Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming


Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

I think the sun has a LOT more to do with our temperature, than our activity does. If we see temperatures continue to trend downward, or stay at comparable levels to this past year, then we'll have seen all the temperature rises negated. Thus 'global warming' will be negated.

In the 70's it was (really, it was) Global Cooling! In the 80's, it was Acid Rain! In the 90's it was the Hole in the Ozone Layer! In the 00's, it's Global Warming! What will it be in the '10s?

(regardless, I still support the Volt, and, well, anything that will get us off of foreign oil. I support EVs, I support wind and solar power... and MORE NUKE POWER!!)

The new lie.

First Global Warming was a myth made up by tree huggers.

Then it was real, but not man made.

Now it's probably man made, but the sun plays a bigger role.

Yes yes, and cigarettes only cause cancer in rats and have never been proven to be harmful to humans.

Climate change will see fluxuations in temperature. It isn't a solid march toward over heating. You'll see bad winters, you'll see bad storms. That doesn't disprove the direction that the temperature is taking.

I've said this a million times, but the Dems made a huge mistake creating and perpetuating the myth of global warming. If they simply stuck with a pollution argument, and dared to make a national security and economic argument about importing foreign oil, then there cause would have moved forward years ago.

Personally I am more worried about global cooling. Another ice age is inevitable. We need to heat this puppy up to survive it.

But the data is anything but conclusive and the tree huggers only seem to believe the data that support their position.

Personally I am more worried about global cooling. Another ice age is inevitable. We need to heat this puppy up to survive it.

But the data is anything but conclusive and the tree huggers only seem to believe the data that support their position.

Sooner than an ice age is the documented phenomenon of global dimming. There was a documentary that showed conclusively that high altitude jet aircrafts jetcons were putting a condensing mist high up in the atmosphere, causing less sunlight to reach the Earth. This will only worsen as 2nd and 3rd world economies increase air travel and shipping.

I'm up in Canada and it can get pretty cold up here sometimes and I really don't want it getting any colder!!

It looks like it's time to scrap all these alternative energy projects, hybrid vehicles and other junk and bring back the big block V8's of the the good old days. Anyone know any good Hummer forums?? I don't want a Volt anymore if it means I'm going to freeze more often when I step out the door.

with gas aproaching $4.00 a gal I want a VOLT

The responses on this thread bring up a good point. Regardless of what the best (and most) scientists of the world think if there is a cold winter storm that hits many people will say, "Oh, there is no problem, those scientist are crazy." Personally, I just follow what the best minds and the most respected people on earth have to say on the issue. They say the earth is warming up and humans are causing it. I then look around at all the oil we are burning, the pollution and think, hum. Could be. Of course I don't know for sure and there sure are a lot of people out there that swear there is no problem (governments, oil companies, industrial companies, etc.). However, I decided to stick with what the scientists say on this one. If they are wrong no big deal. If they are right and we do something about it then great. If they are right and we do nothing then that is just embarrassing and we deserve all the pain that happens.

Actually, I don't even use the Global Warming argument anymore. Other problems like peak oil (many people still don't believe that the US, UK, and more than 20 other countries have peaked - Despite conclusive data and reduction of production that follows the curve perfectly), having to buy oil from unstable governments, having to shovel loads of cash overseas, etc. are more than enough reasons for us to get moving now to solve our energy problems. That's why I feel change will happen. Everyone can find some reason not to want to use foreign oil or other non-renewable resourses.

One final comment. I believe many people are using the Global Warming argument because it is politically neutral. It's not attacking the oil companies, our friends in the Middle East, etc. It just sounds like they are tree huggers and harmless. I don't care what reason people use, as long as we get on the problem and solve it before there is war or natural disaster. Can we all agree that a world that uses fully renewable resources will be a lot nicer place to live that one that is always fighting over limited resources like oil, NG, coal, etc? If we can all agree on that then we can just move in the right direction. Of course it's fun to mock the liberals, democrats, republicans, tree huggers, etc. Let

The OP of this post is just posting lies. The data does not support that Global warming has been wiped out by one month of data. If you look at the data you will see that this January has been colder then the Januaries we've seen in the last 5 years or so. But it isn't colder then the average January. In fact, the coldest month we've had in a decade, just barely got back to the average temerpature for January in the years before that.

Nobody predicts that global warming will be straight line temerature increases. There will be fluxuations, just as there has been in the past. To judge the advance of global warming, you look at the average yearly temeratures and draw the line the represents the trend. That line is still going up and will keep going up no matter how many lies get spread by the fosil fuel apologists.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/79/did-global-warming-stop-in-january.html

Man-made Gobal warming is not only a myth, but worse,
it's a hoax. I am all for clean alternative fuels and can't wait to
be free of Big Oil and to have a vehicle which is emission free.

When I retire to KY, the area I live in has 100% hydroelectric power and is cheaper per kilowatt hour than many other places. I will save money and
the environment.

I don't need to be "frightened" into wanting a cleaner, more efficient
vehicle by chicken little nonsense such as "global warming." It's total crap.

Warming and cooling cycles are natural and are based on things like
solar output and ocean currents.

TexicanRadio

Man-made Gobal warming is not only a myth, but worse,
it's a hoax. I am all for clean alternative fuels and can't wait to
be free of Big Oil and to have a vehicle which is emission free.

When I retire to KY, the area I live in has 100% hydroelectric power and is cheaper per kilowatt hour than many other places. I will save money and
the environment.

I don't need to be "frightened" into wanting a cleaner, more efficient
vehicle by chicken little nonsense such as "global warming." It's total crap.

Warming and cooling cycles are natural and are based on things like
solar output and ocean currents.

TexicanRadio

Please site your data for this conclusion. The entire scientfic community disagrees with your positions and I'm sure they would like to be enlightened to this hoax.

Even President Bush's own cabinet agrees that man made global warming is real.


"Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.

"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

And the solar output arguement is for amatures as well.


However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

See, if it was the maximum that was causing the warming, why then is it also warming as we went thru the minimum? Head back and think up some more lies or compose your prayers for your grandchildren.

Man-made Gobal warming is not only a myth, but worse,
it's a hoax.

Warming and cooling cycles are natural and are based on things like
solar output and ocean currents.

TexicanRadio

Is that your professional opinion? How about we leave this topic for the big boys with the big degrees and bigger computers. Shall we? At least we should be humble enough to not be so sure of ourselves. ;)

It's the opinion of about half of the climate scientists,
of which I am admittedly not one, but I am educated.

The dissenting scientists are not having their salaries paid by
"Big Oil". Most are middle income or lower. It's the fear-mongers in
the scientific/academic community who get the big Grant Money.
Just read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton if you need
any more background. A novel to be sure, but very well-
researched and a dead-on accurate description of how
the Grant money flows towards the hysteria-mongers.

P.S. I worked in the chemical industry when Dupont floated
their "Freon will Destroy the Ozone layer" Nonsense
(The Ozone layer also fluctuates cyclically)--
ironically just before their patent on Freon ran out. They had a
new patented replacement ready and waiting. It was a huge
boondoggle...just like man-made global warming. I live in Houston TX and the air quality is not good. Most of that is from ICE pollution. To me, that is a good enough reason to want emission-free and Big-Oil free (EV) vehicles. I don't need a "chicken little scenario" to motivate me and I will gladly take a dirt nap before ever buying a "carbon credit." (I call them B.S. credits).
I rest my case. <G> (I kid, I am always open to debate).
Cheers,
TexicanRadio

The warming trends are complex.
Solar output is only one factor.
Ocean currents and many other factors come into play. How do you explain the warming trends that occurred before the industrial revolution? When it was warm enough for vineyards in England? We have had mini-ice ages, and we have had other warming trends that predate the industrial revolution and the increases in C02 levels.
(C02, contrary to popular belief is not a toxic chemical, but a natural gas necessary for plant-life and hence, all life on this planet.
Too much is probably not good, but it won't cause the
Antarctic to melt or sea levels to rise. Natural warming and cooling trends will continue as long as this planet exists and nothing man
does or doesn't do will affect it. Pollution and it's effect on health and the environment is another matter.

For the record, one half of the scientific (climate science) community does not equal the entire community. Al Gore is wrong.
The debate is NOT over, and Global Warming alarmists will eventually be revealed as the idiots they are. Meanwhile, lets have cleaner air, and get rid of ICE vehicles. I'm all for it. I just don't buy the "Man-made Global Warming" nonsense.

I could not care less what "W" or his cabinet say. He is always kissing up to the environmentalists or other groups in hopes it will make him more popular (it won't work). He and his cabinet are wrong on MANY issues (To include the Global Warming Hoax). I'll pray for my Grandchildren, but it will not be to protect them from Global Warming, but from Big Oil, Terrorism, continued de-industrialization of the USA from Manufacturing Outsourcing, ICE pollution in general, and other real problems.
TexicanRadio

Hey, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm just glad your opinion is in the minority. Think it or not it's going to be a huge world market and the US needs to lead the way in green technology or be a small player with small profits.

People have a few options. 1) Fully believe you and do nothing. The US does not get into the green technology market and misses a great opportunity to clean up our environment, reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources and move slowly to a more dire situation as those resources become more valuable (read more expensive) 2) Believe the majority of scientists (yes, I said majority and your 50% number is just flat out wrong) and get moving to develop new green technologies and be a leader in the world in cleaning up our mess and working towards a more sustainable existence. Slowly nations become more energy independent, clean up the smog in the atmosphere, etc. Select option one or option two. Hummmm. Tough decision. If you choose option one I would wonder where your loyalties lie.

Nevertheless, I'm not worried about people with your frame of mind. For one you are few and two the momentum for change is strong enough to more forward in a positive way (negative in your view). Oh, and if you wish to continue with this argument we can start talking numbers and organizations. For a good debate we need to first list under what conditions would you be willing to change your opinion. If there are no reasonable conditions (like disproving God) then debate is worthless. Agreed?

Well, I'm impressed by the new math always. When 5 or 6 schills can become half of the scientists in all the world, we've reached some new milestone in guilibility. These are the same scientist that told us smoking was not a health risk and there were no medical problems associated with agent orange.

But in the end, the problem isn't that some people can be bought and sold in their opinions, its that when they speak you want to believe them. You want to believe that there is no problem and that you in no way helped cause it. And in this desire you run from place to place until you find some con man that spits out an opinion or lie that you can parrot again and again. Facts be damned.

You take small things, like the natural cycle of warming from the solar maxium and you over blow their signifigance to validate your position. You talk about other warming periods, and yes they did happen, but the scope was far smaller then what we are looking at. But hey, like Texas says, thankfully your opinion is in the minority. May your family suffer the consequences of your actions.

The global warming thing has been overblown to the point of absurdity; see here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


Sustainable energy is very important, but the transition away from fossil fuels will take a long time. An equally important but much more urgent task is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty.

The global warming thing has been overblown to the point of absurdity; see here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


Sustainable energy is very important, but the transition away from fossil fuels will take a long time. An equally important but much more urgent task is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty.

Mike, Your comments show just how out of touch your logic is. First, please don`t list one link and think you have covered this most complex debate. Since most of the scientists in the world agree that we should start changing our ways then maybe we should listen. Maybe even start to plan for change. Nah, how about we read one article, forget about it and sleep better. Yeah, good plan.

Your second comment stating that the much more urgent task of bringing the rest of the world out of poverty just proves your thinking is backwards. Let`s say we bring everyone up to the average lifestyle of an American over the next few years. Sounds great yes? You did it! You solved the world`s most urgent problem. Oooops! There is not enough energy to satisfy their new modern lives. Not enough oil!!! Do you get this point? We can barely keep up now. We are going to be fighting soon enough over limited resources without having to add one more person to the equation. Please think this through. Our number one problem is to figure out our energy problems. After we learn to efficiently harness the sun and live in a sustainable way we will be able to then tackle the problems of education and poverty. Not before. It will only bring us to war that much faster. Understand? Energy!

I guess we all have our priorities. Sounds like yours is to screw the people in poverty until they can buy the solar panels. As far as the energy supply goes, you might be interested to know that the National Petroleum Council disagrees with you. Check out their report: Facing Hard Truths. Also I note that you equate energy with oil. I don't, I just said the transition from fossil fuels will take a long time.

I see you want more links about global warming. No problem; I've read a few. You can start here:

http://www.marshall.org
http://climatesci.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://icecap.us/
http://www.climateaudit.org/


Just so you know where I'm coming from, I operate nuclear power plants for a living and I've spent the better part of the last two years reading about energy and global warming.

So you worked at a nuclear power plant, don't equate energy with oil and feel there is more than enough energy to bring the world's poor out of poverty with no problems? Folks! I finally figured out who this is! It's... Homer Simpson! Doh!

P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist. So next are you going to list 10,000 links against global warming? If you do I can also list 10,000 links for it. What's your point? How about we start talking about the most credible references in the world? How about we talk about the world's top scientists? No? Just burry our heads and forget about the problem? Go setup industry in poor nations and get them moving on the path to riches and energy usage? Homer, go have another beer! ;)

"So you worked at a nuclear power plant, don't equate energy with oil and feel there is more than enough energy to bring the world's poor out of poverty with no problems?"

You don't even understand the arguement you are making. Oil is only ONE form of energy. There are many others, and yes, enough to go around. If you want to worship oil, you can do that over at The Oil Drum. The question is: do we use fossil fuels to help bring the world out of poverty? If we are to believe the alarmists, then we can't because it would destroy the world. So we either stop using it or make it so expensive, via carbon capture and storage, that only the wealthy can use it.

You say:


"After we learn to efficiently harness the sun and live in a sustainable way"

So clearly you think that we can live in a solar powered world. I agree that solar can supply a large portion of our needs. But, if this is our future, i.e. plenty of energy for everyone, then do you think the developing world will appreciate us artificially restricting the energy supply up to that point?


"Go setup industry in poor nations and get them moving on the path to riches and energy usage?"

What we need to to is get rid of idiotic policies that prevent them from doing it themselves. I wouldn't mind working in a different country though.


"If you do I can also list 10,000 links for it. What's your point?"

What was your point in complaining about the number of links I posted?

Have you finished reading Facing Hard Truths yet?

I'd rather have a beer with Homer than Al Gore any day.

Mike, More than one form of energy? I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. You are well informed. Oh, if you get the chance can you tell me what percentage of the world's powered transportation needs are filled by using oil? Around 95%? Really? Sound's like a small number. You really think oil is a small player in the world of energy? No problems if there is Peak. Simple fixes?

Oh, the old, "Don't feed them but teach them to farm." speech. Great! I have never heard that before. What happens when they learn how to buy a tractor and use it to increase their yields? Oh wait, does that tractor use oil products? Fertilizer? Oil? Insecticides? Oil? Why can't you simply admit that we can't do it right now? We only have so much world energy production capacity right now and bringing on new production takes time. If we are getting close to peak then not even the mighty Alberta tar sands are going to help us. I wish you would kindly show us your plan for satisfying current demand growth expectations AND the explosive demand growth needed to bring the poor up to first world standards. Timelines, energy sources, etc. Perhaps you are just going to continue supporting your weak (I'm being nice - they are just wrong) arguments by throwing out bits of information that is known by just about every poster here? Anyway, arguing with you is a lost cause. We are on opposite sides of logic with no common ground. Here's where I pull out the, "Let's agree to disagree." line. Cheers.

"I wish you would kindly show us your plan for satisfying current demand growth expectations AND the explosive demand growth needed to bring the poor up to first world standards."

Now we're getting to the root of the problem. There are lots of plans; different countries, states, regions...etc They all have their own plans, as it should be. Some people want to have one BIG PLAN though, with big government in charge.

The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state.

What's happening is so noticeable that scientists can track it from space. Satellites measuring when land turns green found that spring "green-up" is arriving eight hours earlier every year on average since 1982


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004292604_webspring19m.html

Ice levels, temperture changes, and now changes in when plants bloom observered accross a broad spectrum of species and locations. But hey, I'm sure there is nothing to it.

Even with my scandalous frame of mind I am fully behind getting away from fossil fuels and into cleaner energy for cars and power.

My motivations are just different: Less pollution in general,
independance from big oil, saving money on transportation.

Those seem like good enough reasons to me. When better alternative
indoor lighting is available I use it. I use some of the fluorescent
bulbs now and will use the new LED ones when they are more affordable.

So I guess other than purchasing B.S. Credits (Carbon Credits) I am
doing a lot of things right in spite of my bad attitude.

I just don't believe the hype. And whether it is 50% or not,
it damn sure is not "most" or "all" climate scientists agree it is a real
man-made problem. There is a real warming trend, and IMHO, there
will be a real cooling trend to follow as there has always been.

Shills can work for either side, and the "Global Warming" alarmists damn well
know which side their toast is buttered on. The Grant money flows to the
hysterics in Academia and the Science "industry."

Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton for a real good illustration
of this. Incidentally, there is a non-fiction addendum to that book where
he makes his case and does it very well. His personal opinion is not that
Man-made Global Warming is a myth, but that it may be. The evidence
is not all in and it is stiill an unproven theory with the backing of a religion-like fervor.

TexicanRadio

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004292604_webspring19m.html

Ice levels, temperature changes, and now changes in when plants bloom observed across a broad spectrum of species and locations. But hey, I'm sure there is nothing to it.
-----------------------------------------------------<SNIP>
Nonsense. They claim they could see the "hole" in the ozone layer from space too. The ozone layer also naturally varies over time.
NASA also knows which side their bread is buttered on.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009

The chart showing global temperature cycles over a much wider time period than the last 400 years is very illustrative. Excerpts from the
interview at the above website is below.

THE NEW AMERICAN: Flip on any channel, open any newspaper or magazine, and it

What Dr. Robinson says about the nature of scientifuc knlwledge is the absolute truth: It's not about polls, or "religion" but about natural
truth that has been backed up by scientifically valid, peer-reviewed research (experimental testing).

Dr. Arthur Robinson:

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who

Robinson is a quack. Certified nut case.


First, the whole exercise is being pushed by Arthur B. Robinson, the survivalist, Darwin skeptic and proprietor of something called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The "scientific" article on which the petition rests is authored by Robinson, his son Noah, and the American Petroleum Industry-funded Willie Soon, none of whom could hope to get their climate work published in a peer-reviewed science journal.


And your lovely petition?


Apparently bent on meeting the same high standards as the last petition (which included "signatories" ranging from fictional TV character Perry Mason to Spice Girl, Geri Halliwell), the promoters have broadcast this version far and wide.




Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."


But most offensive is the use, once again, of the 96-year-old Dr. Fred Seitz as the lead signatory. Seitz was once a widely respected scientist; he's a former President of the National Academy of Sciences and a one-time President of Rockefeller University. But he fell from grace in the 1970s when he signed on as chief scientist for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco company. He fell then further in 1989 when Alexander Holtzman at Philip Morris complained in an internal memo that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

So, 18 years ago, Seitz was "not sufficiently rational" to meet the lenient scientific standards of the tobacco industry, but today, Art Robinson still feels it's ethical to send out a petition over Seitz's signature on one of the most pressing current scientific issues of the day.


Please keep sighting this stuff, it really makes your case look stupid.

Let's not leave out the OSMI what a wonderful organization that is.


The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

Funny, I didn't see anything about the climate on that list things they are experts on. In fact they've been forced to admit several times that they don't even have anyone that is an expert in the climate working for them.

So, tell me again about truth and science and all the BS you were spewing above? You've sighted a doomsday cult with tabacoo industry rejected scientists and fake signatures as the back bone of your case against global warming. Nice work.

More opinions from the great nutritionist Arthur B Robinson.


We think that the responsibility for caring for these politically correct animals should rest on the shoulders of all socially responsible citizens - on a per-capita basis. The catching of several thousand cougars and their release into downtown Portland and surrounding suburbs would go a long way toward solving several problems.


Oh, and he is in bed with the Coal industry, which last I checked, was fighting hand over fist to keep the CO2 info from becoming accepted, since it is a big problem for them. Between that and his tin foil hat parinoia over the school system, this is exactly the guy I would be quoting if I wanted people to believe that global warming was real.

The founder of the weather channel says the global warming movement is a scam.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524#SlideFrame_1

Hey a business man said global warming is a scam. Big deal. Then he went on to sight the very petition that I just got done point to earlier that was signed by fake people as evidence that scientists are not on board for Global Warming.

Of course the Weather Channel today has hosted a half hour program supporting Global Warming and its consiquences and he is now a local weatherman in San Diego that has done no research.

TNA: If we were to go forward with Kyoto or any variation of Kyoto, would this impose vast restrictions on all human activity?

Coleman: Well, all of this is predicated on carbon being a dirty word. And the carbon we’re talking about is carbon dioxide. Now, it’s the last remaining cornerstone of global warming.

The hockey-stick chart, that ridiculous scientific fraud, got shot down. The pronouncements by NASA about global temperature averages going up have been corrected, and now we know the warmest U.S. decade was the 1930s not the ’90s.



Funny, someone should tell Nasa since they posted this in January. Looks like the 30's are much colder then the 90's to me.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.gif

Once again, its the same lies repeated ad nausum without a shred of proof. But hey if you say it enough times, morons might believe you.

"Once again, its the same lies repeated ad nausum without a shred of proof. But hey if you say it enough times, morons might believe you."

Actually that's the alarmists strategy.

"Funny, someone should tell Nasa since they posted this in January. Looks like the 30's are much colder then the 90's to me."

The picture you posted is global, he was talking about the US temperature.

Well, it is called Global warming and not, "My Backyard Warming" so it seemed appropriate to post the global numbers. The point is that this guy has done ZERO research and some how you believe them over the thousands of climate experts that have done tons of research. In fact, you've sighted evidence from fiction writers are proof, which really says it all for your arguement.

BTW, when he sights the 22,000 people (it was actually only 19,000, but hey why let any truth slip into it) that signed the anti Kyoto petition, they fail to mention that under 100 of the people that signed even study the climate. So, even at best statement you can claim, the debate wasnt' settle 8 years ago amongst people that know nothing about the situation.

Since then, tons of research has been done that confirmed Climate Change is happening and is most likely man made. The skeptics haven't begun to address all the new data. And every day new studies confirm that something is wrong. At this point the only "debate" is how long people will believe the liars that are saying the debate is still open. The evidence is overwhelming that something is happening.

But hey, I'm sure lies are easier to believe then accepting that we have to change our life style to keep our grand childern from paying the price for our generation.

Here is the data for peer reviewed work since 1993. Looks like its settled for the scientific community to me.


The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.



IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).



But hey Michael Criton thinks its a conspiracy.... But I'm still smarting to much from when I bought dinosaur insurance after Jurasic Park to listen to his arguements.

blakec

About a year ago, I wrote an essay for an English class in which I concluded, using risk management principles, that we should do whatever we can to limit emissions and develop alternate sources of energy without hurting the economy or restricting development in poor nations.

The problem is that the media and politicians are not the scientists and scientists do not decide policy. The phrase "the science is settled" has nothing to do with policy.

Politicians decide policy. So tell me, do you believe Al Gore?

What if it turns out that the majority of scientists conclude that warming was not man made, would that warming become good? Why is it that natural warming is good, but warming due to man is bad? Has the warming over the past century been bad?

What if the IPCC turns out to be wrong, what will this do to the reputation of science and "scientists."

The media and blogosphere typically label anyone who disagrees with the IPCC or the alarmists as "deniers" or shills of the oil industry, yet have no evidence to back up their assertions. The only qualification one needs to be a denier is to disagree with the party line. They are unqualified simply because they disagree with the IPCC; this is called begging the question, a logical fallacy.

Read this article:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

then note the date.


I don't think much has changed.

Did you even read the list of organizations that also say the same thing? Every US science organization is alarmists to you? NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and 180 out of 192 countries from around the world are all in on some super secret alarmist campaign? It's not just the IPCC, its every single serious person that studies it. And that is balanced, in you opinion against a handful of dubiously motivated con artists.

You say that they don't prove the the doubters are shills of the oil industry? Are you kidding? We don't need to prove it, they freely admit they are funded by big oil. The big anti Kyoto survey was based on a paper writen by noted nutritionist Arthor Robinson and a man named Willie Soon. Who is he?


He is associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, where he recently co-authored Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was 20th Century Climate Unusual?[3] with Sallie Baliunas. The pair have also written for the Fraser Institute of Canada regarding Sun-climate connections. Soon and Baliunas have generated controversy [4] because their research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute[5], a trade association accused of exerting improper influence over U.S. climate change policy.[6]



I assume even you can admit that the American Petroleum Institue has somethign to do with oil. He doesn't eveny try to hide it.

And then to hammer home your point you list an article by the Cato Institute....

Primary funders of the Cato institute include... Exxon Mobile and the American Petroleum Institute. Good move. Nice source on your part.

And before they were in the anti global warming game, the big thing Cato pushed? Prosmoking work for Philip Morris. Yes, they are certainly an organization with a long history of telling lies to protect monied interest. I'm glad you sighted them.

928 papers by people not funded by oil on global warming and not a single one disagrees and you still think its in doubt. This isn't a couple papers with sketchy methods. It's damn near 1000 papers and not a single one disagrees. Would a million papers make you agree? Would 10 million?

You don't want to see the truth and that is obvious. Your only goal is to desperatly assert that the debate is not settled. You can't even argue that it isn't probable at this point. All you can do is sight papers written by people funded by the oil companies and ex cigarette scientists and of course the noted nutrionist Arthor Robinson. And some how you expect your point to be taken seriously.

You last line was "I don't think much has changed". That is probably true. As long as Cato and their allies have money, the same lies will come out. No mountain of data will change their minds. No reasoned arguement will sway them. So, no change can come to their opinion. The reason is that they know the truth and they are in the business of trying to subvert it.

Shills will always exsist. The crime is that you so willingly buy their bs. And in the end, they won't pay the price, it will be your children and grand children that pay the price for your gullability.

You just proved my point.

"begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Since you appeal to authority, you might be interested in an article from the same author posted at the American Meteorological Society, an organization you approve of.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/71/3/pdf/i1520-0477-71-3-288.pdf

Do you approve of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY?

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model
predictions"

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

Since you appeal to authority, you might be interested in an article from the same author posted at the American Meteorological Society, an organization you approve of.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/71/3/pdf/i1520-0477-71-3-288.pdf


This article was posted in 1990. Between then and 2003 over 900 papers were published and not one of them disagreed with the idea that Global Warming exsisted and that the most likely cause was man made.

Do you approve of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY?

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model
predictions"

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

Nothing in that article rejects Global Warming. At best its a refinement of the temperature ranges we will see. They didn't say once that Global Warming is rejected, in any way, nor did they reject the idea that temperatures at the surface are rising.

They just don't think it will be as hot as other models. But there are more studies that have come out in the same time frame that say we will be hotter. All say it will be warmer, they only disagree on the scope.

Lindzen hasn't changed his views any, here are a couple more:

2001 http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
2006 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19485


You wont find any papers that rule out CO2 as causing warming. I think most agree that it does cause some small warming, but the projections of dramatic changes are based on computer models which have not been shown to work.

From the article:

"We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our
conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this
proposition."

This is saying that the greenhouse theory itself is flawed.

Also, there hasn't been any warming in the last ten years.

"This article was posted in 1990. Between then and 2003 over 900 papers were published and not one of them disagreed with the idea that Global Warming exsisted and that the most likely cause was global warming."

How can global warming be the cause of Global Warming?

Lindzen hasn't changed his views any, here are a couple more:

2001 http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
2006 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19485'

And once again, who writes his checks? Why oil companies...


Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[23]

According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." [23]


I know, you're totally surprised that oil is once again the primary funder of someone that is skeptical of global warming.

But....I've also said that most are rejects from the pro smoking campaign... you know whats coming.


He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[24]
A 1991 article in Consumers' Research entitled "Passive Smoking: How Great a Hazard?" is also sometimes used to characterize Richard Lindzen as a tobacco spokesperson or expert. That article says, "Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave society with a resource of some importance diminished. The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies." The article concludes with the statement, "Such has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke."[25] However, Lindzen is not being directly quoted in the article, and the pro-tobacco views in that case are those of the article's authors, not necessarily Lindzen.

How can global warming be the cause of Global Warming?




I ment to say man made and corrected it when I saw I had mistyped.

In response to the temperature differences in the tropisphere article above. Looks like they are still studing this effect.


Anthropogenic gases lead to stratospheric cooling
Man-made changes to the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases are likely responsible for lower temperatures and decreased ozone observed in the stratosphere during the past 20 years. Langematz et al. compared climate simulations to stratospheric temperature and circulation observations over the last two decades, finding that decreases in manmade mid-atmosphere ozone and increases in carbon dioxide affect Arctic atmospheric conditions. Contrasting observations with expected model predictions over Europe, they suggest that the gases have led to a trend toward cooling in the lower stratosphere in the mid-latitudes and Arctic, particularly during springtime. They suggest that cooling of the lower stratosphere cannot be fully explained by the composition changes from greenhouse gas changes and narrows the likely source of cooling to either direct radiative forcing from sunlight or indirect dynamic processes. The authors conclude that changes to stratospheric ozone and carbon dioxide can intensify and increase the lifetime of polar vortices.

Title: Thermal and dynamical changes of the stratosphere since 1979 and their link to ozone and CO2 changes

Authors:
Ulrike Langematz, Markus Kunze, Kirstin Krueger, Karin Labitzke, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany;
Gregory L. Roff, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia.

Source: Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres (JGR-D) paper: 10.1029/2002JD002069, 2003

You've ask me to review some PDF's and I did. Here is one for you to review. It's the 1997 internal memo from Exxon outlining their PR plan to discredit global warming. It shows the millions of dollars they are willing to spend just to push a PR campaign to reject the overwhelming science against them.


http://www.edf.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf

I don't see anything sinsister in there. If the government can pay scientists, then why not corporations. Who pays the bills doesn't determine the validity of an argument. Someone has to pay for science after all. One just needs to take that information into account.

I don't see anything sinsister in there. If the government can pay scientists, then why not corporations. Who pays the bills doesn't determine the validity of an argument. Someone has to pay for science after all. One just needs to take that information into account.


The media and blogosphere typically label anyone who disagrees with the IPCC or the alarmists as "deniers" or shills of the oil industry, yet have no evidence to back up their assertions. The only qualification one needs to be a denier is to disagree with the party line.

Two quotes from you. Do you still stand by the statement that there is no evidence that oil is behind the shills denying global warming.

Here is a document that catches Exxon red handed in saying they will fund science that proves their theory. Not, that they will study the issue, but that they will create science that agrees with them and then shove that science down everyones throat. And then every single paper and person that you've sighted has had ties to Exxon.

"Two quotes from you. Do you still stand by the statement that there is no evidence that oil is behind the shills denying global warming."


I stand by my statement and I don't think your document contradicts it. I never said there were no scientists that were paid by big oil, I said many are accused with no evidence. Also, in this context the term shill would be a scientist who did not really believe what he/she was saying. If a scientist believes what is being said, why does it matter who is doing the funding?



"Here is a document that catches Exxon red handed in saying they will fund science that proves their theory. Not, that they will study the issue, but that they will create science that agrees with them and then shove that science down everyones throat."

Where does it say they will "create science"? If they feel that they are being treated unfairly by the media or government, I would say it is their duty to their shareholders to provide the media information that they thought was accurate. I never had the skeptic viewpoint shoved down my throat, I had to seek it out. On the other hand, I have had the alarmist viewpoint shoved down my throat.

"And then every single paper and person that you've sighted has had ties to Exxon."


You have offered no evidence to show this.

If you predetermine the results of an experiment before it happens, I have trouble respecting it as real science. I think most scientist would agree that you can't predetermine what you will find and call it science.

There is a name for it...propaganda. And I agree that is what oil is doing. They are putting out propaganda.

"And then every single paper and person that you've sighted has had ties to Exxon."


You have offered no evidence to show this.

I've sighted the exxon and API ties to the people you sight all through out this thread.

There are two issues here.

1. Whether a scientist is being paid by an oil company. Really, I dont see why this matters, unless they state that they are not when they really are, in which case I'm sure there would be plenty of people ready to sue them.

2. Whether the scientist claims to believe something when in fact they do not. This would obviously be very hard to prove, yet it is implied frequently.


So do you have any evidence that a scientist lied about their source of funding or that they claimed to believe something when in fact they did not?

I'm happy to give that to you and end the debate here.

So, your point of view is that oil funded scientists, with a long history of trying to prove things like cigaretts aren't harmful and benzine isn't harmful, find oil friendly results. And these results are not to be rejected because we don't have hard proof that this finding is more then a happy coincidence, even though we have secret exxon documents detail an effort to manufacture science to support their opinions. But...

Every finding from the traditionally funded science community from all around the world, including every major science organization in the US needs to be rejected because its part of a secret cabal to mislead us. Yes, literally thousands of papers and scientists and media people and bloggers and politicians are all in on a global conspiracy to over react to the science.

And this has only been exposed by scientists working for the people most likely to take a hit in the pocket book by a change in fuels.

I can conceed that to you with great comfort.

I thought not.



"Every finding from the traditionally funded science community from all around the world, including every major science organization in the US needs to be rejected because its part of a secret cabal to mislead us."

Once again, science is not policy.

I'm not sure why you're generalizing to "every finding" from "every major science organization". With such sweeping generalizations, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I thought not.



"Every finding from the traditionally funded science community from all around the world, including every major science organization in the US needs to be rejected because its part of a secret cabal to mislead us."

Once again, science is not policy.



And of course science isn't what matters to you and the shills. All you care about is that the policy favors big oil.

"And of course science isn't what matters to you and the shills. All you care about is that the policy favors big oil."


You talk about science like scientific results automatically imply policy, like policy is opposed to or in accordance with science. This concept is nonsensical.

I wasn't aware that I cared about big oil. As I stated previously in this thread, sustainable energy is very important, and oil is not sustainable in the long run. As far as I'm concerned, the faster we reduce our dependence on oil, the better.

If we are going to talk about "big" oil, then maybe I should remind you that about 95% of the world's oil is owned by foreign nations, yet you only seem to care about Exxon.

Notice how the Global Warming Acolytes always call any dissenting opinion (no matter how well backed up with fact) "lies." That's because you are threatening their new "religion" whenever you dissent from the doctrine of man-made Global Warming.
(It's man-made alright! Man made it up!)

I agree with you. I am all for independence from foreign oil and cleaner vehicles. But not because of the myth of man-made Global Warming. It is arrogant to think we could cause the earth's climate to change with such a simplistic thing as too much C02. The climate is very complex and the planet is very robust in it's ability to shake off anything we humans could throw at it. Especially a gas that is essential to all life on the planet.

The various hysterical hoaxes you mention are all attempts to portray humans as bad, and to get grant money.
Do ICE vehicles pollute? yes! Let's phase them out!
Do EVs save money and help us get free of Big Oil?
Yes, let's buy them! Do EVs pollute less (counting power generation sources) Yes! I'm all for them! But enough with the Global Warming HOAX! It's crap. History will show the skeptics among us are correct.
And the faithful, will just have to find another cause. I guess they could recycle the mini-Ice Age scare. It may well happen -- it just won't be "us" that cause it.
TexicanRadio




Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming


Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

I think the sun has a LOT more to do with our temperature, than our activity does. If we see temperatures continue to trend downward, or stay at comparable levels to this past year, then we'll have seen all the temperature rises negated. Thus 'global warming' will be negated.

In the 70's it was (really, it was) Global Cooling! In the 80's, it was Acid Rain! In the 90's it was the Hole in the Ozone Layer! In the 00's, it's Global Warming! What will it be in the '10s?

(regardless, I still support the Volt, and, well, anything that will get us off of foreign oil. I support EVs, I support wind and solar power... and MORE NUKE POWER!!)

"Climate change will see fluctuations in temperature. It isn't a solid march toward over heating. You'll see bad winters, you'll see bad storms. That doesn't disprove the direction that the temperature is taking.[/QUOTE]
------------------
That makes it real easy for you. Whenever we have a bad hurricane season, you can blame it on "climate change" Whenever the predicted hurricane increases do not occur it's just fluctuations.

The whole thing is fluctuations, more specifically cycles. We will have mini-ice ages again and warming trends. They happened before the Industrial Revolution and they will continue to happen.

The fluctuations you mention may not prove man-made Global Warming aka "Climate Change" is crap, but it doesn't disprove it either. The data of temperature cycles over the past 3000 years does, however, tend to disprove it. IMHO. And the temperature increases coincide ~directly~ with solar output, unlike what another poster stated earlier.

We should not choose to make a theory fact simply because it
supports a political agenda. We should wait until the theory is backed up, in fact proven by scientifically valid, peer-reviewed research.
Using the Scientific Method, not the Emotional Method.
---------------------------------------------------------
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

[QUOTE=Texas;496]The responses on this thread bring up a good point. Regardless of what the best (and most) scientists of the world think if there is a cold winter storm that hits many people will say, "Oh, there is no problem, those scientist are crazy." Personally, I just follow what the best minds and the most respected people on earth have to say on the issue. They say the earth is warming up and humans are causing it. I then look around at all the oil we are burning, the pollution and think, hum. Could be. Of course I don't know for sure and there sure are a lot of people out there that swear there is no problem (governments, oil companies, industrial companies, etc.). However, I decided to stick with what the scientists say on this one. If they are wrong no big deal. If they are right and we do something about it then great. If they are right and we do nothing then that is just embarrassing and we deserve all the pain that happens.

Actually, I don't even use the Global Warming argument anymore. Other problems like peak oil (many people still don't believe that the US, UK, and more than 20 other countries have peaked - Despite conclusive data and reduction of production that follows the curve perfectly), having to buy oil from unstable governments, having to shovel loads of cash overseas, etc. are more than enough reasons for us to get moving now to solve our energy problems. That's why I feel change will happen. Everyone can find some reason not to want to use foreign oil or other non-renewable resourses.

One final comment. I believe many people are using the Global Warming argument because it is politically neutral. It's not attacking the oil companies, our friends in the Middle East, etc. It just sounds like they are tree huggers and harmless. I don't care what reason people use, as long as we get on the problem and solve it before there is war or natural disaster. Can we all agree that a world that uses fully renewable resources will be a lot nicer place to live that one that is always fighting over limited resources like oil, NG, coal, etc? If we can all agree on that then we can just move in the right direction. Of course it's fun to mock the liberals, democrats, republicans, tree huggers, etc. Let

It's always lies if it doesn't support your idea of the truth.
I'll trust the 3000 or so scientists and the latest studies that show
man-made Global Warming is an invalid theory before I will listen to anyone who cannot spell fluctuations.

TexicanRadio


The OP of this post is just posting lies. The data does not support that Global warming has been wiped out by one month of data. If you look at the data you will see that this January has been colder then the Januaries we've seen in the last 5 years or so. But it isn't colder then the average January. In fact, the coldest month we've had in a decade, just barely got back to the average temerpature for January in the years before that.

Nobody predicts that global warming will be straight line temerature increases. There will be fluxuations, just as there has been in the past. To judge the advance of global warming, you look at the average yearly temeratures and draw the line the represents the trend. That line is still going up and will keep going up no matter how many lies get spread by the fosil fuel apologists.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/79/did-global-warming-stop-in-january.html

And for the record, I despise fossil fuels and cannot wait until I no longer have to buy gasoline or Diesel. Meanwhile my 45 mpg VW Jetta
helps, but at $4 a gallon for diesel (any minute now) it doesn't
help much.
TexicanRadio

I agree pollution is bad and we should clean up the air, but the Earth can take care of itself.

I seriously doubt anything we are doing is having such a dramatic effect on the weather. Get back with me when you have a 1,000 years worth of data.

I agree pollution is bad and we should clean up the air, but the Earth can take care of itself.

I seriously doubt anything we are doing is having such a dramatic effect on the weather. Get back with me when you have a 1,000 years worth of data.

I guess if you think the things you do make no difference you can sleep better at night. Let's say we keep on doing what we are doing and the oil production starts to dip. We start to bicker over the remaining supplies until... World War III breaks out. The nuclear bombs start flying like crazy and the air is filled with all kinds of nasty radioactive dust. You may be right that the earth will repair itself, after a few hundred thousand years but it might be a bit bleak for the survivors, don't you think? Maybe a better strategy would be to work towards reducing our footprint on dear Mother Earth. Make her clean and safe. What do you say?

I guess if you think the things you do make no difference you can sleep better at night. Let's say we keep on doing what we are doing and the oil production starts to dip. We start to bicker over the remaining supplies until... World War III breaks out. The nuclear bombs start flying like crazy and the air is filled with all kinds of nasty radioactive dust. You may be right that the earth will repair itself, after a few hundred thousand years but it might be a bit bleak for the survivors, don't you think? Maybe a better strategy would be to work towards reducing our footprint on dear Mother Earth. Make her clean and safe. What do you say?

I see a pattern here. Instead of adressing the argument, you come up with a different one and then insult them for not agreeing with you.

It is amusing in the extreme that Robinson's copyright is one year before the hottest year on record and most of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1997.

His "297 studies" on plant growth or whatever... they're pure speculation. Plant growth is limited; they only metabolize so fast and no faster, growth rates tail off (similar to economics "diminishing returns" law) with increases in the things they need.

And this winter that y'all are crankin' on... it was the 16th warmest winter on record and last year, taken as a whole, was the 2nd warmest year on record. We had a combination of solar irradiance minimum (whaddaya know, the IPCC does know there's a sun in the sky) and a La Nina, which contribute to a cooling pattern. That's about to end. Order a new air conditioner. You're going to need it.

Source: NASA/GISS. No need to believe me, surf over there and look it up yourself.

I see a pattern here. Instead of adressing the argument, you come up with a different one and then insult them for not agreeing with you.

Mike, for someone who just wrote the following:

"You talk about science like scientific results automatically imply policy, like policy is opposed to or in accordance with science. This concept is nonsensical.
"

You don't seemed too concerned about that poster's feelings. However, if you are worried that jscott will feel sad with what I wrote maybe you can send him a cheer-up e-mail.

Are people getting soft these days?

Mike, for someone who just wrote the following:

"You talk about science like scientific results automatically imply policy, like policy is opposed to or in accordance with science. This concept is nonsensical.
"

You don't seemed too concerned about that poster's feelings. However, if you are worried that jscott will feel sad with what I wrote maybe you can send him a cheer-up e-mail.

Are people getting soft these days?

I wasn't that concerned about the insult, I admit, it is a mild one, you're questioning his concern for the future of the world. I was talking more about the fact that you didn't address his argument.

Basically, he said global warming is not that much of a problem and you responded with we are running out of oil. Earlier when we had our lively discussion, I said global warming is not that much of a problem, addressing poverty is much more important, and you responded with we are running out of oil.

Now, I agree that our dependence on oil is a serious problem, and I suspect that jscott might as well, but surely you can make this point without immediately insulting those who have not even argued against it.

I wasn't that concerned about the insult, I admit, it is a mild one, you're questioning his concern for the future of the world. I was talking more about the fact that you didn't address his argument.

Basically, he said global warming is not that much of a problem and you responded with we are running out of oil. Earlier when we had our lively discussion, I said global warming is not that much of a problem, addressing poverty is much more important, and you responded with we are running out of oil.

Now, I agree that our dependence on oil is a serious problem, and I suspect that jscott might as well, but surely you can make this point without immediately insulting those who have not even argued against it.

Ah, I see I hurt your feelings before. That explains it. You seem to be rather thin skinned. When I argued before against your "poverty is the number one problem in the world" statement I simply used our problems with oil to prove how silly your statement was. When I argued against jscotts statement that "humans can have no effect on the environment" I again used our problems with oil to show how humans could very easily effect our environment. Is my logic wrong? Please show me where I made a mistake and I will admit that poverty is the world's biggest problem and that us tiny humans can not possibly have any effect on the environment.

"Ah, I see I hurt your feelings before. That explains it. You seem to be rather thin skinned."

I did find you rather abrasive.



"When I argued before against your "poverty is the number one problem in the world" statement I simply used our problems with oil to prove how silly your statement was."

Did I say it was the "number one" problem? I thought what I said was:

"Sustainable energy is very important, but the transition away from fossil fuels will take a long time. An equally important but much more urgent task is to bring the rest of the world out of poverty."


"When I argued against jscotts statement that "humans can have no effect on the environment" I again used our problems with oil to show how humans could very easily effect our environment."

Except jscott didn't say that. He said:

"I agree pollution is bad and we should clean up the air, but the Earth can take care of itself.

I seriously doubt anything we are doing is having such a dramatic effect on the weather. Get back with me when you have a 1,000 years worth of data."



"Is my logic wrong?"

I'm not sure that you have any.


"Please show me where I made a mistake and I will admit that poverty is the world's biggest problem and that us tiny humans can not possibly have any effect on the environment."

I just showed you two; I'll be awaiting your admission.

I feel like I'm arguing with my girlfriend. This is when I just start to nod my head and say, "uh-huh".

Ok, first of all how can you have two problems that are equally important but one is more urgent? I don't understand your logic. If one is more urgent it's more important. No? Are you saying that you think there are even more pressing issues other than fossil fuels and poverty? This I have to hear. To me the oil problem is the world's biggest problem. Period. It has the greatest potential to get us to World War III. Yes, that is just my opinion. I think most people would agree that the world's oil problem is more pressing (important, urgent, etc.) than the world's poverty problem. If you fix poverty but not the oil problem we are worse off. If we fix our oil problem we can then fix the poverty problem and everyone is happy. I think from your previous statements that you disagree. Of course I could be wrong because you did not explicitly state that. Hum, I think we need a lawyer to confirm intent.

Ok, with jscotts statements I took the liberty of extrapolating his intentions when he said humans endeavors have no effect on the earth's climate and that he will not be convinced until he sees 1000 years of data (which we don't have). So basically he plans on doing nothing, no matter what anyone says. I choose to remind him that humans DO have the power to effect our climate. Like, Hey jscotts, wake up! We can screw things up if we don't change our ways.

Mike, Please post your last words on this (yes I give my girlfriend the last word as well, otherwise she will never stop talking :) ) and move on. Here again is where I say let's agree to disagree.

Here again is where I say let's agree to disagree.

Of course that is the goal of all these Cato institute based defenders. Just make sure the arguement continues until it seems like it wasn't really settled. The only goal is to make is seem like Climate Change isn't a settled issue.

925 scientific studies and not one disconfirmed man made climate change. And not listening to the science is starting to have a major effect.


From 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801772.html


QUESNEL, B.C. -- Millions of acres of Canada's lush green forests are turning red in spasms of death. A voracious beetle, whose population has exploded with the warming climate, is killing more trees than wildfires or logging.

The mountain pine beetle has infested an area three times the size of Maryland, devastating swaths of lodgepole pines and reshaping the future of the forest and the communities in it.



"It's a rapid warming" that is increasing the beetles' range, said Carroll. "All the data show there are significant changes over widespread areas that are going to cause us considerable amount of grief. Not only is it coming, it's here."




And today
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4536804&page=1



"We have about 1,500,000 acres of trees that have been infested," said Clint Kyhl, an incident commander for the U.S. Forest Service, referring to devastation in Colorado and Wyoming alone. That's roughly twice the size of Rhode Island.

The epidemic began in 1996, but in the last year it has really taken off. Five years from now all of Colorado's lodgepole pine forests, another 6 million acres, will be wiped out, and the beetles are expected to infest the entire West over the next 15 years, state forestry officials say.



The problems are here today. Tomorrow it won't be trees, but people suffering from plagues spread by misquitos and other "cold bound" pests.

"I feel like I'm arguing with my girlfriend. This is when I just start to nod my head and say, "uh-huh"."

I feel sorry for your girlfriend.


"Ok, first of all how can you have two problems that are equally important but one is more urgent? I don't understand your logic. If one is more urgent it's more important. No?"

Pick up a copy of the Stephen Covey's "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People". He explains it very well. Just to keep you going until then, urgent, means must be done quickly.



"Are you saying that you think there are even more pressing issues other than fossil fuels and poverty?"

By pressing do you mean urgent? Sure, I would say resolving the Iraq war is more urgent.



"To me the oil problem is the world's biggest problem."

That's fine; although I feel like I need to remind you that I never said it wasn't. I think it is extremely important as well. I'm not sure how one quantifies such things but it is certainly at the top of my list. What I said was the transition from fossil fuels would take a long time. That's the issue with global warming right? Fossil fuels, not just oil. I was contrasting the urgency of transitioning from fossil fuels versus reducing poverty.




"So basically he plans on doing nothing, no matter what anyone says. I choose to remind him that humans DO have the power to effect our climate."

Actually, you said "environment". The environment can be devastated without affecting the weather. I suspect jscott would agree with not destroying the environment, but he didn't say anything about it, he said "weather".


It's probably a wise policy to give your girlfriend the last word.

blakec

I already posted a link to all the scare stories.

Since you are so knowledgable on gloabl warming, answer me this.

One proposed mitigation against global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions. Lets say we reduced them to the level they were 30 years ago, how would that affect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2? Hint, you can compare the rate of 30 years ago to today's.

<nods head> uh-huh.

Laughs and sighs.

blakec

I already posted a link to all the scare stories.

Since you are so knowledgable on gloabl warming, answer me this.

One proposed mitigation against global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions. Lets say we reduced them to the level they were 30 years ago, how would that affect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2? Hint, you can compare the rate of 30 years ago to today's.

Set up all the strawmen you want, it doesn't change the fact that 925 studies were done and none of them dismissed that man made global warming is happening. The only people that continue to protest are ones that are on the payroll of the API and Exxon and are mostly refugees from the big tobaco smear campaigns.

But hey, I'm sure you motives are all pure and stuff and you aren't just regergitating all the Cato institute attack lines like a robot. I'm sure the noted nutritionist Robinson has some snappy quote about how paying for results in science isn't bad.

Even Newt is onboard with the fact that the science is settled.


In a Capitol Hill debate about global warming touted by its moderator as a "smackdown" between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Gingrich praised Kerry's recently released book about environmentalism, acknowledged that global warming is real, and offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party's inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.



"Here you have the leader of the Gingrich revolution up against the prototypical Boston liberal, and they did not disagree on the fact that human-induced climate change is happening," DiPeso said.

The criticism from conservatives, he said, was predictable because many Republicans have come to see climate change as a partisan issue. "They think that Gingrich has become an apostate, drunk the Kool-Aid, and gone over to the dark side. If I were Newt Gingrich, I would wear that criticism as a badge of honor," he said.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/gingrich_drops_skepticism_on_global_warming/

I already posted a link to all the scare stories.


BTW, what I linked to was real and happening in our world. It's not a scare story or something that will happen in the future. It's really happening right now. So, your anti-alarmist sentiment is bunk.

I just hope all the apologists get their payments from oil in really cold cash, so it can keep them cool in the future.

Speaking of current impacts (re-not alarmists at all, since it is really happening right now)


An analysis of 50 studies finds that the region's temperatures are increasing faster than in the rest of the country and the planet as a whole.

The American West is heating up faster than any other region of the United States, and more than the Earth as a whole, according to a new analysis of 50 scientific studies.

For the last five years, from 2003 through 2007, the global climate averaged 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its 20th century average.

During the same period, 11 Western states averaged 1.7 degrees warmer, the analysis reported.



The Colorado River basin, which stretches from Wyoming to Mexico, is in the throes of a record drought. About 30 million people in fast-growing cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and Las Vegas depend on water from the Colorado and its tributaries, which also drive the region's agricultural economy and hydroelectric industry. The river's two main reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are only 45% and 50% full, respectively.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-climate28mar28,1,3404768.story

It's a shame for the Cato crowd, but it appears the truth has a noted bias toward Climate Change happening and being man made.

Of course one of the key lame outs by the C02 loving crowd is saying that higher levels have no impact on us.


Oops...


Meta-analysis techniques were used to examine the effect of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on the protein concentrations of major food crops, incorporating 228 experimental observations on barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato. Each crop had lower protein concentrations when grown at elevated (540-958  μmol mol−1) compared with ambient (315-400  μmol mol−1) CO2. For wheat, barley and rice, the reduction in grain protein concentration was ∼10-15% of the value at ambient CO2. For potato, the reduction in tuber protein concentration was 14%. For soybean, there was a much smaller, although statistically significant reduction of protein concentration of 1.4%. The magnitude of the CO2 effect on wheat grains was smaller under high soil N conditions than under low soil N. Protein concentrations in potato tubers were reduced more for plants grown at high than at low concentrations of ozone. For soybean, the ozone effect was the reverse, as elevated CO2 increased the protein concentration of soybean grown at high ozone concentrations. The magnitude of the CO2 effect also varied depending on experimental methodology. For both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers produced a larger CO2 effect than those performed using other types of experimental facilities. There was also indication of a possible pot artifact as, for both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers showed a significantly greater CO2 effect when plants were rooted in pots rather than in the ground. Studies on wheat also showed a greater CO2 effect when protein concentration was measured in whole grains rather than flour. While the magnitude of the effect of elevated CO2 varied depending on the experimental procedures, a reduction in protein concentration was consistently found for most crops. These findings suggest that the increasing CO2 concentrations of the 21st century are likely to decrease the protein concentration of many human plant foods.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

You didn't ask a question, you tried to set up some bs strawman.

Spring just keeps coming earlier.

Both here...

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/5/18/globalWarmingBringsEarlySpring


Man-made global warming has caused spring weather to appear an average of 10 days earlier than the start of spring 30 years ago, according to a report released Monday by Stanford scientists. Co-authored by married couple Stephen Schneider and Terry Root, both professors at the Center for Environmental Science Policy, the report links changes in plant and animal populations with artificially-caused temperature fluctuations for the first time.

And through out Euroasia


They were able to show that foliation had generally occurred at an increasingly early date from 1982 until the present, on average around 5 days earlier for the Eurasian boreal forest. Variations in leaf appearance dates since 1982 have not been linear over time, and have not been identical for the whole of boreal Eurasia: the trend to increasingly early foliation dates accelerated between 1987 and 1990, and was more marked in Central Siberia.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080330213008.htm

Again, this isn't an alarmist thing, this is actually happening.

More fuel for the idea that all of this is an alarmist plot. Actual forest fires, not fake ones.


Almost seven times more forested federal land burned during the 1987-2003 period than during the prior 17 years. In addition, large fires occurred about four times more often during the latter period.


"I see this as one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in the continental United States," said research team member Thomas W. Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at The University of Arizona in Tucson.

"We're showing warming and earlier springs tying in with large forest fire frequencies. Lots of people think climate change and the ecological responses are 50 to 100 years away. But it's not 50 to 100 years away -- it's happening now in forest ecosystems through fire."

Add insurance companies to the list of the paranoid alarmists.


Potential climate change is the greatest strategic risk currently facing the property/casualty insurance industry, with demographic changes taking priority for the life insurance industry, according to a new study by Ernst & Young.

Climate change is closely followed by demographic change and catastrophic events among the top 10 risks for insurers.

According to the Ernst & Young study, "Strategic Business Risk 2008," the top 10 risks are:

1. Climate change: long-term, far-reaching and with significant impact on the industry.


http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/03/12/88138.htm

Just to recap, the alarmist list now includes.

The 180 member nations of the IPCC
All the major science organizations in the United States
Nasa
The 925 studies in a row that supported man made global warming
The Whitehouse staff
Newt Gingrich
Al Gore and Hollywood
Spring and Mother Nature
All the media
Plants
All the Western United States
Insurance companies

and the truth is only dispensed by

Scientists that work for oil companies
Cigarette apologists
Fiction writers

The list of alarmists just keeps getting longer. Now its the IEA and by extension the G8 that approve their research.


But the rate of fossil fuel use is skyrocketing. Last fall, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that the current growth trend, led by new coal-burning power plants, will drive the global average temperature up 3.0 degrees by 2030 and it could ultimately climb to 6.0 degrees C in the following decades.

There is always some alarmist type person trying to tell us about hurricanes being amped up by global warming. But that is all some future myth...right?

eh no.


The large increase in power dissipation over the past 30 yr or so
may be because storms have become more intense, on the average,
and/or have survived at high intensity for longer periods of time. The
accumulated annual duration of storms in the North Atlantic and
western North Pacific has indeed increased by roughly 60% since
1949, though this may partially reflect changes in reporting practices,
as discussed in Methods. The annual average storm peak wind speed
summed over the North Atlantic and eastern and western North
Pacific has also increased during this period, by about 50%. Thus
both duration and peak intensity trends are contributing to the
overall increase in net power dissipation. For fixed rates of intensification
and dissipation, storms will take longer to reach greater peak
winds, and also take longer to dissipate. Thus, not surprisingly,
stronger storms last longer; times series of duration and peak
intensity are correlated with an r 2 of 0.74.

ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

I guess we should add rain and wind to the list of alarmists that are distorting the carefully crafted reality made by oil companies. The same oil companies that said their 123 billion dollar profits were "in line" with the profits of other companies and that they should continue to get tax breaks to encourage development. Those are the honest people of the world.

Not China, surely they won't join the alarmist camps. ARRGGGGGG



The fast meltdown of Tibetan and Xinjiang glaciers -- the major source of Asia's biggest rivers -- is seriously threatening the survival of major rivers, including the Yangtze, the Mekong, the Yellow River, the Indus and the Ganges [Images], according to a recent study by climatologists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The study, which began in 2000, said that at certain spots, the world's highest glaciers had melted by up to an alarming 17 per cent.

"About 4.2 per cent of the glaciers have disappeared since the previous survey was carried out between 1956 and 1980," said Liu Shiyin, a researcher at the CAS' renowned Cold and Arid Regions Environment and Engineering Research Institute in Lanzhou, capital of Gansu Province.

"The shrinking of glaciers has picked up speed in the past decades. While there might be more water in the rivers at present because of the increased melting, in the long run, the glacier water will decrease, and droughts will follow," he said.




At this rate there will only be a handful of truth tellers in the face of a global conspiracy of billions to lie about the effects of global warming. I can only thank the API for pre-predicting the results these truth tellers would have and then funding them, and then spending millions to get the truth out there in the face of such bald face untruths by everyone else in the world.

This all reminds me of when I was a kid going to school in Canada, and learning about geography ... In elementary school in the late 1970's, we were taught something about the theory of plate tectonics as a possible explanation for earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain ranges, etc. By the time that I progressed to high school in the early 1980's, the science of plate tectonics was then considered fact. Meanwhile, in places like Germany and Sweden, plate tectonics had been considered fact since the early 1960's.

At this point virtually all parts of the world - with the exception of some "holdout" parts of the US and Canada now consider human-influenced climate change as being fact. That is, that there is an overwhelming body of irrefutable evidence to indicate the humans are having a profound influence on the climate of the world. There is an axiom about science, which states that "when a theory is proposed, and after a reasonable time it cannot be disproven - then it must be a fact". I expect that within ten years, most of the remaining dissenters will accept that human-influenced climate change is fact. I just hope that at that point, it is not too late to do something ...

We cannot control the climate any more than we can control the large continental plates that cover our globe ... however we can influence the amount of energy that is stored in the atmosphere by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (particularly carbon dioxide and methane) and developing strategies to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I wouldn't loose any sleep over the naysayers. There are still many Americans that believe there are WMDs in Iraq and that the war has nothing to do with oil. ;) The remaining "we have no effect on the world" people are basically limited to talking to themselves. As a previous poster mentioned the rest of the world is convinced based on the overwhelming consensus from the smartest scientists and organizations on the planet (those that don't have a hidden agenda that is). If the US keeps playing this "It wasn't me" game we will only fall further back in our ability to be leaders in the new green marketplace. There is so much money to be made and so much positive goodwill to gain that It's very sad for me to see my country sitting on the fence. As the world's biggest polluter we should be the biggest agent for change.

I'm not trying to convince the naysayers. In fact, I've come to sort of believe that the naysayers don't really believe themselves. But the harm they do among those that don't have an opinion is uncalculable. To just let the shills continue to beat the "not settled" drum without anyone taking up the other side is killing us as a nation.

Like you I see potential in the post CO2 market place. On the day that someone solves the problem there will only be two people in the world; buyers and sellers. Of those two, I'd rather be the seller. But, if the naysayers get there way, the sellers won't be American and our nation will wither as we missed our chance to save the planet and get rich doing it.

I'm not trying to convince the naysayers. In fact, I've come to sort of believe that the naysayers don't really believe themselves. But the harm they do among those that don't have an opinion is uncalculable. To just let the shills continue to beat the "not settled" drum without anyone taking up the other side is killing us as a nation.

Like you I see potential in the post CO2 market place. On the day that someone solves the problem there will only be two people in the world; buyers and sellers. Of those two, I'd rather be the seller. But, if the naysayers get there way, the sellers won't be American and our nation will wither as we missed our chance to save the planet and get rich doing it.

Well said.

Blakec, Texas, Yep. There's money to be made in developing green tech and selling it to others.

Yep. The shills have done real damage. I don't understand how it is that the anti-AGW message remains popular. The "skeptics" (the polite term for shills) had their day in NYC, back on March 2-5 or so, at a conference sponsored by "The Heartland Institute." Less than two dozen scientists with any credibility at all showed up and, of those that did, several agree that yes, we ARE warming and, yes, it IS our fault (they differ on policy, preferring to let the Earth sort the change out on its own - for the benefit of "the poor").

If the science isn't "settled," it's a real mystery where any true, credible, skeptical climatologists hang out; they sure are hard to find.

I feel this whole argument is like a criminal trial. Eleven of the twelve jurors are trying to get the remaining person to come over to their side or just shut up so they get a decision. I think the majority of the world's population is ready to accept real change. You know, the kind that requires sacrifices. I just want to ask the remaining juror if they realize what they are doing? Even a small number of them can keep things in limbo. Perhaps they should say the following, "We are not fully convinced of the science but agree that trying to rectify the stated problem is a better course of action than inaction." As long as we proceed with sustainability in mind I really don't see many negative consequences, relative to the positive gains that are possible. I believe the rewards far outweigh the risks in this particular situation. How long are we humans going to sit on our hands? Probably until the next disaster.

I feel this whole argument is like a criminal trial. Eleven of the twelve jurors are trying to get the remaining person to come over to their side or just shut up so they get a decision. I think the majority of the world's population is ready to accept real change. You know, the kind that requires sacrifices. I just want to ask the remaining juror if they realize what they are doing? Even a small number of them can keep things in limbo. Perhaps they should say the following, "We are not fully convinced of the science but agree that trying to rectify the stated problem is a better course of action than inaction." As long as we proceed with sustainability in mind I really don't see many negative consequences, relative to the positive gains that are possible. I believe the rewards far outweigh the risks in this particular situation. How long are we humans going to sit on our hands? Probably until the next disaster.

Your analogy of the trial and the lone juror is very interesting because that lone juror may, with or without knowledge, know the truth but has a huge hurdle to overcome in that the larger group, undoubtely, believes they are right. How many innocent people have gone to jail?? A hung juror (ie. the need for more scientific evidence) is the best thing before a huge overhaul is attempted. The bad part about dealing with the earth is that cause and effect scenarios are best examined over thousands or millions of years. Fluctuations that may occur over decades or hundreds of years may seem significant to any one generation at any given time but on the grand scheme of things it means very little.

This is not to say that we should not attempt to clean up after ourselves but we may need to consider that environments have changed in the past and will change in the future with or without human involvement.

But in this case the lone juror is on the payroll of the defense team. So, I'm not inclined to believe that they are impartial defenders of the truth, but are in fact just protecting their paychecks at the expense of justice.

There was a "concensus" that the O-Rings on the Challenger were safe.



"The Commission concluded that the Thiokol Management reversed its position and recommended the launch of 51-L, at the urging of Marshall and contrary to the views of its engineers in order to accommodate a major customer."

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm

This is what is happening now, politicians hyping something far beyond what the science warrants.

Do your own research.

Read both sides.

Not studying the other side is a choice.

If you don't read both sides, you can't decide which side has the stronger evidence. Do you have faith in the people who will decide for you?

Out of dummy arguements against global warming, you've sunk to the "some people have been wrong in the past" defense. All you can say is some where someone got something right that others missed. Well, for years others said Climate Change was a hoax and now, like the O rings, the truth is coming out as we suffer a major calamity. So, I guess your own sad sack example works against your arguement.

I'd study the other side, but I only believe peer reviewed science that hasn't come with predetermined results and the global warming deniers have none of that. All they have is propaganda that was bought and paid for by oil companies. You make choice to believe it over unbiased study and overwhelming evidence. You make that choice to ignore the overwhelming evidence of bias on their part.

They said they were going to go out and pay people to prove their point. That is propaganda, not science. They have the most to lose if climate change is real, and they have proven over and over again they will lie to avoid being hurt.

And you have yet to address the non-hype, really happening results I posted in the last dozen or so articles I posted to this thread. Have the politico's caused wind to blow harder? Or the beetles to not be killed during the winter? Wear your tin foil hat in your own basement if you won't even acknowledge the real world events that are happening around you.

Again the list of people that are "hyping" it up as you call it includes.

All 180 nations that participated in the IPCC statement.
the 10,000 scientists that participated in the IPCC research
Every major science organization in the United States.
NASA
The White House.
The Congress
925 straight studies without a single disconfimation of man made global warming.
The insurance industry.
Spring
Hurricanes
The Pine Beatles
The Media
Hollywood
Polticians
Plants
The Prince of Wales
the IEA
and more


At some point your just being dense or paid if you don't believe it.

Here is an example of unpeer reviewed science. Apparently lack of pirates is causing Global Warming. Because, you know, pirates are cool. This graph is just as valid as all the other apolgists that can't get their work reviewed by their peers.

http://photos26.flickr.com/37341256_1315fbe236.jpg

If no one checks their results, they can make up anything they want. That is why peer reviewed science is so important. It keeps the stupid and the liars out of the discussion.

See all the things unpeer reviewed papers miss out on. I'll high light them for you...ethics, expertise, objectivity, quality and accuracy.



The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Peer reviewed journals rely on expert and objective review by knowledgeable researchers to ensure the quality of the papers they publish. Moreover, the recommendations the reviewers make concerning publication and the advice they give to authors set the scientific standards of the discipline. In addition, their critiques set subtler standards of collegiality, behavior, and ethics, not only through their recommendations concerning which papers should be published and which should be rejected, but also through the tone and wording of their reviews and through the thought that they give to their scientific and ethical responsibilities as reviewers.


Why would I want to "study" papers that lack ethics, expertise, objectivity, quality or accuracy? I would think when I was making a decision I would want to reject arguements from the unethical, uninformed, inaccurate, unobjective works of poor quality, but hey, maybe I'm being alarmist when I do that.

Most of the works you site are from people that have done 0 (zero) research as well as being paid by the oil companies. If you've done no research and yet are able to turn out results that agree with the predetermined wishes of your employers, I get to ignore your arguements without guilt.

Looks like just the small carbon-cap changes are not going to be enough!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html?em&ex=1207713600&en=27c58d0820ce0243&ei=5087%0A

This New York Times article even mentions Plug-in Hybrids as one of the advanced technologies that can help out in a big way, which most of us already knew. They also say that the Scientists are calling for more aggressive intervention by world governments. Thus, that nice tax break for our Volt's still might be coming!

Seriously, the world's governments are still fighting over who should foot the bill. China has a good point that the developing nations should pay because they have been getting rich by using fossil fuels for more than a 100 years and caused most of the pollution. However, I feel that the pain should be distributed in such a way as to, A) Not hurt the development of emerging nations - they have just as much right as we do to succeed and, B) Not give an advantage (or disadvantage) to any one country.

I guess the basic theme should be that we all work together and that we have to realize the cost of fuel is going to rise. The cheap fossil-burning days are numbered. How is this all going to pan out? I'm thinking very slowly, lots of fighting and finger pointing then weak attempts to fulfill agreed upon goals. More of the same I imagine.

Hopefully new solar cell (nanosolar), thermal solar, wind turbine, plug-in hybrid, biofuel and other technologies will make the course of action obvious. Something like, "Wow! that Volt is amazing. Why don't we just put more of them on the road by offering huge incentives." :)

Finally an issue where the true disasterous nature of climate change can be seen and understood by all...


The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew - especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday.


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4610087

Perhaps now we can finally see some reaction from the heartland on this issue. :)

Did somebody say beer?

Man, this thread took off!

Sorry dudes, 'man made global warming' is pretty much a religion now, and for a lot of it's believers, there's no arguing about it. They KNOW they are right. (it goes along well with their loathing of modern society and mankind in general)

Frankly, I think it's arrogant of EITHER side to think they know with absolute certainty WHAT individual things cause warming, and to what extent.

I'd also chime in asky WHY warming is just SO bad? Do people not think this planet goes through changes independent of mankind? If you can't deny that, how can you then say with any certainty that whatever trend you're pointing to is absolutely NOT caused by natural cycles?

Flat out, environmentalists need a whipping boy. In the 70's it was Global Cooling (I kid you not!), in the 80's it was Acid Rain, in the 90's, it was a hole in the ozone layer... and in the 00's (this one will probably stick around for a little while longer) it's Global Warming.

I'm just glad that regardless of our individual beliefs, pretty much ALL of us here want the US to get off of oil as much as possible. We support renewable energy and advancing technologies like PHEVs, EVs, solar, wind and other sources of power. Some of us support building more nuclear power plants, since given the amount of power for the amount of fuel used, there's relatively little waste, and much of that can be recycled. Also modern reactor tech is much more advanced, that meltdowns would be near impossible. We need to do it. We need nukes while other things mature and make market penetration.

Anyway... keep discussing!

Man, this thread took off!

Sorry dudes, 'man made global warming' is pretty much a religion now, and for a lot of it's believers, there's no arguing about it. They KNOW they are right. (it goes along well with their loathing of modern society and mankind in general)

Frankly, I think it's arrogant of EITHER side to think they know with absolute certainty WHAT individual things cause warming, and to what extent.

I'd also chime in asky WHY warming is just SO bad? Do people not think this planet goes through changes independent of mankind? If you can't deny that, how can you then say with any certainty that whatever trend you're pointing to is absolutely NOT caused by natural cycles?


FrayAdjacent:

That's what I'm trying to figure out too. Why is it so bad? According to Al Gore it will be the end of the world as we know it and millions of people will die. However, he can't get off his ass to stop the killing in Darfur, Iraq, China, the Gaza Strip or any other place in the world were millions are also dying. People die. That's life. Animals die and become extinct. That's life. Things change, those who can adapt, survive, those who can't die. That's life.

It doesn't matter, in the long run whether or not the climate is currently changing, it has changed in the past, or why it is actually changing. To sit and bicker over whether or not the climate changes is for those who live in sensory deprivation. To sit and bicker over who is causing the climate to change, while more useful, is besides the point and slightly childish. The real questions that we should all be asking now that climate change is such a big issue are:
1. Does it matter that the climate is changing?
2. If it matters, what do we want the climate to actually be like?
3. Finally, what can we do to manage the climate?

I don't think there is a consensus or overwhelming majority that agrees that the current climate changes actually matter. I think think if we actually want to get to the point where we can answer number three, then it does, but before that we need to answer number two, which no one, but me as far as I know, is even asking at this point in time.

I think the real problem with the global warming/climate change debate that is currently going on is that every one who talks about it makes it seem that we have to stop progressing in order to achieve some nebulous goal of stopping the climate from changing, which is of course, impossible until we are able to actually manage it. However, we can not manage the climate if we stop progress. So the debate, in its current form, is bound to fail to achieve any goal that it sets out to do besides scare people into giving more money to politicians that won't actually accomplish anything but making the rest of us poor.

If you took two minutes to look into the impacts forcast for the climate change, you would know what is so bad about it. As I've taken to saying, I hope its your kids that suffer for your decisions. But of course, it will be all of our kids.

It's easier to doom our children then take the time to fix this problem, just like the national debt. So, hey, keep claiming ignorance and it probably won't be so bad before you die. Just don't look your kids in the eye while you do it.

I got really pissed at my wife because she knew the weather was going to change but she let the kids go outside anyway. Plus she made me get a damn loan to buy this stupid house and now I have to pay off the debt!

FrayAdjacent:

I think the real problem with the global warming/climate change debate that is currently going on is that every one who talks about it makes it seem that we have to stop progressing in order to achieve some nebulous goal of stopping the climate from changing, which is of course, impossible until we are able to actually manage it. However, we can not manage the climate if we stop progress. So the debate, in its current form, is bound to fail to achieve any goal that it sets out to do besides scare people into giving more money to politicians that won't actually accomplish anything but making the rest of us poor.

I think your logic is flawed. You feel that most people think we have to stop progress in order to reduce human generated pollution? I don't think anybody on the global warming side thinks this way. I think they feel we need to stop burning fossil fuels and move to alternative, renewable sources of energy in order to a achieve a sustainable way of life. Less pollution and irresponsible practices and more toward a lifestyle that can go on for a much longer time, not end when the non-renewable resources are depleted. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why are you so brainwashed as to think moving toward sustainability is a bad long-term objective. Is it not obvious to you that planting a tree for every one you cut down or raising a fish for every one your eat or not putting into the environment toxic or questionable chemicals or emissions before you do the best you can to prevent it is a good thing? How is this way of thinking wrong?

How do you justify your way of thinking that we can just do as we like with absolutely no worry that the resources are using are being reduced, however slowly, and that they will eventually be gone. To just cut down trees at your fancy regardless of the environmental consequences. To me only a child should think this way.

I think your logic is flawed. You feel that most people think we have to stop progress in order to reduce human generated pollution? I don't think anybody on the global warming side thinks this way. I think they feel we need to stop burning fossil fuels and move to alternative, renewable sources of energy in order to a achieve a sustainable way of life. Less pollution and irresponsible practices and more toward a lifestyle that can go on for a much longer time, not end when the non-renewable resources are depleted. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why are you so brainwashed as to think moving toward sustainability is a bad long-term objective. Is it not obvious to you that planting a tree for every one you cut down or raising a fish for every one your eat or not putting into the environment toxic or questionable chemicals or emissions before you do the best you can to prevent it is a good thing? How is this way of thinking wrong?

How do you justify your way of thinking that we can just do as we like with absolutely no worry that the resources are using are being reduced, however slowly, and that they will eventually be gone. To just cut down trees at your fancy regardless of the environmental consequences. To me only a child should think this way.

Why do you like to assume beliefs about things that I never said? I said "they make it seem like", I never said that they actually believe that or that I believed that they wanted to stop progress. Perhaps progress was the incorrect word or I should have rephrased it. However, if you believe that my logic is flawed, your assumptions based off of a misstatement shows how flawed your logic is and your ability to disregard the content of the whole post based off of a misstatement or misunderstanding shows your downright arrogance and disregard for anyone who doesn't agree with you. What the intent of my message was, which was clear from the middle of my post and I stated clearly, is that I believe the debate in it's current form is not going to affect any change that will be long lasting or accomplish it's goals and that we must rephrase the questions that we are asking if we truly want to accomplish the goal of a sustainable future.

Point taken. I went back and re-read your posts in an attempt to understand more clearly what your intent was. Unfortunately, it’s still as clear as mud. For example, you wrote the following:

"However, we can not manage the climate if we stop progress"

Maybe if you defined what progress you are talking about. After re-reading I'm thinking our technical progress gained through the use of burning fossil fuels? How is reducing our CO2 emissions stopping our progress?

I hope you realize that to the author of a post the intent is much easier to understand. It’s the author's beliefs! Even talented writers have editors that proof-read their work with objectivity to see if the writer's intent was clearly delivered. What may seem clear to you may be, as in my case, cloudy. Anyway, I still stand by my statements because they are my beliefs, even if they don't match with what you were trying to convey. ;)

After reading through your posts I will say this, maybe we don't have to decide what we want the climate to be before we decide it's a good idea to reduce, as much as we can, the pollution we emit or the way we use the Earth's resources. Is that a fair enough statement for you?

Since we are not 100 percent sure we are causing Global Warming, despite what the scientists of the world are saying, then maybe the prudent path to take is to reduce our footprint. Sorry that it sounds like such a tree hugging term but It's actually a good analogy. Let's make fewer and less deep footprints on the earth. There is less possible damage that way. What us humans do may affect nothing or it may tragically affect the earth. Since we are not sure, how about we take the less possible destructive path? Will this stop progress of any kind (accept the progress of our pollution)? If so please explain.

Since we are not 100 percent sure we are causing Global Warming, despite what the scientists of the world are saying, then maybe the prudent path to take is to reduce our footprint. Sorry that it sounds like such a tree hugging term but It's actually a good analogy. Let's make fewer and less deep footprints on the earth. There is less possible damage that way. What us humans do may affect nothing or it may tragically affect the earth. Since we are not sure, how about we take the less possible destructive path? Will this stop progress of any kind (accept the progress of our pollution)? If so please explain.

Depends on what you mean by progress and the restrictions you plan to place in order to reduce the footprint. If by progress you mean "bringing the rest of the world's standard of living up to a point where everyone, if they work for it, has an opportunity to live a healthy life and provide for their children" and by reducing our footprint you mean "to replace restrictions on all nations, no matter their current level of development, economic power, or ability to purchase greener technology and enforce them through sanctions of trade such that no nation in world is allowed to produce a certain amount of C02 or other pollutants whether or not there is a viable alternative." Then yes, it could halt progress. If however, you mean by progress just scientific advancement, then no, there would be no stop to progress. However, I do not think that those of us in living comfortably in a large nation should impose restrictions on a smaller nation that does not have the means to manufacture, purchase or develop technologies on their own that are clean. We of the large nations should look beyond government mandates and hold other companies and producers of goods accountable for their environmental footprint. If we produce the tech and make it cheap enough to replace current dirty tech then the third world nations will be able to use it.

There is no evidence that shrinking our footprint will cause the economic impact that you rally against. If anything, a revolution in technology may cause more jobs and spur growth. All you have is fear mongering and paranoid finger pointing.

If the economy is all you care about, then how do you propose we are to avoid the economic impacts that will happen if the globe changes with warming? If the bread baskets of the world dry up, how will the third world (or the first world for that matter) eat?

You remind me of the oil apologists from 10 years ago. I'd say to them, oil is running out and the price is going up. And they would respond "no it's not, and you are just trying to stop progress by being against oil".

Well, here we are today with $4 gas and sitting on a forum waiting for the new progress, a plug in car that uses less gas. Carbon reduction will be the same way. The new inovative C02 reduction products and energy creation methods will be the new wave. And we will have new jobs making them and new markets for them.

You say we shouldn't stop progress...but then advocate against making progress toward greener technologies. Sustainable living is progress too. Staying with older technologies is the surest way to ruin a country. Every civilization that refused to change to meet the new challenges facing it has been destoryed or at least relegated to a side seat in history.

I guess I just love my country to much to let the ostrich syndrome ruin its future.

You say we shouldn't stop progress...but then advocate against making progress toward greener technologies. Sustainable living is progress too. Staying with older technologies is the surest way to ruin a country. Every civilization that refused to change to meet the new challenges facing it has been destoryed or at least relegated to a side seat in history.

Did I say that the United States should stay with older technologies? Where in my post did I say that? No where, because what I said is that we and other technologically developed countries should lead the way, but not force smaller countries to make changes that they can't afford.

Here's an interesting article with some links exposing some of the hype that the media has caused around global warming. If the scientists are right this time and global warming is real, do we really need all the hype and fear mongering?

http://www.lionsledbysheep.com/2008/04/10/global-warming-the-beautiful-hoax/

Of course the author isn't a scientist. He is a fiction writer. I'll take my science from real scientists and my fiction from fiction writers.

What, no tobacco apologist reject scientists available for quote today?

He presents no evidence for any of his statements. I guess we should just believe it because he says it and because he can write movie plots.

Yeah, good site, really builds up the case in the face of the 10,000 scientists that actually did research that the IPCC report was built on and the 925 studies in a row between 1993 and 2003 that all supported man made global warming.


I'm totally on board now with the hoax theory, or maybe not.

No research = guy just making stuff up.

And where he is coming from is such an honest place...


Irrelevant if the ice caps are melting, forests burning, species being driven into extinction or not?

At the end of the day, the only thing, THE ONLY THING we truly care about is our health, safety, and quality of life.


Head in the sand syndrome personified. Hey, species being driven to extinction and forests burning and ice cap meltings are the canary in the coal mine stuff. Your right, we don't care, but its what they signal that we will care about. Giant deserts stretching across most of the US of A. Our farms and farmers forced off their land because it is no longer able to grow crops. Food wars, energy wars, water wars. Some of those things will impact your precious health, safety and quality of life. Idiots are people that are told the truth and just ignore it until it leads them to a bad end.

No research = guy just making stuff up.


Here's a link to a blog that he linked to as part of his research that you obviously failed to follow in your hurry to dismiss anything that he had to say:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The writers on this website spend their time researching and debunking many of the myths that the alarmist proponents of global warming perpetuate.

Here's a link to a blog that he linked to as part of his research that you obviously failed to follow in your hurry to dismiss anything that he had to say:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The writers on this website spend their time researching and debunking many of the myths that the alarmist proponents of global warming perpetuate.


More importantly, worldclimatereport has recently morphed from:

www.co2andclimate.org/climate/overview/overview.htm

to

www.worldclimatereport.com

These sites clearly have the same origin as they have the same name and almost identical “about us” descriptions. However, while the background of the “reincarnation” is rather vague (naming only Patrick J. Michaels as the Editor and Paul C. Knappenberger as the Administrator), the original site is clearly run by the Greening Earth Society. And what is the Greening Earth Society? Let’s look at the 2000 Annual Report of Western Fuels Association, which states “since Earth Day 1998, Western Fuels Association’s climate change advocacy has been rooted in the Greening Earth Society”. And what is “Western Fuels Association”? According to their web site: “Western Fuels Association, Inc., operates on a not-for-profit basis to provide coal for the generation of electricity by consumer-owned utilities …..”. Also, according to their 1998 Annual Report: “We lost $583,000 in 1997 ….. Our half-million dollar shortfall is due entirely to our advocacy in the area of climate change.”



bzzzzz another oil and coal funded propaganda site. All you losers have is oil and coal company lies. They spend millions to sprout this astro propoganda out and its the same lies they spread every single time.

this site: http://www.worldclimatereport.com

is run by these three people:


Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels

Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis

Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger

All three of whom were a part of the ICEE, an organization funded by Exxon. The three of them have been in many other organizations, too long to list here, which have all been funded by oil firms.


Yeah, great site. Exxon, which wrote in 1997 that they were going to fund junk science to keep their bottom line from gettting hurt by the necessary changes required by climate change.

Great site, keep them coming.

Patrick J. Michaels on the payrollof mining interests for over 20 years now.

Dr. Michaels has received to publish
World Climate Review. The following is an excerpt of his testimony: c
Q: That's fine. Do you publish a journal called the World Climate Review, a quarterly review
of issues concerning global climate change?
A: No longer.
Q: No longer? You formerly did?
A: Yes.
Q: And how long did you publish that?
A: A little less than three years.
r -
Q: Who funded it?
A: Western Fuels Association.


Dr. Michaels' own web page, however, touts World Climate Report, ''a research review edited by Dr.
Patrick J. Michaels. World Climate Report ..... Funding for this publication is provided by Western Fuels Association, Inc. with
additional funding by associated companies."


In addition to this undisclosed funding from Western Fuels Association and other coal and energy
interests to hnd World Climate Review and World Climate Report, Dr. Michaels received a $63,000
grant fiom Western Fuels for research on global climate change.
German Coal Mining; Association and Edison Electric
From the German Coal Mining Association, Dr. Michaels has received $49,000 and from Edison Electric
Institute he has received $15,000.
Cv~ruMs inerals Company
Dr. Michaels has received $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company.

And this was all before 1996. Yeah, those guys are about as crooked as it gets and you want to believe them over

The 10,000 scientists that worked on the IPCC
The 180 governments that approved the IPCC statement (line by line)
Every major science organization in the USA
Nasa
The White House
Congress
All the media/hollywood/Al Gore (since people like you think they are the same thing)
and of course the 925 consecutive studies done between 1993 and 2003 that all showed man made global warming was real and happening.

But, hey you've got those oil and coal shills and fiction writers to back up your case, so its a strong case. Keep fighting it.

I've stated many times that these anti global warming shills are just old warriors from the tabaco wars and wouldn't you know it...

Robert E. Davis works for the The Independent Institute Which has recieved major funding from Philip Morris and from Exxon.

But hey, they are probably have a big history of integraty and not selling their opinions out to the highest bidder right?

oops


The Institute has sponsored climate skeptic Fred Singer and has been a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition. The Institute's Web site quotes praise from many luminaries, including Ronald Reagan, Edwin Meese, and William Niskanen of the Cato Institute. In 1999, the Independent Institute came under fire for being not so independent. A 18 September New York Times piece outlined how the Independent Institute put out full paged newspaper ads bank-rolled by Microsoft. The ads supported Microsoft's claim of innocence in the face of federal anti-trust charges. According to The New York Times, Microsoft paid for the ads and was also the largest individual donor to the organization that year (David Callahan, "The Think Tank as Flack," Washington Monthly, November 1999).

{sung to man of means}
Science for sale or rent
Opinions for just 50 cents
I'm a scientist of integrety by no means
King of the shills

Maybe I'm selling these guys short, perhaps the honorable Paul C. Knappenberger is clean of oil ties....nope.



Paul C. Knappenberger, previously involved with a now-closed branch of the George C. Marshall Institute, which according to Newsweek is a "central cog in the denial machine." The institute has received funding from ExxonMobil.



George C. Marshall Institute has received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1999
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
'support for science and public policy education programs'
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 1999 IRS 990

2000
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$60,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
'climate change work'
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$80,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
'global climate change program'
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2002
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Awards Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$95,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change Program
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$25,000 Exxon Corporation
Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
DISCREPANCY: 2005 Corporate Giving Report: General Operating Support. IRS 990 form 2005: Climate Change.
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005
$25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Awards Dinner and General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006
$85,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General support and annual dinner
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006


Wow, once again I'm stunned. Well, maybe not.

Name me one scientist completely free of ties to any industry, government or activist group. There are very few because pure science research without practical or propaganda application is a luxury pursuit. Dismissing what someone has to say out of hand because they were given money by someone is just as bad as accepting it from someone else because there are no ties. You should question everything you read from everybody. That's just plain and simple and the basis for the whole thread. Government's have agenda, just as we can see in the current administration having information altered in scientific reports. see : http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientific-integrity-in-the-news.html

Before you go off on a tirade saying that this proves your point and that the oil industry is trying to undermine all the "good" science done around the world in regards to global warming, I would like to point out to you that I never said that Global Warming wasn't occurring, never made a position one way to the other as to whether anyone was right or wrong. All I have said is that the debate is framed incorrectly and all I am saying now is that you have to do the research yourself and actually listen to both sides of the argument no matter whether you think the other-side is kooky or not.

Your whole argument seems to be : "Global warming is right because a lot of people say it is and I trust them because they don't have ties to oil. Everyone saying anything opposite seems to have received money from oil and I don't trust oil companies so they are wrong." If I'm wrong and that's not your argument, then please educate me as to what it actually is.

I'm saying that if you don't have peer review for your science, then no one is checking to see if you are lying. Then, if I can find a motive for why you would be lying and you can't pass even the most basic test of not lying then you must be lying.

You want to doubt all the people that have no obvious motives in favor of people with a long history of selling their opinons to the highest bidders.

It isn't a case of not liking oil, its a case of oil said they were going to create propoganda to protect themselves and then they show up as the funders for all the liars you post on these boards.

So, my case is.

1) If you say you are going to lie
2) then you pay people with a history of lying for people that pay them
3) and those people can't get past even the most basic tests of telling the truth
4) then I get to say you are liars and ignore your results.


I would like to point out to you that I never said that Global Warming wasn't occurring, never made a position one way to the other as to whether anyone was right or wrong. All I have said is that the debate is framed incorrectly and all I am saying now is that you have to do the research yourself and actually listen to both sides of the argument no matter whether you think the other-side is kooky or not.

This is parroting the exact stated goals of the oil industry. They aren't trying to win the debate. They are trying to pump as much oil out of the ground as they can and they are going to just push the "not settled yet" debate as a way to do that.

In 1997 they did a survey that found that most people had doubts about whether or not the science was conclusive for global warming. They stated at that time that their goal was to exploit this doubt and try to keep debate open as long as possible.

Note: they didn't say global warming isn't real either. They just stated they wanted to dilute the debate as long as possible so no action will be taken against them. You parrot those same points as if you have a brain. But, you've just been duped by big oil and their marketing plan.

They created these people to exploit your paranoia and fears. And you lapped up it up like a cheap whore. But, you don't have to stay in that point of ignorance. All the evidence of what they are doing and why they are doing it is out there.

At some point, your just stupid or a shill if you don't see it.

But hey, maybe some fiction writer can conjure up a story that sounds good and they can salvage someone that once said smoking wasn't harmful to tell you that the 925 peer reviewed studies in a row are just a fluke and that the truth is just around the corner.

The case is open and shut. Less scientists believe its not settled at this point then that the moon landing might have been faked or that alien crafts landed at roswell. It's just a better funded lie that the debate on climate change is still on going in the scientific community.

More honesty from the American Petrolium Institute.


Their contention is that there is still so much oil under America that we can achieve energy independence without getting off oil for a long time. According to API, there are "112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. That's enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years." Unfortunately, we already seem to have about 250,000,000 passenger vehicles in the U.S.

I'm not sure what "technically recoverable" means, but I'm guessing not all the oil is easy to get at. And when you reconvert for the number of cars we actually have, we only have 14 years worth of "technically recoverable" oil. But hey, lets stake our energy future to that horse and see where it gets us.

And just incase any one forgot, these guys are the ones paying for all the propaganda saying the science behind global warming isn't settled.

blakec

You seem to have forgotten that most of the oil is owned by foreign governments. You keep going on and on and on about Exxon and the API. Have you ever heard about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuala and Canada? Have you ever heard about China and India? Have you ever heard about coal and natural gas? Please wake up and stop appealing to authority.

blakec

You seem to have forgotten that most of the oil is owned by foreign governments. You keep going on and on and on about Exxon and the API. Have you ever heard about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuala and Canada? Have you ever heard about China and India? Have you ever heard about coal and natural gas? Please wake up and stop appealing to authority.

Mike,

That's not likely to happen. If you read the other thread in this forum about the presidential candidates, it seems that blakec worships at the alter of governmental authority and any one who is not also a disciple is a liar and a coward.

American oil reserves....not so much 60 years, more like 12.




Summary of Reserve Data as of 2007

United States Reserves 21 Production 4.9 Reserve life 12


Notes:

1. Claimed or estimated reserves in billions (109) of barrels. (Source: Oil & Gas Journal, January, 2007)
2. Production rate in millions (106) of barrels per day (Source: US Energy Information Authority, September, 2007)
3. Reserve life in years, calculated as reserves / annual production. (from above)



Same lies from the same people that are trying to deny global warming. And look at the people on this thread that are fighting against global warming and how they won't say one negative thing about oil companies.

Astro turf bloggers if you ask me.

I knew that antiregulatory retoric echoed from some where and then I remembered where I had read it recently.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html


This concerted effort reflects the shared convictions of free-market, and thus antiregulatory, conservatives. But there’s another factor at play. In addition to being supported by like-minded individuals and ideologically sympathetic foundations, these groups are funded by ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company. Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups. In total, these organizations received more than $8 million between 2000 and 2003 (the last year for which records are available; all figures below are for that range unless otherwise noted). ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Lee Raymond serves as vice chairman of the board of trustees for the AEI, which received $960,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. The AEI-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, which officially hosted Crichton, received another $55,000.


THIRTY YEARS AGO, the notion that corporations ought to sponsor think tanks that directly support their own political goals—rather than merely fund disinterested research—was far more controversial. But then, in 1977, an associate of the AEI (which was founded as a business association in 1943) came to industry’s rescue. In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal, the influential neoconservative Irving Kristol memorably counseled that “corporate philanthropy should not be, and cannot be, disinterested,” but should serve as a means “to shape or reshape the climate of public opinion.”


Nevertheless, no company appears to be working harder to support those who debunk global warming. “Many corporations have funded, you know, dribs and drabs here and there, but I would be surprised to learn that there was a bigger one than Exxon,” explains Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, in 2000 and again in 2003, sued the government to stop the dissemination of a Clinton-era report showing the impact of climate change in the United States. Attorney Christopher Horner—whom you’ll recall from Crichton’s audience—was the lead attorney in both lawsuits and is paid a $60,000 annual consulting fee by the CEI. In 2002, ExxonMobil explicitly earmarked $60,000 for the CEI for “legal activities.”




Consider attacks by friends of ExxonMobil on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). A landmark international study that combined the work of some 300 scientists, the ACIA, released last November, had been four years in the making. Commissioned by the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum that includes the United States, the study warned that the Arctic is warming “at almost twice the rate as that of the rest of the world,” and that early impacts of climate change, such as melting sea ice and glaciers, are already apparent and “will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals, and some seabirds, pushing some species toward extinction.” Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was so troubled by the report that he called for a Senate hearing.

Industry defenders shelled the study, and, with a dearth of science to marshal to their side, used opinion pieces and press releases instead. “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice,” blared FoxNews.com columnist Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute ($75,000 from ExxonMobil) who also publishes the website JunkScience.com. Two days later the conservative Washington Times published the same column. Neither outlet disclosed that Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil.



Yet some forces of denial—most notably ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, of which ExxonMobil is a leading member—remained recalcitrant. In 1998, the New York Times exposed an API memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.” The document stated: “Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” It’s hard to resist a comparison with a famous Brown and Williamson tobacco company memo from the late 1960s, which observed: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.

here is the list

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

So, my question is:

If Exxon is doing nothing wrong funding all these "skeptics", why don't they post links to Exxon on their sites or site Exxon in their papers? I mean if nothing wrong is happening why hide the connection?

So, my question is:

If Exxon is doing nothing wrong funding all these "skeptics", why don't they post links to Exxon on their sites or site Exxon in their papers? I mean if nothing wrong is happening why hide the connection?

Good question. I think the funding should be disclosed on every paper that every scientist writes, wherever the funding is coming from.

Good question. I think the funding should be disclosed on every paper that every scientist writes, wherever the funding is coming from.

For the vast majority of scientists (the same ones you are so skeptical of) their funding is disclosed and is a matter of public record thru the university where they work. It's part of what makes them an honest. When you see people that won't disclose their funding and can't get their papers past peer review, you have to wonder why. And when you find out that their secret funders have previously hatched a plan to plant propaganda in the media, you have to dismiss their pre-paid for opinions.

blakec

Who pays this guy's salary?

http://climatesci.org/

I like that guy and his conclusions


Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.


He seems to be fighting for good honest science.

If feel for this guy, he is walking a tight line between all the hype on both sides. Take this for example. He is right that a multitude of factors have lead to more storm damage, but both sides will try to grab him and support their claims.

But in the end, I disagree with his defeatest attitude. We should try to fix our problems rather then be paralyzed by the amount and size of the issues before us. To put it bluntly, the cost of fixing it tomorrow will be more then the cost of fixing it if we start today.


Even if tomorrow we could somehow magically put an end to global warming, the frequency and magnitude of climate-related disasters would continue to rise unabated into the indefinite future as more people inhabit vulnerable locations around the world. Our research suggests that for every $1 of future hurricane damage that scientists expect in 2050 related to climate change, we should expect an additional $22 to $60 in damage resulting from putting more people and property in harm's way.

None of this means that we should not pursue reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or that mitigating climate change is a bad idea. But we simply cannot expect to control the climate's behavior through energy policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

The current international policy framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions the Kyoto Protocol is far too modest to have any meaningful effect on the behavior of the climate system. And even the modest agreements reached under Kyoto are failing.

Heck, even George Bush himself and the Moonietimes think the debate is over.


"This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something," said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week.


She said the administration's discussions, both internally and with Congress, are building toward an expected debate on climate change in the Senate in June and toward the next G-8 meeting in July, when the U.S. would like to have a more specific conversation about goals for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.

I guess it depends on what "this" means, and what "something" is. That, after all, is what the debate is about. "Cutting emissions" is something we probably need to start doing for energy security reasons anyway, so there is probably a lot of common ground. Nobody is against sensible risk management, just against hysterical overreaction. Sensible things like reducing emissions per capita, upgrading coal plants, more wind, solar and nuclear...etc. And most importantly, lots of Chevy Volts!

Surely, the Global Carbon Tax (http://www.carbontax.org/) is a large part of the politicization of Global Warming and the fabrication of a scientific consensus at the hands of the UN/IPCC. This would be the first global tax, and surely would set the precedent for one global government/one global fiat currency--which is definitely part of the agenda of the powers that be.

Here's a pretty heated post; lots of good comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml

Global Warming is so easy, even a 16 year old can understand it!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306

Global Warming is so easy, even a 16 year old can understand it!
It is quite simple. CO2 is the least effective greenhouse gas and it comprises 0.03% of Earth's atmoshpere. Analysis of ice-core samples shows that changes in CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperature change by some 800 to 1000 years. Correlation does not equal causation.

Surely, the Global Carbon Tax (http://www.carbontax.org/) is a large part of the politicization of Global Warming and the fabrication of a scientific consensus at the hands of the UN/IPCC. This would be the first global tax, and surely would set the precedent for one global government/one global fiat currency--which is definitely part of the agenda of the powers that be.

It doesn't matter the agenda of the government and what it might be. The scientists are funded, obviously, by the government so they must be honest and doing good science. The government would never do anything like the oil companies do.

It doesn't matter the agenda of the government and what it might be. The scientists are funded, obviously, by the government so they must be honest and doing good science. The government would never do anything like the oil companies do.
Sarcasm? Or you're delusional?

Sarcasm? Or you're delusional?

I was doing my best blakec impersonation.

I like that guy and his conclusions



He seems to be fighting for good honest science.


Interesting that you say that..
Check out :
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%E2%80%99t-cooperating/

versus:

http://climatesci.org/2008/03/27/reality-check-on-antarctic-sea-ice/

The one you say is a oil company shill and the one who's opinions you like seem to be saying very similar things. Why is one's conclusion more relevant than the other if they have the same/similar opinions?

There is no such thing as greenhouse gas. The proposal is simply ridiculous from any formal point of view. No legitimate authority endorses greenhouse gas global warming. See, for example:

http://www.climatehoax.ca/

There is no such thing as greenhouse gas. The proposal is simply ridiculous from any formal point of view. No legitimate authority endorses greenhouse gas global warming. See, for example:

http://www.climatehoax.ca/

Thank heavens! Finally, a subject that isn't highly polarizing! :rolleyes:

Sadly, the over-politicization of science has sullied its true worth. You can find scientists who support the concept of anthropogenic global warming, as well as those who discount it.

Personally, I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming - neither does one of my scientist friends, who has a degree in meteorology and knows quite a bit about the subject.

Welcome.

Rush Limbough says, there is no such thing about global warming, so I dont believe it

What people should be thinking is that it doesn’t matter if global warming is happening or not. There is no way people are going to act on this because 1) it happens too slowly 2) it won't effect any one person enough for them to do anything about it.

We have just learned that the best way to get people to reduce their energy usage is to simply raise the price of it. You can have Al and others talk until they’re blue in the face but it won’t do anything significant. Raise the price of gas to $5 a gallon and people won’t even want to leave their house!

Since we are hitting global supply limits on petroleum, given the amount of investment put forth, we don't have to even worry about global warming. All we have to do is work toward a renewable energy infrastructure. We have to do that to bring stability and longevity to our economy. The uncertainty of fossil fuel supplies and their related price volatility will not be able to be tolerated for too much longer.

Fixing the energy infrastructure will automatically fix the CO2 emission problem. We can work with carbon credits and cap and trade as well because that helps to update old power plants not only in developed countries but in developing countries. However, massive change will only come about when people feel the direct pain caused by using expensive, non-renewable energy.

Eventually fossil fuels will become extremely expensive to use. Not only in actual price but in terms of cost and risk. Every day that goes by results in an increase in the cost of exploration, extraction and refining of petroleum. There will be a cross point where the market will realize that renewable energy systems are less costly than non-renewable energy systems. When that happens so will change and the clean up of the world will begin. I don't think anything really needs to be done. It will happen because oil is a finite resource. We would be very smart to work on fixing the problem now and it will reduce the massive pain that is coming but we don't have to. We can do it or it will do it to us. Either way, it's going to happen.

Fossil CO2 emissions are just a result of our non-renewable and primitive energy usage. We are still the idiots cutting down the forests to keep our fires burning. We will either get wise to fact that we have to plant new trees to replace the old ones or we will strip the land of all the firewood. When that happens we will have to move. That is the current state of our development - very primitive and self destructive.

There seem to be two options, at least for cars.
1. Fuel cell
2. Biodiesel.

Fuel cells, which can also use hydrocarbons, are an extreme technical challenge.

Biodiesel is already up and running, at least as a hobby. The things that works, is probably neglected by other scams, that have not been thought through.

Rush Limbough says, there is no such thing about global warming, so I dont believe it

You should learn things by yourself instead of getting all your opinions straight from Rush. Rush isn't a very good source.

Any opinion that is paid for, should be illegal. Unfortunalely, the public broadcast spectrum, which belongs to me and you, is used to promote laxitives, viagra, and junk food.

The greenhouse gas hoax has not once been demonstrated in the lab or on paper. At the moment, only the media and paid UN parasites promote these lies. If it is not greenhouse gas, it would be something else, such as subprime mortgages for alchoholics or people just out of jail.

If biodiesel is under $100 a barrel, this would be a better way. It is up to the people to decide what kind of world they want to live in.

You should learn things by yourself instead of getting all your opinions straight from Rush. Rush isn't a very good source.

Darth, I have the feeling that you just took the hook. :D

There is no such thing as greenhouse gas. The proposal is simply ridiculous from any formal point of view. No legitimate authority endorses greenhouse gas global warming. See, for example:

http://www.climatehoax.ca/

Explain in your own words the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to greenhouse gasses. Explain why your sources are more legitimate than the IPCC.

"There is no such thing as greenhouse gas."

It is a bad name. The atmosphere can't act like a greenhouse. A greenhouse stays warm because the glass prevents convective heat realease. The "greenhouse" gases absorb infrared radiation, which make the atmosphere warmer than it would be without the gas. However, the relationship is logarithmic, and more CO2 only has a very small effect.

I have yet to see any real science, not models, on how an increase in CO2 can increase the earths temperature. We are talking about an increase in tens of parts per million. Not a significant amount. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen 75% and oxygen, 24 % or so. The remainder is made up of CO, Methane, all kinds of stuff, but the CO2 is only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Think about water vapor and clouds, and sunlight. I learned from this BB how much energy reaches the earth in a single day from sunlight. A small change in that amount would lead to heating or cooling. A few ppm of CO2, I am a skeptic. Science doesn't rely on models. That is flawed. Said way back about 15 pages by Texas. We don't need this argument to justify NOT spending our nation's wealth on polluting automobiles, and giving hundreds of billions of dollars a year to our enemies. Good night :)

"We are still the idiots cutting down the forests to keep our fires burning."

What is the rate of forest loss, and what is your source?

"Explain in your own words the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to greenhouse gasses. Explain why your sources are more legitimate than the IPCC."

The atmpospheric temperature gradient is calculated exactly by the Adiabatic Lapse rate. Just ask any weatherperson why the ground temperature is is say 15 degrees C while the upper atmosphere is
-40 degrees. Requires first year calculus, you can look it up.

I can't explain how this relates to greenhouse gas because there is no such thing. It just does not figure into Atmospheric thermodynamics, the calculations are precise the way they are.


There is not a single lab experiment, or calculation for greenhouse gas. IPCC is a UN organization, where some are paid for that opinion. Some members have a real job, and they vote against the minority parasites.

www.climatehoax.ca

"I can't explain how this relates to greenhouse gas because there is no such thing."

What do you understand the definition of a "greenhouse gas" to be? i.e. what is the understanding of the people who say that there is?

There is such a thing a convection. If air does not move, it is a good insulator. If the sun strikes the thin fabric on the inside of your car it will quickly act as, say a 50 watt radiator. If the windows are rolled up, the heat cannot leave by convection.

To have a greehouse you must have a glass enclosure. A gas is not a solid therefore is cannot block convection.

Convection is the only effect. It will not make a difference if the glass does, or does not transmitt infrared.

The atmosphere obeys the ideal gas law, if you live in this universe. It is great to ask questions. If you assert that something is true the burden of proof the burden of proof is on yourself.

Green house gas warming would assert the temperature in the sealed car would be about 5 degrees higher if there is an increase of CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08%
For example, in Farenheit rather than heating up to 90 it would heat up to 100 degrees.

Simply because I say something, does not assure that it is right. You are free to do such an experiment.

By the way, the physics literature on "Greenhouse" is rather sketchy.

Thank you Sniffy. Anyone, anyone, one person care to provide information on a sceintific experiment that proves or even comes close to proving how CO2 is causing the current "global warming " ??? :) :) :)

Thank you Sniffy. Anyone, anyone, one person care to provide information on a sceintific experiment that proves or even comes close to proving how CO2 is causing the current "global warming " ??? :) :) :)

If we did you would write it off as UN propaganda. There's no point debating this with people like you, you'll just have to wait a decade or two and see for yourself.

Sniffy can use big words and cherry-pick facts but he's just repeating the lame arguments of climate change deniers. I would advise you to get your information from actual peer reviewed climate science papers instead of Rush Limbaugh or Exxon.

Thank you Sniffy. Anyone, anyone, one person care to provide information on a sceintific experiment that proves or even comes close to proving how CO2 is causing the current "global warming " ??? :) :) :)

The globe is not warming; it is cooling.

sniffy:

As far as I understand it, a "greenhouse" gas is one that absorbs in the infrared region. Air may be a poor conductor and a good insulator in the absence of convection, but heat is ultimately lost to space as radiation. If there were no "greenhouse" gases, then the atmosphere would be much colder. Like I said, it is a stupid name, but as far as a greenhouse gas being one that absorbs infrared, they do exist, the major one being water.

"Global Warming" The media's word, not mine. Time for a nap..... ;)

Vader, you are one evasive person. I simply defy you to find one credible EXPERIMENT using the scientific method to illustrate how a few tens of ppm CO2 in an atmosphere composed of 99.9% nitrogen and oxygen can heat, no forget trying to define it, Effit!!!!, can create Al Goreism. Can you do that ? I'll wait and I promise I will listen.

As was pointed out to me by one I will call adversarial to me on this BB, a tremendous amount of energy is received by the earth, and all it's components, from the sun. And I get it. Thank you Texas. But that same acknowledgment also helps me understand that a CO2 argument is specious. Its just plain stupid. Its a political agenda to satiate and appease those who feel guilty about polluting and wasting the earth's resources. No Viet Nam war to protest, oh gawd. Let's save the earth. All noble sentiments, but not factual. The earth's climate is warming, but it has warmed and cooled in the past. Thats it. Thats all there is to it. Sea level fluccuations, foraminifera tests, CO2 isotope ratios, all this science we had in school. Decades ago. Any fool can look out their window in most of California and see evidence of the last ice age and mini ice age. Relic species cut off by a warming climate. Golden Trout, the state fish, Big Cone Spruce and Santa Lucia Fir, on and on and on. Cirques, moraines, glacial till, glacial lakes, Loess deposits, Cut off remnants of the past cooler ages. Just mere thousands of years ago. Death Valley was a huge huge Lake, HUNDREDS of FEET DEEP. Lake Lahontan, Lake Bonnieville, etc. They dried up and the surrounding area is DESERT. Man wasn't here then. But now its being twisted to fit a scheme. Its not science. Its not like debating continental drift. Its clueless.

Show me the CO2 experiment. I will listen.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf

There are countless studies on this, OPEC SUCKS. If you're too lazy to look for yourself I can't help you. I'm sure you're going to deny everything in that report without reading it but please prove me wrong. There's too much information in that report to be refuted by a couple of talking points about CO2 concentrations relative to inert Nitrogen gas.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf

There are countless studies on this, OPEC SUCKS. If you're too lazy to look for yourself I can't help you. I'm sure you're going to deny everything in that report without reading it but please prove me wrong. There's too much information in that report to be refuted by a couple of talking points about CO2 concentrations relative to inert Nitrogen gas.

Dude, you know they are up to AR4 now, right?

Dude, you know they are up to AR4 now, right?

Okay, here's the 2007 report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Read both of them OPEC

"Read both of them OPEC"

And you read this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

"Read both of them OPEC"

And you read this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

So far I'm pretty impressed with this site, thanks for the link. Here we have people who are critical of the IPCC AND actually seem to know what they're talking about. Debate is healthy but not when people proclaim that there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

I simply asked to see one credible scientific experiment, not a model. No rebuttal, only the accusation of lazieness. I would call that lazy.

Models are simply that. Have you ever used a model ? We used to use them to "determine" contaminant fate transport in groundwater. It is too easy to bias. Don't like your answer, just change the variable. Bingo !!

Do you have any answer to the simply stated observation that the earth's climate has gotten much warmer and drier in the last 10,000 years . All without ANY human activity. I call that lazy. What do you call it ??

You are correct about the United Nations. Ask about 7,000 Bosnians buried in mass graves that died as the UN chicken-shiatted and let Serbs "cleanse" them. I don't trust the UN and anything it stands for. It is a political organization, with a political agenda. I'll take scandal and corruption for $1000 chuck. Answer Kofi Anan. What did they do about their own conclusions, that Iraq was hiding WMD and further monitoring was impossible ? Nothing. Now they want to tell the US how to shut down its economy. The same UN that wants to ban private ownership of guns. So they can guard us one day. Sweet.

I read part of the link. Have you ?? The rest is printed out, and I left it at work. It would have run my home printer out of ink. This UN paper, the leader in conserving the earth and it's resources, has 8, count em', eight blank wasted pages in 18 pages of text. They lead by example. :eek:

I asked for an example of a scientific experiment, and you linked to models. Not very persuasive. :confused:

If you really knew anything about this subject, you would have simply said it's not easy or practical to complete an experiment that would require the atmoshperic column. But you didn't say that, so it looks like your knowledge of the subject is minimal. You would have said it involves the spectra and wavelength. And that it's HYPOTHESIZED that small increments of CO2 increase can affect the absorption. But you don't say that. :confused:

If its all true, that human released CO2 is causing temperature increases, then we are all hosed. China and India are signatories to Kyoto, but as monitoring only. They will continue to pollute and pollute worse. They are laughing at us, at you, and especially Al Gore. China is buying up all the coal reserves in Australia. Doesn't that worry you worse than what we do here ? They are killing us economically, and we are helping them. What do you say to that ??

The earth's climate has seen massive shifts in temperature in the past. From the end of the last ice age, to the mini ice age, till now. It's natural. Why do you think the Vikings caled Greenland " Green" ??? It's pretty icey now. Or the new world vineland ?? The natural output of CO2 greatly exceeds that of man. Did you read anything about the NATURAL fires this year in California ? How much CO2 released ? No, because it is "An inconvenient truth" :eek: that is polar to the political model. It would get shouted down. I will tell you this. In 2007, last year, the fires were a fraction, way way less than in 2008. And in 2007 the CO2 released by fires EXCEEDED the entire state's output of CO2 for the ENTIRE year. I have the link at work. So in 2008, the atmosphere took a huge natural hit. And no modeling done. Thats quackery and I call Bullshiaat. And in the worker's paradise, millions and millions and hundreds of millions of new polluters are coming on line. All fired by coal and carbon-powered industry.

That's a lot of CO2, amongst other things. This was 2007.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2006/12/061201105724.jpg

http://popsci.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/25/nasa_fires_2.jpg

Model This......

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/11/01/california-wildfires_7071.jpg

Pic and Linkey.......http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nasa1.jpg?w=382&h=450

http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/july-2008-nasa-satellite-image-of-california-wildfires/

http://www.ehabich.info/images/synchro/whole_earth.jpg

http://satellite.ehabich.info/ea.htm

[HTML]The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence./HTML]

"Debate is healthy but not when people proclaim that there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas."

Posted by Darthvader.....

Please show where I said this.

And.....

"I would advise you to get your information from actual peer reviewed climate science papers instead of Rush Limbaugh or Exxon."

I have a degree in Geology and am a practicing engineering geologist. I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, or have any affiliation with EXXON. I don't get information from either. I was educated before environmentalism became a witch hunt for anyone with differing ideas. I give simple requests for basic information, and get zero back. I make simple repeatable observations, that can be undisputably confirmed. Where did the ice go Darth ? It melted. 10,000 years ago. Duh.

You are a banner liberal. Name call, play the Rush Card, any stereotype you can peel off the party scab. That is not liberal. The present day alarmists are the new inquisitors. Burn and stifle any who question the follow along kool aid dogma.

I don't condone polluting. I don't condone wasting and squandering valuable and irreplacable resources. I drive the smallest, lightest, most fuel efficient auto ever made and sold in the USA. Practice what I preach. But I will not sit idly by and watch a mass rush to embrace false science. It's not even science. Model, model, model.

The IPC paper starts out with an explanation that science has changed. We can't use scientic experiments anymore, because they don't PROVE anything, only disprove it. They call it fallsification or some non-sense. That is the biggest pack of BS and outright lies I have seen. A great preface for an "unbiased" paper.

I submit that science is golden. The scientific method is alive and well, and has merit as it always have. Let's try a simple experiment, and see if this holds true. Let's see if the human body requires oxygen to live. We'll test it out on the IPC. I have the bricks and the swimming pool. I can can prove that cutting off the oxygen is fatal, therefore it is required for life. Send em' over. Start with Al "Chad" Gore.

Yea!!! finaly someone with balls, thank you, Opec Sucks

I showed some malice towards you that should have gone to others in this thread OPEC, my bad. That one guy said something about Rush Limbaugh and it set me off.

I'm a bit confused as to why you're asking for scientific experiments proving the greenhouse effect and not just climate models. There is no uncertainty that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and re-emits infra-red radiation that comes from the surface of the Earth. The "greenhouse" effect of CO2 and other gases is not in question in any way. How that actually affects the climate is a very different matter. The Earth IS the experiment in this case, and all you can ever hope to do is try to model the climate as best you can and then see how well your model matches reality.

If Rush set you off, thats understandable, then let's call it a day. He doesn't do anything for me either. I have found what I believe to be some interesting info on climate and CO2. I like it because it fits my mold. :) Maybe you have read it before, and it's old news. The "information" on CO2 spectra and absorption is really beyond me. I last worked with IR and chromatography almost 20 years ago. I couldn't even pronounce infra red spectro????????? anymore. As you may surmise, I have no respect for the UN.

Let me ask you.

What do you think the Chinese are thinking ? If you accept the fact they are planning large, really massive coal burning power production. They have a lot of people living in new, very expensive very large cities at sea level, no ??

What do you think the Chinese are thinking ? If you accept the fact they are planning large, really massive coal burning power production. They have a lot of people living in new, very expensive very large cities at sea level, no ??

Don't they have a population problem? :eek:

The Chinese don't seem to be too concerned with pollution of any kind. They're just trying to catch up with all we've been doing since the industrial revolution, and a big part of that is dirty cheap coal power.

Let's forget about the IPCC for a moment. What about ice melt? Most of the big glaciers all over the world are retreating at alarming rates as well as the polar ice cap. Is this just part of some natural cycle? For everyone's sake I hope it is, but I'm not convinced.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Scientists think they have uncovered conclusive proof that human activity is responsible for rising temperatures in both polar regions.


Changes in polar temperatures are not consistent with natural climate changes say scientists.

Research carried out at the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) demonstrates for the first time that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for warming at the Arctic and Antarctic.

Previous studies have observed rises in temperature at both poles, but none, until now, have formally attributed the cause to human activity.

Using up-to-date gridded data sets, scientists led by the UEA observed mean land surface temperatures in the Arctic over a 100 year period. For the Antarctic the observation period was shorter -- 50 years -- as there is no station data available before 1945.

They then applied an average simulated response using two models. The first examined natural forcings -- events like solar cycles and volcanic activity which can affect temperatures.

The second model simulated natural combined with anthropogenic forcings -- which included greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and sulphate aerosol.

Scientists discovered that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone.

One of the report authors, Dr Alexey Karpechko told CNN: "In both cases the accelerations are not consistent with natural forcing, which means that natural forcing alone cannot produce such a warming. So in a sense, we can say conclusively that this [warming trend at the poles] is due to human influence."

The paper "Attribution of polar warming to human influence" is published in the science journal Nature Geoscience.


http://us.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/polar.warming/index.html



My feeling is that we don't have the technology to claim conclusive proof. Thus, even if scientists are 95% sure that our pollution is bad for the world (duh - just go to any big city and enjoy the air) there will always be that 5% that people can grasp onto. ;)

I personally don't understand why people fight so hard to keep us from cleaning up our mess and to continue unsustainable resource use but to each his own. I bet those people spit their gum on the street as well. ;)

"But some in the scientific community disagree, adding to an already splintered array of opinion on the causes of climate change and whether the Antarctic is actually warming."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5htM3_ClgqhzIoMceRWnwQvMvQIqw

Texas and I have been down this road before. We each post up link after link, pic after pic. In the end, no one has changed any one's mind about anything. Actually, I have a much better understanding of the power generation and system. And, by looking at some of the information, have agreed to conclude that solar power will be a significant contributer much quicker than I formerly believed. I doubt that he will ever acknowledge that France has a viable, safe and profitable nuclear power system, however. In the war since June, I'd give him a small lead in bytes posted and having better pics on this web site. But !! I have learned recently to better use this Mac and can throw up , or down, a blizzard of graphics, so........ let's stick with some ideas.

Polar sea ice melt will not change seal level at all. Try it with the ice cubes in a glass...... Let's try to leave the rhetoric out. Finish the Scotch !! Maybe someone can actually get the other guy to see things a little differently, in a new way. :)

I asked this above, and have posted it several times here. Maybe it's because I am a geologist and by education and training have been biased to the long, REALLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYY long term. I have never got an reply. Not once.

Ice ages have happened. Really a misnomer. The interglacials have also happened, and IIRC, from geology class 25 years ago......and are much longer in duration than the "ice ages". Hence, the term ice age to me is misleading. If we were living in the climate of 10, 000 years ago, we would be focusing on the 'warm ages".

In any event. Let's agree to agree that ice happens. The last BIG event, the final retreat and disapearance of the continental ice sheets, was only 10,000 or so years ago. Right after the ice went, and climate warmed, civilization as we know and record it, began. Summeria, whatever. 8,000 BC. We have only in the last 200 years or so been able to accurately record what we observe. Temperature. The ice that melted was staggering in volumn (sp ??) and is not an easy concept. Lake Superior is 800 feet deep. A remnant. The southwest was a grassland savanna. Lakes, rivers, trees. Big mammals running around........ Sloths, Bison, weird, wonderful, different and cartoon character shiaatttt. The earth is still rebounding in many places from the removal of the ice weight.

We are talking, ad nauseum, mine included, about what we are recording now. With satelites, in the ocean. Way too much info. All from parties with a stake in it. Our sources can spin that data. And believe me, they do. I can throw up links to "my guys", ya know, like in the Verizon commercial. And you have your guys. Waste of space, baud. So here again is the question.

So what caused the ice melt in the last event ? A really really really big ice melt. Sea level change hundreds of feet (from low to high) CO2 CO schmooo. There were no significant numbers of CO2 feindish humans. Human interpretation. Yours vs mine. Stand off. Done, can't bring it up anymore in this thread. New rules. Mine :)

What caused or started the last "interglacial ?

How is human generated CO2 involved in this ??

Do you acknowledge that the last 2 million years has been a history of one glacial/interglacial after another. Big well known ones, and lots of smaller ones. Really, irrefutable evidence, notice I didn't say proof.

Hell, there are even glacial conglomerates, fossilized glacial till, from the precambrian. Before land plants and their CO2 even existed. Its really old junk, Vern. Without researching, I can't recall how much the really old atmosphere resembled this one.

Please think about this.

Back to the IPCC. One simple thought. Why didn't the UN create, allow, or empower a parallel group to study the chance that warming is not human caused ? Because they don't want to. Thats an agenda. Thats bias. End of story.

[QUOTE]demonstrates for the first time that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for warming at the Arctic and Antarctic./QUOTE]

Uh, No. That is an incorrect statement. Totally false. There have been hundreds of other "scientists" to make that statement, from years and years before now. Jeeeezzz.

Hey, look at

me !! Can I get some more grant money to study stuuf thats already been studied ? Really ? All I have to do is say that man caused it ? Check !!! Thanks !!! On my way.

Uh, there is no land surface at the "arctic". Its sea ice or open water. There are no records from 100 years ago. Fawk !! Think people. And before some Einstein says "Arctic" includes the land above xyz latitude, they said and I quote....... [QUOTE]So in a sense, we can say conclusively that this [warming trend at the poles] is due to human influence."/QUOTE] So, unless they are talking about Poland, ya know, like Warsaw, I say BULLLSHIATTTTTT !!!

But CNN will jump out and report it. Sweeeet !!!

I may have missed something, but is there serious doubt in the minds of people posting/reading this thread about CO2 being a greenhouse gas? If so, and one is unwilling to take the word of climate scientists on this point, the experiment to demonstrate the CO2-induced greenhouse effect can be done relatively easily at home with a fairly small amount of money (this is a topic of many grade-school science fair projects). Yes, climate scientists have done much better experiments with higher precision, taking into account more variables, but go for it if you're skeptical! Many kids have done it.

Regarding sea ice melt not changing sea level, that's obviously true, but that's not the ice climate scientists are concerned about. The ice on the land masses of Greenland and Antarctica are a cause for concern (in addition to thermal-expansion of a warming ocean).

The problem with the CO2/climate change issue is that the only way to know with absolute certainty what will happen is to actually do the experiment. Unfortunately, it's a global-scale, decades-long or centuries-long experiment, the consequences of which will be felt by people who couldn't vote on if the experiment should be done or not. Knowingly doing an experiment on the environment of other people (in this case future people) seems unethical to me.

The experiment has already been done. Climate is not constant. It has changed drastically in the past. We are looking at a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time. Less than a split second of geological time. The geologic record is clear and speaks unequivocably on this. Our ability to collect information has far, far, far, far, far outstripped our ability to understand it.

The experiment has already been done. Climate is not constant. It has changed drastically in the past. We are looking at a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time. Less than a split second of geological time. The geologic record is clear and speaks unequivocably on this. Our ability to collect information has far, far, far, far, far outstripped our ability to understand it.

From what I've read and the data I've seen on climate and atmospheric conditions in the past, there is no time that we know of in the past that CO2 levels have increased at the rate they are increasing now. Perhaps you can give us a link to historical CO2 data that shows a similar rate of increase in CO2 concentration as has happened over the last 100 years. Are you saying that you know what the consequences of our increasing CO2 concentration will be?

I don't think anyone is arguing that climate is constant. The question is what consequence to climate will the current changes in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity have and would you want to live with the consequences?

Conditions have existed on earth in the past that are completely uninhabitable for human beings. That doesn't mean we want to purposefully bring those conditions about so that we can have a better lifestyle at the expense of future generations. No, I'm not saying that driving cars and generating electricity using fossil fuels will make the planet uninhabitable. I'm trying to refute the argument you seem to be making that climate changes happen, so don't worry about the consequences of our actions to climate change. It's like arguing for spreading radioactive waste around just because at some point in the geologic past radiation levels were high on the planet, so don't worry about it.

We have a choice. Do we choose to continue on our current path without concern for the consequences to future generations? Either you know what the consequences are or you don't. If you don't, you're doing an experiment. Do you know?

The point, one of the points I tried to make was..... and you asked for it was......

The data can be spun any way by any one. Thats why ideas matter.

What made the last ice ages ??? Anyone ???

Just one answer, please Give it a shot. :) :)

Ocean currents ? Increased subduction, ocean ridges ?? Change in the earths orbit ?? Different amounts of solar radiation ?? What exactly did it, because it wasn't man made CO2.

Are you asking to see past CO2 levels ??? I didn't want to post up reams of junk. Because counter reams will follow, be assured.

What if solar or non planetary influences nudge climate one way or another ? Then the Green House gang just sscrewed us all.

"The question is what consequence to climate will the current changes in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity have"

Its already happened. Climate changed, and CO2 by man was non factor. So yes, I am saying that CO2 increase by man does not account for Jack. There, I said it. Look at these. I'll look for CO2 but it is irrelevant.

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/Disparity2.jpg

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

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/USARecordedtemps1900-2000.jpg

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/USARural1893-2003.jpg

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

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

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

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/29yrssatelllitedata.jpg

And last but least, solar radiation.

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/Solariradiation1893.jpg

I just did what I didn't want to do do. Engage in a Baud waste war. :mad:

Will any anthropogenic Greenhouse gas CO2 advocate please answer the stupid silly question asked by any 5th grader.

What caused the past flucuations in climate, eg ice age after ice age ??

Thank you. That will be all. :)

We are in an interglacial warm. Correction. At the end of an interglacial warm. The low valleys shown are what should scare people. They show a 8 deg Centigrade AVEREAGE temp change. Downward. That will be a very difficult time for some people.

The point, one of the points I tried to make was..... and you asked for it was......

The data can be spun any way by any one. Thats why ideas matter.

What made the last ice ages ??? Anyone ???

Just one answer, please Give it a shot. :) :)

Ocean currents ? Increased subduction, ocean ridges ?? Change in the earths orbit ?? Different amounts of solar radiation ?? What exactly did it, because it wasn't man made CO2.

Are you asking to see past CO2 levels ??? I didn't want to post up reams of junk. Because counter reams will follow, be assured.

What if solar or non planetary influences nudge climate one way or another ? Then the Green House gang just sscrewed us all.

"The question is what consequence to climate will the current changes in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity have"

Its already happened. Climate changed, and CO2 by man was non factor. So yes, I am saying that CO2 increase by man does not account for Jack. There, I said it. Look at these. I'll look for CO2 but it is irrelevant.

With the massive data dump and all the words, you still have not answered the fundamental question. Are we doing an experiment? In order for that answer to be no, we would need either to have data from the past showing a similar rate of CO2 increase and see no response in other climate variables or a climate model that showed no response and reproduced past climate data. I still have not seen either one and until I see it I can only conclude a planet-wide atmospheric experiment is being done. Personally I believe that such an experiment is unethical.

Do you know for sure that the changes in CO2 have not had an impact on climate and will never have an impact climate in the future? That would be surprising result given the facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that higher concentrations contribute a quantifiable driver towards higher atmospheric temperatures. The temperature in the atmosphere is determined by a balance of energy input from the sun and radiation from the earth to space. Many factors contribute to the specific balance at a given time, one of which is greenhouse gas concentrations.

Do you have a model to prove that CO2 concentrations should have negligible impact on climate despite those facts? Alternatively, can you give even a reasonable hypothesis as to why a greenhouse gas concentration changes would have no impact on climate, especially when the changes are unprecedented in rate?

To summarize:

1) By burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) human beings are changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adds a driver towards higher atmospheric temperatures.

3) The rate of change of CO2 concentration induced by humans is unprecedented in the geological record.

4) We don't know what is going to happen as a consequence of our actions.

Conclusion: we are knowingly carrying out a global-scale experiment.

The climate changes you are talking about are not human induced and occur over much longer time scales than the change(s) we are inducing. We know we are increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We can only control what we do, not what the sun does, nor what planetary orbits do. The question is what is the ethical thing for us to do?

I have seen this (or similar) data before, and have long been a doubter of the anthropogenic global warming theories. A meteorologist friend is also a doubter, with his mathematical models to back up his position. Furthermore, how can human activity affect the temperatures of other planets in our solar system? I have yet to hear a good explanation of that one.

How, then, can scores of scientists support a position promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, assuming the science isn't poisoned by political bias? I discount the green-tinged braying of global warming zealots like Algore.

I have seen this (or similar) data before, and have long been a doubter of the anthropogenic global warming theories. A meteorologist friend is also a doubter, with his mathematical models to back up his position. Furthermore, how can human activity affect the temperatures of other planets in our solar system? I have yet to hear a good explanation of that one.

How, then, can scores of scientists support a position promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, assuming the science isn't poisoned by political bias? I discount the green-tinged braying of global warming zealots like Algore.

What data have you seen before? If you have access to data showing CO2 changing at a similar rate as it has in the last 100-200 years, I'd like to see that.

Al Gore irritates me because he's trying to motivate people by fear based on speculation about what may happen in the future and assigning cause and effect to recent events (like Katrina) where there is no concrete proof. He did raise awareness of an issue, but in the end I wonder if the negative consequences of his fear-mongering message have a bigger negative impact than the positive impact of awareness.

What aspect of my argument that we are doing an unethical experiment is flawed?

Furthermore, how can human activity affect the temperatures of other planets in our solar system? I have yet to hear a good explanation of that one.

You've lost me there bub.

Martian warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

Neptune photometry (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/)

Plutonian warming (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html)

Solar system warming & global warming (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086)

There are no humans pumping out CO2 in any other places in the solar system, yet they appear to be warming up. Is this just a series of incredible coincidences, or could there be some common factor . . . :cool:

Martian warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

Neptune photometry (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/)

Plutonian warming (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html)

Solar system warming & global warming (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086)

There are no humans pumping out CO2 in any other places in the solar system, yet they appear to be warming up. Is this just a series of incredible coincidences, or could there be some common factor . . . :cool:

Interesting stuff. Can you show me another source talking about solar system warming and the CO2 myth? I ask because the author of the last article is by a 19 year old poli-sci student who writes article after article about the new world order and secret societies. Go and read his other pieces on that site, it's pretty ridiculous. The North American Union, the Bilderberg group, he's got it all.

Yeah, the last guy was weird, but he cited good sources. I was lazy ;)

Yeah, the last guy was weird, but he cited good sources. I was lazy ;)

I looked at some of his sources and was very unimpressed. Apart from the NASA citations it's just a bunch of conservative blowhard editorials. You've definitely piqued my interest on the NASA front, but I'm in no way sold on the overall argument.

Some better sources would be nice.

. . . it's just a bunch of conservative blowhard editorials.

Funny. To me, they seem well-balanced and thought-out. ;)

the other side, the balance, the ying/yang to CNN, NBC and MSNBC.

I know what the hippies in California grow in Greenhouses !!! :)

http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichmentemitter.htm

edit: the point is atmospheric CO2 is good. Things grow better. Warmer, better, good all around. Another credible view is that warming increases atmospheric CO2. Not the other way around. It makes more sense. Solar effects the earth, the earth responds.

data, no spin. Clearly at this location, CO2 is increasing, but the trend, the rate of increase is flat. Does that answer the question ??http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Here is the pic....... If you change the scale on either axis, you make the picture, the outcome scary or benign.......

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/CO2RateTrendMaunaLoa.jpg

data, no spin. Clearly at this location, CO2 is increasing, but the trend, the rate of increase is flat. Does that answer the question ??http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Here is the pic....... If you change the scale on either axis, you make the picture, the outcome scary or benign.......

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/CO2RateTrendMaunaLoa.jpg

I'm sorry I didn't ask my question clearly enough. The plot you linked shows what is happening now. That increase is caused by human activity and we don't know what the consequence will be because there is no other time when such a rapid increase in CO2 has happened (at least that I've found). In order to know what the consequence of the data in your plot will be, we need climate data further along in time. Since we can't see the future (many people don't believe climate models), we need to look into the past for similar changes. From the data I've been able to find, there has been no time in the past (pre-human) when CO2 has increased at that rate.

While it isn't really critical to the discussion, the curvature of CO2 concentration with time is not actually zero as you claim. It looks like a straight line because the curvature is too small to see by eye on the time scale of your graph. Any curve looks straight over a short enough time scale relative to the value of the curvature. If you look at the data over a longer time scale (say 50 years), the curvature caused by our ever-increasing rate of fossil fuel burning becomes apparent. If you increase the rate at which you pour water into a bucket, the bucket fills up faster. Every year, we pour more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year before...thus the curvature.

Finally, you still have not offered any hypothesis for why a powerful greenhouse gas would not have an impact on climate.

We are doing an experiment. The plot you linked to just shows what we are doing and offers no insight into what the consequences will be.

As I said before, I think it's an unethical experiment.

I know what the hippies in California grow in Greenhouses !!! :)

http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichmentemitter.htm

edit: the point is atmospheric CO2 is good. Things grow better. Warmer, better, good all around. Another credible view is that warming increases atmospheric CO2. Not the other way around. It makes more sense. Solar effects the earth, the earth responds.

Warmer, better, good all around? What about coastal areas that would be flooded by increased sea levels caused by ocean thermal expansion and the Greenland/Antarctic ice sheets melting? I don't think that would be better for those places. Do you?

Even if there was/is a mechanism at play that caused increasing CO2 levels with increasing temperature, that does not mean that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increasing temperatures. In fact, it raises the concern about a positive feedback. Again, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it should drive the atmosphere towards higher temperatures (by definition of a greenhouse gas). If you want to argue that it won't, at least give a hypothesis as to why.

Funny. To me, they seem well-balanced and thought-out. ;)

Half of those links were to the Daily Mail, a British right wing rag that's barely above tabloid quality. Then there's this http://www.canadafreepress.com/
Please tell me you call that well-balanced and thought-out. I'm afraid I don't find your 19 year old first year student's arguments very compelling.

It constantly amazes me when people rant about the so-called liberal mainstream media when to everyone else in the world the US media has an overall far right bias. We're getting off track here though.

Green house gas, CO2 is a trace gas. Less than 400 ppmv. The heating effect of CO2 is logarithmic, the most dramatic effects are the the first 20 ppm. We are at 380 ppm. Further increase will have almost no effect. None. As I said, it's irrelevant. There is no temperature increase. It's bogus.

Do yourself a small favor. Just to get some peace of mind. Aquire and read the recent book, "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon. You will sleep easier, then grow a little irritaded at the fraud being perpetuated. It examines the Hoax from inception, to Al Gore taking the banner. You won't worry again. Barnes and Noble, or Amazon $27.95. less than your next tank of gasoline. It is impartial, as you can see if you take the chance to read it.

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/CO2LogaWarming.jpg


http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/CO2Text.jpg

Seek the truth.

Green house gas, CO2 is a trace gas. Less than 400 ppmv. The heating effect of CO2 is logarithmic, the most dramatic effects are the the first 20 ppm. We are at 380 ppm. Further increase will have almost no effect. None. As I said, it's irrelevant. There is no temperature increase. It's bogus.

Do yourself a small favor. Just to get some peace of mind. Aquire and read the recent book, "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon. You will sleep easier, then grow a little irritaded at the fraud being perpetuated. It examines the Hoax from inception, to Al Gore taking the banner. You won't worry again. Barnes and Noble, or Amazon $27.95. less than your next tank of gasoline. It is impartial, as you can see if you take the chance to read it.

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/CO2LogaWarming.jpg


http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/CO2Text.jpg

Seek the truth.

Why is it your last post?

I am definitely seeking the truth. Are those by chance the results of a model? Why do you believe that model, rather than the myriad of other models that show a larger increase in temperature? Has this model been validated against historical climate data? Are you certain that model is correct? Do you understand why that particular model is more valid than others?

At this point we at least agree that there is no historical precedent for the changes we are inducing in the atmosphere so that we at least agree that we are doing experiment. It seems to me that you are now arguing that we are doing an experiment, but you believe it has no risk because you have seen the results of one model that says it won't cause any changes.

Have you read any of the myriad books that suggest we should be concerned about CO2? The book "A Rough Guide to Climate Change" is very good (only $15.29 on Amazon!). It's extremely comprehensive and discusses both the arguments for and against concern for the risks of climate change.

At least we agree that we are doing an experiment. That's progress!

Half of those links were to the Daily Mail, a British right wing rag that's barely above tabloid quality. Then there's this http://www.canadafreepress.com/
Please tell me you call that well-balanced and thought-out. I'm afraid I don't find your 19 year old first year student's arguments very compelling.

It constantly amazes me when people rant about the so-called liberal mainstream media when to everyone else in the world the US media has an overall far right bias. We're getting off track here though.

I had always heard that most liberals were humorless . . . looks like there's some truth to that saying . . . ;) DV couldn't see a joke when it hits him in the face.

In all seriousness, there is an incredible amount of data, and way too much political bias involved in treating it. I prefer my science without any tilt - left or right.

"While it isn't really critical to the discussion, the curvature of CO2 concentration with time is not actually zero as you claim. It looks like a straight line because the curvature is too small to see by eye on the time scale of your graph. Any curve looks straight over a short enough time scale relative to the value of the curvature. If you look at the data over a longer time scale (say 50 years), the curvature caused by our ever-increasing rate of fossil fuel burning becomes apparent. If you increase the rate at which you pour water into a bucket, the bucket fills up faster. Every year, we pour more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year before...thus the curvature."


Not so much. The rate has picked up a litltle since 2002 or so, but it was nearly perfectly linear for the previous 25:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

I had always heard that most liberals were humorless . . . looks like there's some truth to that saying . . . ;) DV couldn't see a joke when it hits him in the face.

In all seriousness, there is an incredible amount of data, and way too much political bias involved in treating it. I prefer my science without any tilt - left or right.

You were claiming he had good sources. Was that a joke too? You seemed pretty serious at the time.

"While it isn't really critical to the discussion, the curvature of CO2 concentration with time is not actually zero as you claim. It looks like a straight line because the curvature is too small to see by eye on the time scale of your graph. Any curve looks straight over a short enough time scale relative to the value of the curvature. If you look at the data over a longer time scale (say 50 years), the curvature caused by our ever-increasing rate of fossil fuel burning becomes apparent. If you increase the rate at which you pour water into a bucket, the bucket fills up faster. Every year, we pour more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year before...thus the curvature."


Not so much. The rate has picked up a litltle since 2002 or so, but it was nearly perfectly linear for the previous 25:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

The data from 1960 to 2008 is definitely not linear over that span of time. I could not find this data in tabulated form, so couldn't do any fitting myself, but copying the picture and drawing "best-fit" lines by hand over each decade shows an increasing slope with time. For sure, the slope is significantly higher in the last ten years (about 2ppm/yr) than it was from 1960 to 1970 (about 1ppm/yr).

At any rate, those details don't really change my argument. There is no historical precedent for the current rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentrations caused by burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas.

We are doing an experiment on the entire planet. I think it's unethical.

"While it isn't really critical to the discussion, the curvature of CO2 concentration with time is not actually zero as you claim. It looks like a straight line because the curvature is too small to see by eye on the time scale of your graph. Any curve looks straight over a short enough time scale relative to the value of the curvature. If you look at the data over a longer time scale (say 50 years), the curvature caused by our ever-increasing rate of fossil fuel burning becomes apparent. If you increase the rate at which you pour water into a bucket, the bucket fills up faster. Every year, we pour more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year before...thus the curvature."


Not so much. The rate has picked up a litltle since 2002 or so, but it was nearly perfectly linear for the previous 25:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

Found the data and plotted with linear and quadratic fits to highlight the curvature.

http://s4.tinypic.com/2mg58hj.jpg

I downloaded the monthly data and got a linear trend from 1978 to 2008 with an r^2 value of .97. The human flux is about 3% of the natural flux. I emailed the scientists at that site and they admit the don't know why the increase is nearly linear in spite of rising emissions. I don't think we are conducting an experiment as we don't have a control. It certainly should be subject to risk analysis, but with the IPCC, Al Gore, Hansen and others pumping out hysteria, reasoned discourse is impossible. Unethical you say? I think fraudulent science, politicians posing as scientists and irresponsible reporting is unethical.

I find these guys much more credible than the IPCC:

http://climatesci.org/
http://www.climateaudit.org/

"Found the data and plotted with linear and quadratic fits to highlight the curvature."

Nice Graph! I admit there is some curvature, just "not so much" i.e. there should be much more is CO2 if naturally stable. Pay close attention to the coefficients though: .01X^2 and 45x; pretty darn close to linear.

Barack Obama is NOT your guy and will never be!
If you love America and love our Constitution, then your choice is clear. Protect your rights, Protect your Constitution, Protect America.

VOTE ON TUESDAY!

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT:Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21

^^^ You've got the wrong thread, Bob. You should see what Obama actually says about gun laws though. I do believe he supports some tougher gun laws but I really doubt your laundry list is factual. It has that nutty vibe to it. For example, Obama did not support the DC gun ban and he said that it was based on a poor interpretation of the constitution. Trust me, Obama understands the constitution better than McCain. It would be more productive for everyone if you thought up some factual criticisms of the guy instead of this second amendment paranoia.

"Found the data and plotted with linear and quadratic fits to highlight the curvature."

Nice Graph! I admit there is some curvature, just "not so much" i.e. there should be much more is CO2 if naturally stable. Pay close attention to the coefficients though: .01X^2 and 45x; pretty darn close to linear.


As I said in my early post, the slope is 2X greater today than it was in 1965, so the curve is definitely not "close to linear" unless a factor of 2 is "close". Coefficiencts on higher order terms are always smaller in value, but not necessarily in impact. To compute the slope at a given year you need to add the linear coefficient to two times the squared term and multiply by the year, so the impact of the quadratic term on the slope is about 4000 times the value of the coefficient relative to the linear term.

In any case, the curvature is not the most important thing. The current slope of CO2 with time has never been seen in the past. Not even close. We are doing something to the atmosphere that has never happened.

I downloaded the monthly data and got a linear trend from 1978 to 2008 with an r^2 value of .97. The human flux is about 3% of the natural flux. I emailed the scientists at that site and they admit the don't know why the increase is nearly linear in spite of rising emissions. I don't think we are conducting an experiment as we don't have a control. It certainly should be subject to risk analysis, but with the IPCC, Al Gore, Hansen and others pumping out hysteria, reasoned discourse is impossible. Unethical you say? I think fraudulent science, politicians posing as scientists and irresponsible reporting is unethical.

I find these guys much more credible than the IPCC:

http://climatesci.org/
http://www.climateaudit.org/

First, an experiment without a control is just a bad experiment, or sometimes called an "uncontrolled" experiment, but an experiment nonetheless. It sure would be nice to have another planet to use as a control so would could move there if we really screw this one up. Yes, doing an uncontrolled experiment on the planet our children and grand-children will have to deal with is unethical. You don't agree?

As I said in the previous post, Al Gore irritates me to no end and I think he probably did more harm than good.

Still, I don't need the IPCC nor Al Gore to know that we are doing and uncontrolled experiment on the planet. And it's unethical.

Glad someone has an attempted to understand this. Since you seem conversant with some statistical methods, I thought I would add that just about the first guy who blew the Whistle on the IPCC, Al Gore and Michael Mann with the notorious "Hockey Stick" graph of global warming was a STATISTICS guy. Goes by the name of Ed Wegman. He hangs out at the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

[QUOTE]I emailed the scientists at that site and they admit they don't know why the increase is nearly linear in spite of rising emissions./QUOTE]

Your guys, again. OK, they're my guys also. ;) The ones that collect and report the data. Their word, "nearly linear". Let's say the graph, in the original form, plots a nearly straight line. This can be checked by anyone with the edge of a piece of paper.

What I said in my post a few spaces back, before "Bob", was that the rate of increase was nearly flat. If you go back to the web page, grab the data off the table to right . Not the graph, but the annual mean growth rate table. What has you concerned is the rate of increase. Go get it !! I am admit to being clueless with the spreadsheet software on this Mac. Thats how bad I am. Can't you throw that into Excel and presto !!

I have e-mailed an author from NOAA who has a blog in the Christian Science monitor about whether there are any simple laboratory experiments, or tests using re-producible scientific methods, available and published to show two things: ( PDT )

1). An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration ppmv from "pre-human levels" of around 280 ppmv, to more recent concentrations of 360 ppmv can cause temperature change of that atmosphere. And, what are those changes ?

2.) Prove or disprove the statement that increases in atmospheric CO2 have less and less effect as the concentration of CO2 increases. That effect is logarithmic. The increase of CO2 from 100 to 200 is much more significant than the increase from 200 to 400.

The answer may be embarrassing, but it's a risk I will gladly take.

Thanks folks for keeping it civil and real.

[QUOTE]Hey, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm just glad your opinion is in the minority. /QUOTE]

read em' and weap. Wrong again.....

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/features/art26253.html

From the EcoAmerica, reported by the Nature Conservancy,

[QUOTE]The study — the American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), conducted by the consulting group EcoAmerica — also found that only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful./QUOTE]

So in addition to all those that know, those that think they know, and those that don't know, there is literally everybody else. All of the Joe the Plumbers........ They are not as easily duped as the poindexters think they are.

"Yes, doing an uncontrolled experiment on the planet our children and grand-children will have to deal with is unethical. You don't agree?"

Much of human activity is an uncontrolled experiment. It is not a matter of doing an experiment or not; it is a matter of risk analysis. You have to weigh all the factors. While I think prudent risk analysis is necessary, I think taking action based on fraudulent science is unethical.

There is a cultish aspect to the global warming movement that views everything done by nature as good, and everything done by man as bad. Somehow it was decided that warming was bad because "humans caused it", but what if it turned out that it was natural? Would warming suddenly become good? Not that we are warming anyway.

I think our children and grandchildren will be just as capable as we are, if not more, and fully able to handle the future. I don't think they would want us to take drastic measures based on faulty science.


As far as the CO2 concentration, the curvature comes mostly from the periods prior to 1965 and after 2002. The years in between are nearly linear. If you plot the global data between 1980 and 2008, all that is available, you get a linear trend with an r^2 of 0.9814. The poly trend is 0.9856, not much different. (Sorry I don't have a graph; I haven't learned how to do that yet.) During the same time, emissions just from fossil fuels rose from 18,330 MMT to 28,192 MMT, a 54% increase.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html

If you add in the emissions from concrete , it would be even higher. Despite the large increase in emissions, there is barely any change in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration.

Again, despite the rise in emissions, the human flux is only about 3-4 percent of the natural flux:

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/biogeochemical_cycles.html

"Yes, doing an uncontrolled experiment on the planet our children and grand-children will have to deal with is unethical. You don't agree?"

Much of human activity is an uncontrolled experiment. It is not a matter of doing an experiment or not; it is a matter of risk analysis. You have to weigh all the factors. While I think prudent risk analysis is necessary, I think taking action based on fraudulent science is unethical.

There is a cultish aspect to the global warming movement that views everything done by nature as good, and everything done by man as bad. Somehow it was decided that warming was bad because "humans caused it", but what if it turned out that it was natural? Would warming suddenly become good? Not that we are warming anyway.

I think our children and grandchildren will be just as capable as we are, if not more, and fully able to handle the future. I don't think they would want us to take drastic measures based on faulty science.


As far as the CO2 concentration, the curvature comes mostly from the periods prior to 1965 and after 2002. The years in between are nearly linear. If you plot the global data between 1980 and 2008, all that is available, you get a linear trend with an r^2 of 0.9814. The poly trend is 0.9856, not much different. (Sorry I don't have a graph; I haven't learned how to do that yet.) During the same time, emissions just from fossil fuels rose from 18,330 MMT to 28,192 MMT, a 54% increase.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html

If you add in the emissions from concrete , it would be even higher. Despite the large increase in emissions, there is barely any change in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration.

Again, despite the rise in emissions, the human flux is only about 3-4 percent of the natural flux:

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/biogeochemical_cycles.html

Regarding curvature, the slope in 2005 is 2 times the slope in 1965. That's a big difference. But again, both the rate of increase in 1965 and 2005 are much higher than any other time. The high rate of CO2 increase in recent times is a consequence of burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas. It doesn't matter if these activities are only 3-4% of the natural flux. That extra 3-4% is currently shifting the balance enough to cause about a 0.5% increase in CO2 concentration every year. This isn't a perfect analogy, but if you start pouring water faster into a bucket with a hole that is too small to accommodate the extra flow, it will start filling up.

All I'm saying is that I wish we could agree on the following points that seem very solidly based in fact (data):

1) Burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore very likely to have some impact on climate.

3) The current rate of increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is far greater than at any time in the past.

We seem to agree at this point that this constitutes an uncontrolled experiment on the entire planet.

If we agree on that, then we can focus on the real difference in our conclusions. Since what is happening now has never happened in the past, we only have models to predict what will happen. If you believe the risks are small enough to carry out an uncontrolled experiment on the planet of our children and grand-children, then you must believe the results of a particular climate model or a particular subset of all climate models.

I don't believe a particular climate model is correct. For me, the very fact of the uncertainty within any climate model and between all climate models is enough to conclude that the risks are high.

In any event, it would be nice to at least agree on the fundamental difference in our viewpoint really is.

Another experiment is the economic one. What is the economic effect of limiting our energy generation at a time when new, massive and very focussed competitors have no intention of doing the same ?

The "CO2 Experiment" will be carried out whether we reduce our emissions or not. China and India are forging ahead on a polluting course the likes of which we haven't seen before. There are 2 billion people there. China is buying up all the coal reserves if can find. Hardly green and clean. All for long term stable economic growth. To fill up our Wal Marts and then, in short order, our landfills. As I said about 4 pages back, they are laughing there @ss off at us. Their government and their economic system are one and the same. This system does not embrace eco- foolishness. And it will continue to kick our economic @ss and they will end up BUYING the USA.

Not to say I am against air pollution reduction. Like many of you, I too have a family that will inherit the world, the next generation. Unlike the minority of you, I am not worries about "global warming" as a man-made problem. All for solar - generated electricity. Also for nuclear, or anything else that is clean and economicly (sp?) feasible.

The paranoia of the misunderstood science, the opportunism of the few, will affect others economic rights to exist also.

Its 52mb. Grab a pot of tee or hug your kitty. No one that reads this will worry about human caused CO2 changing our climate. Its too much to put here.

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf


Al Gore will melt and go away just like the witch at the end of the Wizard of Oz.

PDT, the summary is that your fear is unfounded. You are worried about the experiment. You call it that because of the correlation between a historicly unprecedented rapid rise in CO2, AND that rise correlates to warming. There is no correlation. The correlation is unfounded because the warming trends have been repeated many times in the historical and pre-historical past. There is solid evidence to validate this. That's what all my post were about. There is no experiment. This has all happened before, and before man was around. CO2 didn't do anything. I ask you to read the above. The IPCC LEFT out the Little Ice Age and Medevial Warm in their assertion that climate has warmed since human carbon pollution began after 1940. That is tantamount to fraud. And in China, they are laughing their @ss off.

Another experiment is the economic one. What is the economic effect of limiting our energy generation at a time when new, massive and very focussed competitors have no intention of doing the same ?

The "CO2 Experiment" will be carried out whether we reduce our emissions or not. China and India are forging ahead on a polluting course the likes of which we haven't seen before. There are 2 billion people there. China is buying up all the coal reserves if can find. Hardly green and clean. All for long term stable economic growth. To fill up our Wal Marts and then, in short order, our landfills. As I said about 4 pages back, they are laughing there @ss off at us. Their government and their economic system are one and the same. This system does not embrace eco- foolishness. And it will continue to kick our economic @ss and they will end up BUYING the USA.

Not to say I am against air pollution reduction. Like many of you, I too have a family that will inherit the world, the next generation. Unlike the minority of you, I am not worries about "global warming" as a man-made problem. All for solar - generated electricity. Also for nuclear, or anything else that is clean and economicly (sp?) feasible.

The paranoia of the misunderstood science, the opportunism of the few, will affect others economic rights to exist also.

The argument that "someone else is going to do it anyway, so we might as well too" doesn't sway me. If your neighbor is polluting the groundwater, your response would be to do the same?

Its 52mb. Grab a pot of tee or hug your kitty. No one that reads this will worry about human caused CO2 changing our climate. Its too much to put here.

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf


Al Gore will melt and go away just like the witch at the end of the Wizard of Oz.

PDT, the summary is that your fear is unfounded. You are worried about the experiment. You call it that because of the correlation between a historicly unprecedented rapid rise in CO2, AND that rise correlates to warming. There is no correlation. The correlation is unfounded because the warming trends have been repeated many times in the historical and pre-historical past. There is solid evidence to validate this. That's what all my post were about. There is no experiment. This has all happened before, and before man was around. CO2 didn't do anything. I ask you to read the above. The IPCC LEFT out the Little Ice Age and Medevial Warm in their assertion that climate has warmed since human carbon pollution began after 1940. That is tantamount to fraud. And in China, they are laughing their @ss off.

I must still disagree about the experiment part. I am not calling it an experiment due to a correlation between CO2 and temperature. I'm calling it an experiment because there has been no time in history when CO2 concentration risen at the current rate. Not even close. It is an experiment because what is happening now has never happened before. Your certainty about the outcome does not mean it isn't an experiment.

The fact that some past temperature fluctuations were not correlated with CO2 does not mean that CO2 can't cause temperature changes. Temperature can change for many reasons. Why are you so sure that an increase in greenhouse gas concentration won't cause temperature to change? You have still never given a hypothesis for that. There are many climate models that suggest it will. Are they all completely wrong? If so, why are they wrong?

"All I'm saying is that I wish we could agree on the following points that seem very solidly based in fact (data):"

"1) Burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration."


I would say it is contributing to it. To say it is causing it means that the concentartion would be stable, were it not for emissions. The fact that large changes in emissions produce almost no change in the rate of concentration increase shows that there is some other process at work.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore very likely to have some impact on climate.

True, but almost meaningless. We should continue trying to discover what the impact might be, but should not assign confidence levels based on a political agenda.

"3) The current rate of increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is far greater than at any time in the past."

This is simply an assumption, and meaningless as well. Whether an event has or has not happened before says nothing about its effects.

"We seem to agree at this point that this constitutes an uncontrolled experiment on the entire planet."

So would implementing carbon controls. If I have to choose between people or the imagined health of the earth, I choose people. Can anyone really say with a straight face that it is actually about the earth? Since it is about human life, risk management decisions need to be based on how humans are affected.

"If we agree on that, then we can focus on the real difference in our conclusions. Since what is happening now has never happened in the past, we only have models to predict what will happen. If you believe the risks are small enough to carry out an uncontrolled experiment on the planet of our children and grand-children, then you must believe the results of a particular climate model or a particular subset of all climate models."


I don't believe in models until they are validated. Making a model replicate histoical data is far different than predicting a future outcome. So far they have failed miserably. So far there is nothing alarming about the actual evidence.

At this point I think sensible measures to reduce emissions that had only a minor economic impact would make sense.
Example: Chevy Volt.

sorry, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.

"[QUOTE] Why are you so sure that an increase in greenhouse gas concentration won't cause temperature to change? You have still never given a hypothesis for that./QUOTE]

I have answered that at least three times, and asked my own question 3 times that has never been addressed.

Because the temperature has risen and fallen before, more than it has recently, and there is no human CO2 to cause the change. Thats why only 18% of the US population subscribes to the Al Gore stand.

My question, " What caused the last 4 major and countless smaller ice ages ?? "" There were no Humans !!!! :eek:


Done wasting any more time here. Finish the tea and go vote !!! See ya when you get your VOLT :)

sorry, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.

"[QUOTE] Why are you so sure that an increase in greenhouse gas concentration won't cause temperature to change? You have still never given a hypothesis for that./QUOTE]

I have answered that at least three times, and asked my own question 3 times that has never been addressed.

Because the temperature has risen and fallen before, more than it has recently, and there is no human CO2 to cause the change. Thats why only 18% of the US population subscribes to the Al Gore stand.

My question, " What caused the last 4 major and countless smaller ice ages ?? "" There were no Humans !!!! :eek:


Done wasting any more time here. Finish the tea and go vote !!! See ya when you get your VOLT :)

That logic is flawed. Just because temperatures rise and fall for one reason does not mean that they can't rise and fall for a different reason.

For example, the temperature inside your house can rise and fall with the seasons, but that doesn't mean it won't rise and fall if you turn your furnace on and off.

I know you don't want to post or maybe even read this any further, but you still have not given a hypothesis for why a greenhouse gas wouldn't have an impact on climate.

"All I'm saying is that I wish we could agree on the following points that seem very solidly based in fact (data):"

"1) Burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration."


I would say it is contributing to it. To say it is causing it means that the concentartion would be stable, were it not for emissions. The fact that large changes in emissions produce almost no change in the rate of concentration increase shows that there is some other process at work.


If you think something else is contributing in any significant way to the recent CO2 increase, then what is that something else? What is happening now is totally unprecedented in historical records and is very, very strongly correlated in time with human fossil fuel burning. Trying to assign some mysterious other contributor is not really helpful.



2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore very likely to have some impact on climate.

True, but almost meaningless. We should continue trying to discover what the impact might be, but should not assign confidence levels based on a political agenda.


The fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas and could have an impact on climate is only meaningless if it doesn't have an impact on climate. Since we don't know for sure, it certainly could be very meaningful.



"3) The current rate of increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is far greater than at any time in the past."

This is simply an assumption, and meaningless as well. Whether an event has or has not happened before says nothing about its effects.


The fact that we have no historical record of a similar change to the atmosphere is very meaningful to my argument that we are doing an experiment because it means we don't know what will happen, which means we are doing an experiment.



"We seem to agree at this point that this constitutes an uncontrolled experiment on the entire planet."

So would implementing carbon controls. If I have to choose between people or the imagined health of the earth, I choose people. Can anyone really say with a straight face that it is actually about the earth? Since it is about human life, risk management decisions need to be based on how humans are affected.

"If we agree on that, then we can focus on the real difference in our conclusions. Since what is happening now has never happened in the past, we only have models to predict what will happen. If you believe the risks are small enough to carry out an uncontrolled experiment on the planet of our children and grand-children, then you must believe the results of a particular climate model or a particular subset of all climate models."


I don't believe in models until they are validated. Making a model replicate histoical data is far different than predicting a future outcome. So far they have failed miserably. So far there is nothing alarming about the actual evidence.


The only way to validate climate models besides waiting to see what happens (continuing the experiment) is to try to reproduce past climate data.



At this point I think sensible measures to reduce emissions that had only a minor economic impact would make sense.
Example: Chevy Volt.

I don't think it is ethical to choose to do a planet-wide experiment that will play out for generations to come. I simply this ethical question should be the framework for the discussion.

It seems that you agree that it's an experiment, but despite having no data from the past, nor a validated model to predict the outcome, you conclude that the risk to people's lives from economic impacts of changing our energy infrastructure outweighs the risk to the lives of future generations of people.

"If you think something else is contributing in any significant way to the recent CO2 increase, then what is that something else? What is happening now is totally unprecedented in historical records and is very, very strongly correlated in time with human fossil fuel burning. Trying to assign some mysterious other contributor is not really helpful."


As I said before, nobody really knows what is happening. See here:
http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html


"The fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas and could have an impact on climate is only meaningless if it doesn't have an impact on climate. Since we don't know for sure, it certainly could be very meaningful."

Sure, that's why we need to keep trying to find out what the effect actually is.

"The fact that we have no historical record of a similar change to the atmosphere is very meaningful to my argument that we are doing an experiment because it means we don't know what will happen, which means we are doing an experiment."

We wouldn't know what would happen if we didn't. Nature Good, Man Bad. I get it.

"The only way to validate climate models besides waiting to see what happens (continuing the experiment) is to try to reproduce past climate data."

No, the only way is to make a prediction and then wait and see what happens. If the model canot skillfully predict the future far in advance with a high confidence level, then it is worthless, and even dangerous if people make trillion dollar decisions on it.


"I don't think it is ethical to choose to do a planet-wide experiment that will play out for generations to come. I simply this ethical question should be the framework for the discussion.

It seems that you agree that it's an experiment, but despite having no data from the past, nor a validated model to predict the outcome, you conclude that the risk to people's lives from economic impacts of changing our energy infrastructure outweighs the risk to the lives of future generations of people."

You keep using the word experiment as if it is a bad thing, i.e the given context shows that you are asserting that it is bad, but you have no evidence that it actually is bad. We do experiments because they help us learn things; so, in general experiments are good. Now of course one should be prudent and manage risks, but the fact that we are "doing an experiment" is not, by itself, cause for concern.

Our fundamental difference seems to be risk analysis, assigning different levels to the likelyhood and severity of potential outcomes. The essential measure of risk analysis is what actions one would take. Risk analysis needs to take all relevant factors into account, including economic conditions and foreign relations.

What about the economic risk of being dependent on dwindling fossil fuel reserves? Our entire economic system is based on constant growth fueled by constantly increasing oil production. That's setting us up for economic disaster like I can barely imagine. The greenhouse gas thing is just yet another incentive to fix these problems.

I support sensible risk management with respect to fossil fuel reserves as well. We have large fossil fuel reserves and a vast resource base, but there may be problems significantly expanding fossil fuel use.

I support sensible risk management with respect to fossil fuel reserves as well. We have large fossil fuel reserves and a vast resource base, but there may be problems significantly expanding fossil fuel use.

If the peak oilers are to be believed we have already maxed out our oil production and won't be able to significantly expand it. The optimistic reports put out by the petroleum industry about our "vast reserves" tend to ignore crucial details like EROI and aren't very convincing to me. I think we are facing a major crisis in the near future and we'd be crazy not to act now.

This guy is a liberal? I have been reading his blog for two years now, and I had no idea. American liberals could learn a thing or two from him.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4265#comments

If the peak oilers are to be believed we have already maxed out our oil production and won't be able to significantly expand it. The optimistic reports put out by the petroleum industry about our "vast reserves" tend to ignore crucial details like EROI and aren't very convincing to me. I think we are facing a major crisis in the near future and we'd be crazy not to act now.

It it typically the non-engineers who ignore EROI. Speaking of EROI, did you mean to write EROEI? Please provide us with a definition while you are at it. Provide a link to a source.

I really don't care about oil. I believe I said FOSSIL FUELS.

Liberal strategy: Block fossil and nuclear thereby creating an energy crisis. Declare the need to act NOW.

As an engineer, I am very interested in energy efficiency and sustainability. However, I am also interested in quality of life. Leftists are interested in political power.

Good explaination of the green leftists.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=69129807-D8D6-4986-B6DC-FC772A431C8B


What they don't understand is that it is the high energy density power plants and advanced technology that allow nature to be conserved.

"If you think something else is contributing in any significant way to the recent CO2 increase, then what is that something else? What is happening now is totally unprecedented in historical records and is very, very strongly correlated in time with human fossil fuel burning. Trying to assign some mysterious other contributor is not really helpful."


As I said before, nobody really knows what is happening. See here:
http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html



That is a well written paper by a sophomore in college with 11 references on a topic that must have thousands of papers written by hundreds of scientists with much more knowledge on the topic. I wouldn't call that a definitive reference on the topic of CO2/temperature correlations.

We do know what is happening with CO2 now and far into the past in great detail. We know that the rate of CO2 increase now is much greater than at any time in the past. The only reasonable explanation presented so far is that burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas is the cause (i.e. human activity). I am not saying anything about correlation with temperature in the historical data because it has no bearing on my argument, which is simply that we are choosing to do an experiment without the consent of the people who will bear the consequences.




"The fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas and could have an impact on climate is only meaningless if it doesn't have an impact on climate. Since we don't know for sure, it certainly could be very meaningful."

Sure, that's why we need to keep trying to find out what the effect actually is.



That's fine except that apparently the only thing that will convince you is to wait and see what happens.




"The fact that we have no historical record of a similar change to the atmosphere is very meaningful to my argument that we are doing an experiment because it means we don't know what will happen, which means we are doing an experiment."

We wouldn't know what would happen if we didn't. Nature Good, Man Bad. I get it.


I'm not saying Nature Good, Man bad. I'm saying that we can choose to do this experiment or not to do the experiment. We can't control many things that Nature does. We can control what we do.



"The only way to validate climate models besides waiting to see what happens (continuing the experiment) is to try to reproduce past climate data."

No, the only way is to make a prediction and then wait and see what happens. If the model canot skillfully predict the future far in advance with a high confidence level, then it is worthless, and even dangerous if people make trillion dollar decisions on it.


In risk analysis methods I've seen in my work, typically the risk level is determined by the product of the uncertainty and the possible impact. In this case, the uncertainty is high, as you point out, because the available models we have produce a range of predictions (although skewed towards increasing global average temperature). The impact could be huge. Therefore the risk, at least in my experience, would be considered high. But more important in my mind is that the greatest risk is on the people who do not get to vote on what is done because they are too young or not born yet.



"I don't think it is ethical to choose to do a planet-wide experiment that will play out for generations to come. I simply this ethical question should be the framework for the discussion.

It seems that you agree that it's an experiment, but despite having no data from the past, nor a validated model to predict the outcome, you conclude that the risk to people's lives from economic impacts of changing our energy infrastructure outweighs the risk to the lives of future generations of people."

You keep using the word experiment as if it is a bad thing, i.e the given context shows that you are asserting that it is bad, but you have no evidence that it actually is bad. We do experiments because they help us learn things; so, in general experiments are good. Now of course one should be prudent and manage risks, but the fact that we are "doing an experiment" it not, by itself, cause for concern.


Most experiments are good and ethical, but not all. There are plenty of examples of experiments that were good for the people who did them as well as many other people, but not so good for the people who the experiments were conducted upon. If I don't have evidence that the experiment is bad, I don't see how you can claim to have evidence that the consequence will not be bad. Most people believe that doing an experiment on people who do not consent is unethical even if you don't think it will be "a bad thing".



Our fundamental difference seems to be risk analysis, assigning different levels to the likelyhood and severity of potential outcomes. The essential measure of risk analysis is what actions one would take. Risk analysis needs to take all relevant factors into account, including economic conditions and foreign relations.

I agree with this last paragraph.

On the blurring of science and politics:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

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 ?? :)