate and opens the door for beliefs and not reasoned thought to so easily form opinions.

Personally, unless I can understand the reasons why there is a 0% chance that AGW is real then it is a concern to me. How much of a concern depends on the likelihood of the event and the magnitude of the outcome. Even a small likelihood merits serious attention given the potential magnitude of the outcome.

Fortunately, when it comes to burning fuels there are several other less disputable reasons to try to mitigate these actions. This is why the near "religious" objection to AGW confounds me. It is a position that tries to repel the opposing view which often results decisions and behaviours that contradict the objectives of those concerned by AGW. Oddly, this has served to discount or dismiss the other, less disputed reasons to lessen the burning of fuels. This has led to foolish public behaviour and foolish public policy. However, I am encouraged by the awareness of many of the AGW disbelievers here that the "other" reasons are compelling enough to drastically reduce our oil consumption.

Yikes! Did I wake up in some bizzaro world of peace and hapiness with calm, rational discourse between disagreeing adults?

...snip

Personally, unless I can understand the reasons why there is a 0% chance that AGW is real then it is a concern to me. How much of a concern depends on the likelihood of the event and the magnitude of the outcome. Even a small likelihood merits serious attention given the potential magnitude of the outcome.

...snip


I couldn't agree more with your post. Koz, you've articulated in a much more clear and concise way nearly the same conclusion I've come to looking at the facts we have.

Nice post Koz. You will report, however, to the third door on the left for re-education !!!! Kidding of course !! :)

The solar models predict the unmistakable beginning of global cooling trend within 2 years. Doubt any of us will be on this board by then. Anyway, let's hope they are right, and Al Gore goes back into, whatever he does.........??????? Maybe another internet invention ?? :)

If the sun changes phases and all the glaciers start coming back in two years I'll eat my hat.

Koz, I agree with you. It pains me to see environmentalists basing all of their arguments around CO2 now at the expense of many other much more obvious and indisputable issues. For example: coal power. It's always "oh no the CO2!" but you never hear about the massive environmental destruction and pollution created by mining and burning coal. The destruction of mountain chains, the pollution of rivers, and acid rain are all very short-term easy to measure effects.

All the Ice cap have been rebuilt in a year too?

The Ice cap has stop melting?

Temperature of Oceans has been dropping?

I guess this is also why there is records number of Hurricane in quantity and strength?

When someone wants to believe something, that person will accept anything that tends to prove that point.

The day I'll see the Ice cap rebuilt itself is the day I'll start to believe we are on the right track.

I guess this is also why there is records number of Hurricane in quantity and strength?


Actually, neither of those things are true. The record for most hurricanes was in the 1930's. Also, people forget to take into account that our ability to count hurricanes is much better now with satellites and weather sensors all over the ocean than it was before 1960 which means there were probably many that went undetected in the first half of the 20th Century because they never reached shore.

This is one argument for Global Warming that just doesn't hold water. ;)

Has anyone considered that, man made or not, global warming could push the planet into a new ice age? That is the basic plot of a movie called "The Day After Tomorrow". Although the movie goes to extremes, there is scientific evidence that supports the plot of the movie. I contacted one of the original scientists on the Kyoto project and he said none of their computer models takes into account what would happen if enough fresh water was dumped into the ocean to disrupt the existing currents. It gets scarier from there.

The Day After Tomorrow is a joke, please don't bring it up.

But if some of the more dire predictions come true and the ice sheets of Greenland melt rapidly there would be huge effects on ocean currents. This would disrupt the Gulf stream which would have profound effects on the climate of Europe and to some extent North America.

Yeah, I hope this is all being caused by sunspots!

My vote is for the sunspots. The solar caused warming camp predicts that within 2 years the cooling trend will be unarguable. I guess we'll find out one way or another. :)

The idea of stopping the north atlantic current with too much fresh water is bs. Slow down maybe, but it's primary drivers are the rotation of the earth and our non geosynchronous moon. Unless co2 is magically able to change those.......dun dun dunnnnnn

The idea of stopping the north atlantic current with too much fresh water is bs. Slow down maybe, but it's primary drivers are the rotation of the earth and our non geosynchronous moon. Unless co2 is magically able to change those.......dun dun dunnnnnn

They don't say stopping, they say altering.

"Driven by the global thermohaline circulation (THC), the North Atlantic Current is also often considered part of the wind-driven Gulf Stream which goes further east and north from the North American coast, across the Atlantic and into the Arctic Ocean.

It is suspected that global warming might have a significant effect on the current.

Some even fear that global warming may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which occurred during the last glacial period: a series of Dansgaard-Oeschger events — rapid climate fluctuations — may be attributed to freshwater forcing at high latitude interrupting the THC."

"Apocalypse now: Climate change is here and now and getting personal"


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/19/10158/5081


I am terrified, at the stupidity, and fascinated at the same time. I can't wait to see how it ends.

Actually, I believe my wife is right; I have been spending too much time on the internet. In reality, most people don't even pay attention to this idiocy. I shall hencthforth begin to pay more attention to her.

"Apocalypse now: Climate change is here and now and getting personal"


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/19/10158/5081


I am terrified, at the stupidity, and fascinated at the same time. I can't wait to see how it ends.

Actually, I believe my wife is right; I have been spending too much time on the internet. In reality, most people don't even pay attention to this idiocy. I shall hencthforth begin to pay more attention to her.

I too am guilty of internet overuse and associated reduced attention to my family. On the other hand my family spends their share of time surfing both TV-land and internet-land, so I feel some sense of freedom in this regard.

Not to take you away from your wife too long, but I read that article and I was wondering what specifically you thought was stupid.

"Not to take you away from your wife too long, but I read that article and I was wondering what specifically you thought was stupid."


The alarmists routinely cite the IPCC as a gold standard. But now, even their "most pessimistic...projections" are wrong.

So should we trust the IPCC, or not?

Romm's tone becomes more and more alarmist they more reality contradicts the predictions.

For instance, he cites the WWF:


"estimates that sea level rise may be triple what scientists projected just two years ago"

Does this correspond to reality?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/


If they can't get something this simple right, then they have no credibility in my judgement.

If your gonna waste time on the web and TV, at least kill 4 minutes and listen to Tracy Lawrence. We studied geology in the late 70's and early 80's. We were trained to observe and understand things like wave cut terraces, glacial erratics, and multitudes of landforms that show evidence of climate, sea level, and atmospheric change. Things that cannot be explained by current or existing processes. It was simply a branch of earth science and part of a background in earth process called geology. It was science, at least. As young professionals, we watched predictions of global cooling and ice, and then Al Gore waving the banner for global warming. In Al's case, he was preceded by his famous but now hushed proclamation of the Internal combustion engine as " the infernal combustion engine." He was against the ICE before he found religion, before he found global warming. He hit the right button, like a Beer commercial, becuase he got famous fast. And very wealthy. The fact that most, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't believe man made global warming is doing any relevant harm still comes as a shock to some. Anyone that has a comprehension of geologic time is not paying attention to the political opportunity caused by climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DffS4szr1cw&feature=PlayList&p=9D3F5E42D3987AD6&playnext=1&index=60

Anyone that has a comprehension of geologic time is not paying attention to the political opportunity caused by climate change.


This is one argument I find perplexing. Basically, I boil this down to "Since climate changes naturally over geologic time, we don't need to be concerned about climate change". See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

While the above link is good, it focuses on data rather than the general concept of the argument having flaws, so: Many things occur naturally over long periods of time that we may not want to cause ourselves over short periods of time. For example, erosion of soil happens over long periods of time, but it may not be the best idea for human welfare to do things that cause soil erosion to happen over short periods of time. Animal and plant life has the ability to adapt to changes in environment that happen on geologic time scales. Human society can probably adapt to even faster changes. That doesn't mean it is easy or pleasant to do so. For example, adapting to the loss of soil and consequent loss of arable land is not necessarily something we should choose to do. Farming practices that prevent the need to make that quick adaptation seem logical given the alternative of being hungry and needing to find another food source (and the resulting conflict and bloodshed).

Another example would be species extinctions. Sure, species go extinct, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily choose to cause the rapid extinctions of huge numbers of species. It might not be good for us. Many people enjoy the presence of many different species (for looking at, as well as eating).

Human beings are causing a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration that is much, much faster than has ever happened in the geological record. Dismissing people who question the wisdom of this with the argument that "climate change happens", seems pretty much the same to me as dismissing someone who questions the wisdom of fast soil erosion due to poor farming practices because "soil erosion happens". Sure, it happens, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to cause it to happen much faster.

Another thing I find perplexing is the whole, "Al Gore is just trying to get rich and gain political power". First, Al Gore was already rich. Anyone with his history will have no problem with money. Second, Al Gore is a politician. Where is the news there? It's not relevant. I guess the implication is that everyone who is concerned about the possibility of human-induced climate change is naive enough to take everything Al Gore says as Truth. I suppose it's fine to speculate about the motivations of Al Gore. Maybe you're even correct. There are many non-naive, intelligent people who are concerned about the possibility of climate change for whom Al Gore is simply another irritating politician.

I don't find those arguments very compelling.

"The alarmists routinely cite the IPCC as a gold standard. But now, even their "most pessimistic...projections" are wrong."

I'm not a climate scientist and admittedly not even an expert on the IPCC report, but from the books I've read that summarize the conclusions, the IPCC scientists did not make projections, they assessed probabilities of various climate scenarios based on variety of climate models. Scenario probabilities are not the same thing as projections.

"So should we trust the IPCC, or not?"

Everyone needs to decide what actions to take based on all the information they have, from the IPCC and elsewhere. Every source of information will have mistakes, flaws, etc. If you discount everything from the IPCC because of something being wrong, then you simply can't trust anyone, because there is no infallible source of information.

" "estimates that sea level rise may be triple what scientists projected just two years ago"

Does this correspond to reality?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/"

Again my understanding is that the IPCC assesment was about long-term probabilities, not short-term changes.

"If they can't get something this simple right, then they have no credibility in my judgement."

What is simple about climate predictions?

I do agree that the alarmist approach (such as Al Gore's) is not the right way to go. On the other hand, you can find equally vapid (and essentially alarmist) arguments published on the other side of the issue. See this gem as an example:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319849127145558

Wouldn't it be great if we just focused on data and tried to assess risk in an objective and as dispassionate a way humanly possible? I guess that's just too boring for most people. Raising alarms and name calling is much more exciting.

For all of you fighting hard against fixing "global warming" I invite you to read what this very respected economist says we should all be working on. He is building a coalition of powerful leaders that will be deciding what to do to replace the Kyoto protocol.

Now, I ask you to put any thoughts about the actual climate situation on the backburner and just concentrate on what he is suggesting we do. Then I would like you to imagine that a new Kyoto-like protocol is agreed upon and completed by the 2050 timeframe.

Think about how this would effect petroleum use and reduce the power that petroleum export nations would have. Think about the reduction of smog, pollution around petrochemical plants (cancer ally) and how it would improve many nation's energy independence.

After you have done all that, I would like to ask you why you are fighting so hard against fixing global warming. Would not the fight against global warming solve many of the problems that are very important to you? Name an economic, environmental, national security, etc. problem that you care about and how the proposed solution would help that. That's all I'm asking.

It appears that many people are actually fighting someone that is handing them a 100 dollar bill. You are at the restaurant and someone is offering to pay the bill. You get angry and start arguing why they should not do it. That you personally would like to pay the bill. Only you are not doing it to be polite. That's how I see it! The fight against global warming should address your other concerns at the same time! It's politically correct and other nations and powerful people will find it hard to oppose these activities. Here is the new article:


Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario

"CAPE TOWN, South Africa – If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said..."


"...If the world's nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve "zero-carbon" electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 — by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other "clean" energy"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_sc/af_climate_stranded


Why are you fighting against this?!!! Cut it out!




Why are you fighting against this?!!! Cut it out!

1. China Not playing the game
2. India Na, not happening.

That makes your, our, my puny contribution meaningless, even if it actually did anyting. Which it won't. If you really feel that way, enclose yourself in a sealed body bag and swallow a bottle of sleeping pills. Then you have removed a real source of pollution and guilt.

3. Look at these.....

https://www.slapchop.com/ver11/index.asp

https://www.shamwow.com/ver8/index.asp

PDT, when I said I was going to add you to my ignore list six months ago, you asked why. It's because you, nor I will ever change our minds. You are an intelligent and well meaning individual, but it's a waste of time. Nothing personal. Time marches on. For both of us. Save it for your family and kids. I am. :)

1. China Not playing the game
2. India Na, not happening.

That makes your, our, my puny contribution meaningless, even if it actually did anyting. Which it won't. If you really feel that way, enclose yourself in a sealed body bag and swallow a bottle of sleeping pills. Then you have removed a real source of pollution and guilt.

3. Look at these.....

https://www.slapchop.com/ver11/index.asp

https://www.shamwow.com/ver8/index.asp








I fail to see your humor with those offensive remarks as well as the stupid links to a vegetable chopper and a towel that absorbs water. What the heck is wrong with you?

Also, you are talking about two developing nations that have millions of people without even the basics of life. Just look at China and India as in the same boat we were in about 100 years ago. They are just trying to industrialize and modernize their countries. How can you even think it's the same situation as with the developed world? Most of their population make less than a $1 a day! Get real.

China is spending $35 billion on new energy infrastructure including two nuclear power plants and are expected to recover from the global economic downturn before we do. All you have to do is read what they are doing to see that their situation is far different from a mature and developed country. You are blaming China? lol. We use about 20 times more energy per person than they do! Your ignorance is unbelievable!


How about this article showing that China has plans to install the most solar of any nation? More than the U.S. All this from a developing country.

http://venturebeat.com/2008/12/30/china-is-the-biggest-plans-set-for-a-gigawatt-of-solar-panels/

China is aware of the situation and knows they have to develop a renewable energy policy but they have the right to build out their economy to at least the level of the U.S. Don't they? How come we have the right to burn so much energy but they don't. Folks, the **** is going to hit the fan soon about petroleum and we are all going to have to work together. The sooner we start moving towards using renewable energy to power our grids and transportation fleets the better. We don't need China and India to match our efforts to be successful. We don't have to wait for them to comply. To me it's just an excuse to do nothing. Do we want China to be the leader or do you think we, with our wealth and power, should take on a leadership role? I think we should. If we do, the rest of the world will follow and we will also have the advantage of being first to market.

Global warming, Saudi Arabia, Iraq war, terrorism, energy independence, pollution reduction, South America dictators, toxic waste, etc. Pick one or more from the list and let's get to work. We need to reduce our global petroleum use or things are going to get worse. Putting up solar panels to power smart grids and electrified transportation is the way to go. Small efforts towards this are better than nothing. Action is better than inaction. leaving China and India behind is better than waiting for them to climb aboard. They can catch up later and we will provide them the technology. Heck, we all know they will be the ones that produce the renewable energy products.

Using China and India as your reason not to do anything? What a joke. It's even more ridiculous than your lame body bag comment. Oh, if someone put themselves in a sealed body bag wouldn't they be dead way before the sleeping pills took effect? Think OPEC SUCKS, think!

PDT, when I said I was going to add you to my ignore list six months ago, you asked why. It's because you, nor I will ever change our minds. You are an intelligent and well meaning individual, but it's a waste of time. Nothing personal. Time marches on. For both of us. Save it for your family and kids. I am. :)

I forgot about my intelligent and well-meaning nature condemning me to be ignored. Just to keep the record straight, I frequently change my mind. It's necessary to do so as new information is presented. So, please speak for yourself in that regard.

"What is simple about climate predictions?"


Anyone can make a predicition. Backing it up is a little harder.

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/FAQ.html

I forgot about my intelligent and well-meaning nature condemning me to be ignored. Just to keep the record straight, I frequently change my mind. It's necessary to do so as new information is presented.


I think your wrong on this one OPEC. I firmly believe I will live to see pdt converted.

I think your wrong on this one OPEC. I firmly believe I will live to see pdt converted.

I also think there will be a day when Mike756 and I agree on this topic. Hopefully we'll both be driving Volts and it won't be too far in the future.

My favorite climate-change related website:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Whatever your position on the issue, there are some really silly arguments on the "skeptic" side.

I actually think it's kind of interesting to think about what it would take to change my climate-change risk assessment. What if there were a climate model that accurately reproduced past climate changes (global temperatures, CO2 levels, glacier cover, etc.), say back 300,000 years, and projected future climate changes due to human generated CO2 and 99% of climate scientists agreed with the foundations of the model? Would that be convincing? Would you adjust your risk-assessment based on that? If I saw such a thing and the model predicted no impact of human generated CO2 (or a positive one), I would definitely adjust my assessment of the risks of CO2.

If CO2 were not an issue, then the moral question of using fossil energy at our current rate would reduce to the other environmental damages (especially from coal and other sources like tar sands and oil shale) they cause as well as the consequences of building an unsustainable living standard and population (and the environmental damage caused by large populations, such as water supply depletion, soil degredation, etc.) on the currently abundant energy sources that we know will be depleted, leaving a huge population with a damaged environment and insured decline in living standards. In short, we would still have ample reason to change our behavior even without the issue of climate-change risk. As Herman E. Daly points out, we need to bootstrap our way into a sustainable energy infrastructure now while energy is cheap. But I suppose sustainability is another topic altogether.

You guys take yourselfs way too seriously. You have no background in this. You just absorb what leans your way. Al Gore. McLovin. Whatever. So be it. I do not take you seriously. Seriously. You are preaching to your own choir. Have you hugged your dog today ?? Spent any time with your family ?? [IMG]

Watch this. It is us. You and I. You will not learn anything here. It's stupid. When are you laying down 30 big for your VOLT ?? :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4215496701990923822

Watch this. It is us. You and I. You will not learn anything here. It's stupid. When are you laying down 30 big for your VOLT ?? :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4215496701990923822

I learned how to count in base 5 and convert it to base 10.

Now that we have a president that is intelligent enough to know that global warming is real, the jerks and flat earth morons on this board can go sing into the wind.

You lose. Go away. And have a miserable next 8 years as you are made more and more irrelevant. Why? Because you are stupid for ignoring science! You must be GM engineers.

Now that we have a president that is intelligent enough to know that global warming is real, the jerks and flat earth morons on this board can go sing into the wind.

You lose. Go away. And have a miserable next 8 years as you are made more and more irrelevant. Why? Because you are stupid for ignoring science! You must be GM engineers.

You would really be better served to let other liberals do your speaking for you. All you seem capable of doing is spewing garbage, instead of engaging in intelligent conversation.

You would really be better served to let other liberals do your speaking for you. All you seem capable of doing is spewing garbage, instead of engaging in intelligent conversation.

Garbage? The facts are the facts. Do you honestly think that the flat earth morons on this board are more informed than the world's best and brightest climatologists? What a joke!

Flat earth opinions like yours were fine when you had your evil moron and Dr. No in the White House. Not anymore. I hope you are miserable as Obama addresses global warming. He will. The earth wins and YOU LOSE.

lol, you guys are falling for this Republican posing as a militant environmentalist. lol

It has been my experience that an intelligent liberal or environmentalist is far more tolerant and understanding of the slightly screwed up belief structure of conservatives and Republicans.

Anyone looking in from the outside (as I like to think I do) can see that the Republicans are deeply embarrassed and saddened by their current political irrelevancy and often lash out like a wounded dog. Their childish behavior is more pitiful than respectable. They are digging their grave even faster than if they did what is necessary and make major changes to their ideology.


I'm no politician but I can read the tea leaves for them. They read:

Change or die.


The younger generation went almost completely with the Democrats. No, not because Obama is a better TV star (of course he is) but because they like his message better. It just makes more sense to them in every way. Social and fiscal responsibility and improved rights for people.

Republicans need to stop hating the environment, alternative energy, homosexuals, people of different religions and races, trying to oppress huge groups of people, enacting legislation that makes their buddies rich, starting wars, firing up unsustainable economies, etc. Am I missing anything?

Let's just say that the Republican party has a long way to go before the next presidential elections. They are praying that Obama screws up royally. Otherwise, they will have to wait eight more years for another slim chance. Their current actions are so childish it's embarrassing. Everyone knows the Republicans want failure.

I don't worry so much about what Obama and friends do so much as I worry about what the Republicans will try to do to prevent success. It's like the oil companies trying to kill the electric car. Same exact motivation.

I want the Republicans to clean up their act. A competitive and active two party system is better than a one party system. As long as they can keep the eye on the prize of making America a better place for everyone then things should be fine. Acting like sore losers and trying for revenge will hurt everyone including their own families.

Garbage? The facts are the facts. Do you honestly think that the flat earth morons on this board are more informed than the world's best and brightest climatologists? What a joke!

Flat earth opinions like yours were fine when you had your evil moron and Dr. No in the White House. Not anymore. I hope you are miserable as Obama addresses global warming. He will. The earth wins and YOU LOSE.

It's not the material, it's your manner of portrayal. I welcome a discussion of the issues, not a whiny, self-congratulatory pile of crap. Go drink some more of your partisan Kool-Aid. All you do is create division and rife. Do you serve any good purpose by existing?

It's not the material, it's your manner of portrayal. I welcome a discussion of the issues, not a whiny, self-congratulatory pile of crap. Go drink some more of your partisan Kool-Aid. All you do is create division and rife. Do you serve any good purpose by existing?

I always get a kick out of right-wing crackpots who think that they are smarter than the combined conclusions endorsed by 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

I know, your hair dresser works for Exxon and watches the Weather Channel. Whoop-di-doo!

Don't flatter yourself, right-wing wacko. All you know could fit on the end of pin.

I always get a kick out of right-wing crackpots who think that they are smarter than the combined conclusions endorsed by 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

I know, your hair dresser works for Exxon and watches the Weather Channel. Whoop-di-doo!

Don't flatter yourself, right-wing wacko. All you know could fit on the end of pin.
See what I mean? You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are not discussing anything worthwhile - you are just namecalling and wasting bandwidth.

Why don't you bring something worthwhile to the table, for once? I don't even believe you are capable of civilized, intelligent discussion. Prove me wrong, if you can. Show us all your "game".

Try to find a scientific journal artical on the amount or quatity of "greenhose gas" emmitted by the 2008 NORTHERN California wildfires. Those of 2007 were a fraction of the 2008 fires. They got all the attention because they burned more homes in the more densely populated Southern regions of the state. Just want to point out that if it doesn't fit the hysteria mold, it isn't news. Time marches on....

One journal article states that 4 small 2007 fires contributed more than all the cars of the entire state for all year.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/080622_g11_vis_anim.gif

stop behaving like a child....

All your base are belong to us........

Try to find a scientific journal artical on the amount or quatity of "greenhose gas" emmitted by the 2008 NORTHERN California wildfires. Those of 2007 were a fraction of the 2008 fires. They got all the attention because they burned more homes in the more densely populated Southern regions of the state. Just want to point out that if it doesn't fit the hysteria mold, it isn't news. Time marches on....

One journal article states that 4 small 2007 fires contributed more than all the cars of the entire state for all year.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/080622_g11_vis_anim.gif

If you weren't ignoring me, I'd first say, "so what?" Then I'd clarify that annoying retort by pointing out that plant-life grows back in the same spot and re-absorbs CO2. Cars never re-absorb CO2.

OPEC Sucks: "Try to find a scientific journal artical on the amount or quatity of "greenhose gas" emmitted by the 2008 NORTHERN California wildfires."

Curiously enough, wildfires, deforestation and the effects are included in the IPCC report. There are lots of on-point citations. If you're looking for a "scientific journal artical" such things and how they relate to "greenhose gas", you might look there for some help.

I can't imagine how you overlooked that.

OPEC Sucks: "Try to find a scientific journal artical on the amount or quatity of "greenhose gas" emmitted by the 2008 NORTHERN California wildfires."

Curiously enough, wildfires, deforestation and the effects are included in the IPCC report. There are lots of on-point citations. If you're looking for a "scientific journal artical" such things and how they relate to "greenhose gas", you might look there for some help.

I can't imagine how you overlooked that.

I don't know why anyone would overlook the 2007 IPCC report to find out the "[quantity] of "greenhose gas" [emitted] by the 2008 NORTHERN California wildfires."

PDT, you are not on the ignore list. :) I said the media never reports any GHG from the fires. That is the issue. None, nada, zilch. And the amount is never quantified. Just as I said. Burn 100-year old trees. They are not replaced in mass or in CO2 quantity for a long, long time. They just don't "re-grow". Come awn. And cars do re-grow CO2. It's in the new tires !!!

[QUOTE]Curiously enough, wildfires, deforestation and the effects are included in the IPCC report. There are lots of on-point citations./QUOTE]

They are included as a result of AGW, not the cause.

Anyone, please go find and post the amount of GHG released by the 2008 Northern California fires, please. And if you do, please compare it to the amount of "human" CO2 from the state of California for the same time period. I have one source. But it is about 2007. Just pointing out media hysteria is tunnel vision one way. Their way. Natural CO2 far outweighs "man made" CO2, and the amount is highly variable.

There are simple analogies to illustrate why a small new in-flow to large in/out flows start changing levels, but this is the unofficial, 25th-most popular skeptic argument, so I'll just point out this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm (this site saves so much debate time!)

Obviously the scientific community recognizes all the various contributions to CO2 flow from natural processes like forest fires as well as the man-made flow of CO2 from carbon sinks that were generated over millions of years that are now being put back in the atmosphere in a few decades.

No reports on the Fires. And it's not a small amount. The amount of "GHG" released by the 2008 fires exceed the AGG of California FOR THE WHOLE YEAR.

Obviously the scientific community recognizes all the various contributions to CO2 flow from natural processes like forest fires as well as the man-made flow of CO2 from carbon sinks that were generated over millions of years that are now being put back in the atmosphere in a few decades.

Your unwavering faith in the omnipotence of the scientific community is astounding.

No reports on the Fires. And it's not a small amount. The amount of "GHG" released by the 2008 fires exceed the AGG of California FOR THE WHOLE YEAR.

As I said, fires are an natural source of CO2 that will result in re-absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere as regrowth occurs where the fires took place.

Your unwavering faith in the omnipotence of the scientific community is astounding.

This is a topic I've given some thought to over the last few years. Since you bring it up, I'll share some of those thoughts. Usually I try to be brief, but since this is a philosophical question...

I don't have faith in the conclusions of the scientific community at any given point in time, but I do have faith in the scientific method as a means to understand nature. I call it faith because I can't prove that everything in nature can be understood with science. Science does have a good track record of doing just that however.

The idea that no scientist ever proposed natural fires as a source of CO2 is unlikely given the number of scientists thinking about the problem. It's easy enough to find out by searching the scientific literature, keeping in mind that fires might not be labeled fires, but might be considered just one part of the natural carbon cycle, which they are.

I wouldn't be surprised if an individual scientist or research group did not properly account for certain effects in a particular model. But when that model is published, it will be scrutinized by other groups of scientists looking for what is wrong with it (because their model is better, right?) and either point the flaws out, or improve their own model to be better based on the assessment. Science is not perfect at every moment and scientists are never perfect, but it is a self-correcting system that has been shown to improve our understanding of nature over time.

I tend to look at scientific conclusions with a skeptical eye, as I believe a good scientist should do, even for their own conclusions (that's probably the hardest thing to do). Questions must continue to be asked and new and improved experiments, observations, and models devised. Unfortunately, as citizens, and as a society as a whole, we can't wait for the scientific end game when the uncertainties are infinitely small. We need to make decisions today based on the best available information.

When there are large scientific uncertainties and the wisdom of the status quo is in question, it isn't surprising that people come to different conclusions based on the same data.

This is an interesting topic with many related threads. I'm interested to know what other people think.

So your saying, in effect, that in this particular instance, natural CO2 outweighs man made, but it's OK. It's re-absorbed by vegetative regrowth. And that the smaller amount of Man Made CO2 is a potential catastrophe ??

Not really where I wanted to go. I wanted to point out the disparity in the media. CO2 is CO2, irrespective of provenance. To the nth insane degree, will we regulate the CO2 in my beer ?? I'd hate to have to move to the hard stuff or chemicals. We may need that as fuel !!!

CO2 is not the enemy. It is a critical part of the carbon cycle that sustains life on this planet. The earth has an incredible capacity to absorb CO2 and sequester the carbon in it. It has done so for millions of years. Coal is fossilized plant humic materiel which permanently sequesters CO2 that was once in the atmosphere. When it is combusted, the carbon combines with the oxygen in the atmosphere and produces CO2. The same thing happens when wood or any other fuel is combusted.

Until the last 100 years, the earth had more capacity to absorb CO2 than was produced, as evidenced in air samples take from the polar ice packs. However that has apparently changed because now data indicates we are producing more CO2 than the natural carbon cycle can absorb and sequester. This is because we have not taken a systems approach to carbon management. The point being we could if we wanted -- we have the technology to bring the carbon cycle back into balance. If we don't bring the carbon cycle back into balance, the big question is how will the earth react to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, and more importantly, will it react in a way that is conducive to human life?

In case you missed my point, common sense says we need a systems approach that balances the carbon cycle. If we release more CO2 than the earth can presently absorb, we need to balance the equation by using technology to absorb that extra CO2. Too hard and to expensive? It could be done with humic acid derived from coal (of all things), applied to non-arable land, to make it arable. Then we could simply plant trees on it. Ever wonder what the rich soil in the Amazon is made of? Humic material. What is the most abundant source of humic material? Coal. Think I’m making it up? Read the links below.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-55516.html

http://www.arctech.com/actosol.htm

http://www.arctech.com/humasorb.htm

http://www.arctech.com/micgas.htm

So your saying, in effect, that in this particular instance, natural CO2 outweighs man made, but it's OK. It's re-absorbed by vegetative regrowth. And that the smaller amount of Man Made CO2 is a potential catastrophe ??


Exactly, because we don't currently have plans to extract any CO2 to balance out the CO2 we're putting in. It took millions of years for nature to store the carbon we are putting back into the system over a few decades. Climate scientists are trying to estimate the consequences of the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere without any plans to take it back out.



Not really where I wanted to go. I wanted to point out the disparity in the media. CO2 is CO2, irrespective of provenance. To the nth insane degree, will we regulate the CO2 in my beer ?? I'd hate to have to move to the hard stuff or chemicals. We may need that as fuel !!!

"The Media" is a different topic altogether. My only comment there is that it does seem to be hard to find honest journalism.

In the big picture though, there are natural processes that lead to variations in atmospheric CO2 levels. Pumping oil and digging coal to burn it is something we are doing that is different from what has happened in the past.

I tend to look at scientific conclusions with a skeptical eye, as I believe a good scientist should do, even for their own conclusions (that's probably the hardest thing to do). Questions must continue to be asked and new and improved experiments, observations, and models devised. Unfortunately, as citizens, and as a society as a whole, we can't wait for the scientific end game when the uncertainties are infinitely small. We need to make decisions today based on the best available information.

Interesting. On the one hand you say that we as well thinking individuals should always ask questions and maintain a skeptical outlook. On the other hand, it seems, you are calling for those with a skeptical outlook to submit blindly to those who are no longer skeptical.

I personally believe that we continue to ask the wrong questions when it comes to climate change and "global warming". I think it's time we move passed maintaining some idealistic status quo by limiting ourselves in what we do and the things that we emit. Before we go forward with implementing policies that will not have any measurable effect on our environment for decades, but will have a measurable effect on our economy, we need to come to a firm understanding of what it is that we actually want our world to be like. We are the stewards of the planet. As the stewards we need to move away from asking ourselves how we can limit our technology so that we do not have an effect upon the planet, to how do we use our technology to bring about a planetary environment in which we can thrive and prosper and so can the other species.

My impression has been that for too long the arguments have come from a place of self-loathing whose only desire seems to be the end of progress. Our ability to adapt to our environment makes us resilient animals. Our ability to adapt our environment to our needs makes us human. We should take the next step in adapting our environment and begin managing it.

Interesting. On the one hand you say that we as well thinking individuals should always ask questions and maintain a skeptical outlook. On the other hand, it seems, you are calling for those with a skeptical outlook to submit blindly to those who are no longer skeptical.

I'm not the best communicator, so I'm sure I'm at fault for not being clear. I am saying we should all be skeptical, but after you ask the questions you need to look for the answers. Many of the arguments and questions made by those who conclude there is no risk of climate change caused by human burning of fossil fuels have been addressed or answered by scientific data. Yet those same questions get raised over and over again as if there is no data to answer them. I don't remember asking anyone to blindly believe, I always try to provide links or references to literature to find data. I will try to do a better job of clarifying my arguments and providing supporting data.

To be clear, all I'm saying is that my assessment after reading about the topic is that there is reason to be concerned about the risk of serious and rapid changes in climate due to our current rate of injection of fossil carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, I'm sharing my assessment and trying to provide references to the sources of information that have informed my assessment.



I personally believe that we continue to ask the wrong questions when it comes to climate change and "global warming". I think it's time we move passed maintaining some idealistic status quo by limiting ourselves in what we do and the things that we emit. Before we go forward with implementing policies that will not have any measurable effect on our environment for decades, but will have a measurable effect on our economy, we need to come to a firm understanding of what it is that we actually want our world to be like. We are the stewards of the planet. As the stewards we need to


I couldn't agree more about this. We don't even talk about what we'd like our planet to look like, let along how we attain that goal, what the priorities should be, etc. I have my own opinions...



move away from asking ourselves how we can limit our technology so that we do not have an effect upon the planet, to how do we use our technology to bring about a planetary environment in which we can thrive and prosper and so can the other species.

My impression has been that for too long the arguments have come from a place of self-loathing whose only desire seems to be the end of progress. Our ability to adapt to our environment makes us resilient animals. Our ability to adapt our environment to our needs makes us human. We should take the next step in adapting our environment and begin managing it.

I can't deny that I see some self-loathing, but I don't know many people who want to stop progress. I'm not saying there aren't any. I just don't know many of them. Still, progress is only really well defined when you know the target you're shooting for. As you pointed out, we don't really talk about what we'd like our world to look like, so measuring progress is difficult.

I believe we need to be very conservative about managing our environment in a vastly different way than nature does, since our uncertainty about the outcomes is relatively high. When I say conservative, I mean that we probably should not be doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in 100 years when we really can't be certain what will happen after we do that. You wouldn't double the salt concentration in your child's blood if you didn't know what would happen if you did it (turns out, we do know, and your child would die. it's an imperfect, but interesting analogy since blood-sodium levels are relatively low and necessary for life, but changing the concentrations significantly can cause serious health problems including death).

There was Mann. And he foundered. Aimlessly, endlessly, wandering. A poor graduate student, with no money, no credibility. Then he discovered statisitcs, and lo, he saw that it was good. He applied them to his show, and lo, people began to listen. Then there was Al Gore, and he saw the light. And Al made it happen. And was born the Hockey stick graph. And it pleased them. And it was the gospel of the land.

Try to read this guys. Even if you are not a numbers guy, I am not either, I think there is enough there to put some of this to sleep. I think you can realize this is the real deal. FWIW I have Mcintyre's book written for the lay person. It kills the evil little larvae in it's nest. If you expose the headline banner of global warming as a fraud, then the rest pretty much becomes specious also. All that Mann has ever been able to say is that Mcintyre is an oil industry shill. Not much of a technical rebuttal.

PDT, please give this a try. :) :)

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

OPEC Sucks, you flattter yourself to think you're the first person to find that link.

What Climate Audit fails to mention though is:

1 - McIntyre and McKitrick's noise was just that noise. All the nonsense about "computer codes, etc, was, in fact, nonsense. Mann eventually went and re-did the work and - voila! Same result. All the insinuations about bias came to nothing at all.

2 - There are 8 or 9 other hockey sticks in the latest IPCC report. Even if Mann's work was faulty in some way, 8 or 9 other teams came to the same conclusions, using different data and techniques. Now, Climate Audit knows this but - hah, how about that - they never do mention that, do they? They're presuming that you're too dim and lazy to bother looking further or that you've got your own agenda and one convenient excuse to dismiss ACC is all you need.

The hockey stick lives.

I don't remember asking anyone to blindly believe, I always try to provide links or references to literature to find data. I will try to do a better job of clarifying my arguments and providing supporting data.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Perhaps I've read too many of the post's by Texas and there was a malfunction in my brain :).


To be clear, all I'm saying is that my assessment after reading about the topic is that there is reason to be concerned about the risk of serious and rapid changes in climate due to our current rate of injection of fossil carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, I'm sharing my assessment and trying to provide references to the sources of information that have informed my assessment.

I agree that there is reason to be concerned about things, but I believe that the current discussion has become to politicized and on the one side our choice is to believe that the end of the world is tomorrow and on the other, our choice is that everything is hunky dory. After reading what I have time to, I believe that in the national/political arena that both sides are wrong and, as I said above, we need to change the debate. I don't see any real progress being made without changing the debate. I fear that if we don't change it and we continue on the path that the current Congress is trying to set and that Al Gore wants us to follow, the changes will be too much and we will swing back around to the Global Cooling that everyone was afraid of in the 70s. This fear is probably irrational.


I couldn't agree more about this. We don't even talk about what we'd like our planet to look like, let along how we attain that goal, what the priorities should be, etc. I have my own opinions...



I can't deny that I see some self-loathing, but I don't know many people who want to stop progress. I'm not saying there aren't any. I just don't know many of them. Still, progress is only really well defined when you know the target you're shooting for. As you pointed out, we don't really talk about what we'd like our world to look like, so measuring progress is difficult.

I believe we need to be very conservative about managing our environment in a vastly different way than nature does, since our uncertainty about the outcomes is relatively high. When I say conservative, I mean that we probably should not be doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in 100 years when we really can't be certain what will happen after we do that. You wouldn't double the salt concentration in your child's blood if you didn't know what would happen if you did it (turns out, we do know, and your child would die. it's an imperfect, but interesting analogy since blood-sodium levels are relatively low and necessary for life, but changing the concentrations significantly can cause serious health problems including death).

Couldn't agree with you more.

Dagwood, thanks for nice post. Too dim or lazy. Thats flattery. You must be looking in the mirror. So, what in your background or qualifications makes you understand any better than I do the discussion of the data ? What do you know that I don't ?

You are just like Mann, and Greenman for that matter, Ad Hominen attacks, but not dealing with the issue at all. Are you saying you can discredit Mcintyre ? Discredit his report shown above ? Wow !! Please do so. Here. Now. I can't. But his qualifications are far superior to Mann's, and he does not purport to be a climatologist. He is a numbers authority, and he is simply saying the math is funny. He went after Mann because his work will not pass even the simplest test of validity. Mann's support is from the IPCC. That is not peer review, it's a defense of itself. Childish, really. The IPCC is like having Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Not acceptable or credible. Thats right, they are a fraud. Same UN that guarded the people in Bosnia. You can trust them, but I won't even give them the chance to try. End of story.

I do not claim do be a data modeler. But I have done some real simple groundwater and chemical modeling in the distant past. An Excel macro that modeled groundwater. The "program" was accepted by the State of California Water Resources Control Board for inclusion in a methodology called "Risk Based Corrective Action". So, I could spend a client's money, collect data. Have samples tested under chain of custody/legal challenge protocol and have certified testing done on it. My name and license on it. And then I got to play back in the office with the expensive software I convinced my boss to purchase. I didn't have to cheat. But it would be real easy to pull some whopper numbers out of thin air if you wanted to get funny. It mad me skeptic of "modeling". It's not science. It's what you do when you don't have science.

PDT, if you had done what I did, if you had shared a similar experience, I'd wager you would agree with me now. I have found links with real data, Graybills tree ring CO2 data, but at that level, you have to join or pay :)

PDT, if you had done what I did, if you had shared a similar experience, I'd wager you would agree with me now. I have found links with real data, Graybills tree ring CO2 data, but at that level, you have to join or pay :)

I must have missed something because I'm totally lost on this one.

OPEC Sucks: "Dagwood, thanks for nice post."

You're welcome.

Now, let's see... If you read my note carefully, I did not say you are lazy and/or dim. I pointed out that there are 8 or 9 other hockey sticks, done by different teams all pointing in the same direction. This is a verifiable fact. Climate Audit acts like it's OK to throw doubt onto ONE of these hockey sticks and call it a day. What ARE they presuming about the intellectual honesty and vigor of those who visit the site and then throw around references to it? You tell me.

McIntyre and McKitrick... I can have my doubts about their motivation but I do know that they have some command of stats processing. In any event, if you read the paper, what it is is a reasonable effort to criticize the statistical methods that Mann used in developing his hockey stick (as I said, this does NOTHING for the other 8 or 9). Whether or not this criticism is VALID is another matter altogether. Any number of people, in testimony before Congress and other places, take up the cudgels on behalf of Mann. Most of his peers believe his work is accurate and correct. There's quite a lot of discussion to be found (for those that WANT to find it) about what this criticism of Mann amounts to.

Now, we wander from one "conservative" site to another and we find multiple references to McIntyre and McKitrick, all with the breathless promise that this one paper shows Mann's work to be entirely wrong or fraudulent, when, in fact, no such thing is proven (never mind the 8 or 9 other hockey sticks). McIntyre and McKitrick are entitled to their opinion but Mann actually got stats help when doing his original work (that's normal procedure) and their opinion does not disprove his results. It might reveal a flaw or problem but that's how these things go... the criticisms are read, if they seem sensible they are acted on and the sciences actually progresses.

So, I bring these things out into the open.

You on the other hand, have accused Mann and the IPCC of fraud, intellectual dishonesty, laziness and opportunism, if not outright greed.

Yet, YOU are whining about "ad hominem" attacks?

I think I have far more faith in the IPCCs intellectual honesty than in the intellectual honesty of some others. It may interest you to know the McIntyre and McKitrick have written about other aspects of ACC and some of their criticisms have been accepted and used to correct earlier data and reports. They are actually cited in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

Then again, it may not interest you to know this because it would upset your precious preconceived notion that the IPCC and Mann are all a bunch of frauds.

Compare the trends. The real source of global warming. :)

A better correlation than any IPCC "data"

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/EnvironmentalRegs.jpg

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/hockey-stick-temperature.jpg


Lighten up !!! :eek:

I have no intention, whatever, of lightening up.

And I don't consider the chart to be funny at all. Without those environmental regs you're making fun of, the air in our major cities would be unbreathable.

As a child, I lived, at one time or another, near two major rivers, which were both polluted beyond belief.

You can now fish or swim in either one. And eat the fish. They don't smell like sewers any more.

I call that progress.

Acheter des Achetel dofus kamas (http://www.dofus-vip.com), ici dofus kamas à bon marché, une livraison rapide et sécurisée et un bon service vous attendent.

You people do realize that Oil / fuel came from solar energy right?

Apparently Explosive Lithium Ion, Lead Acid, Nickel Medal Hydride, or whatever else you wan to use to store energy is apparently somehow less damaging to the environment then refining oil / burning gasoline?

I don't know? Mabye it is?

Does burning a wax candle produce more polution then the equivelant spent energy in unleaded gasoline passing through a cat?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for EV... Build a Nuclear reactor, and charge up....