Link (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=42909&t=440669&u2=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm)

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.
The scientific body is finalising its positions on some key issues, notably forecasts of sea level rise, as it prepares to publish a major report.
But a new study released on the eve of publication suggests its previous reports may have been too conservative.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif There is no doubt that for this period, the climate has been changing faster than the IPCC predicted http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif - Stefan Rahmstorf


Research by an international group of scientists concludes that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.
The first part of its 2007 report will be formally released on Friday morning in Paris.

Strong language

Some of the language which the agency has agreed it will use to assess humanity's influence on climatic change this time is stronger than it has used previously.
In 2001, it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means "between 66% and 90%".
Now, the agency concludes, it is at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.
Scientists are unsure how much weight to give melting glaciers

"This report closes the doors to those who were able to detract from the issue, and puts an end to the notion of uncertainty and doubt about man's role in climate change," commented United Nations Environment Programme executive director Achim Steiner.
On key scientific questions - how much the Earth's surface will warm by, and how high sea levels will rise - the experts are still locked in discussion.
It is widely believed they will predict an average global temperature rise by the end of the century of between about 2C and 4.5C, without ruling out higher numbers completely.
On sea level, there is a more fundamental debate. Computer models of climate do not generally include water coming into the oceans as icecaps melt; so should the IPCC exclude this from its calculations, or estimate the effect of a process which scientists do not understand well, but which could have a big impact?
There is likely to be some backing to a theory which has proved highly controversial in recent years, with the IPCC set to conclude that it is likely - meaning a greater probability than 66% - that rising temperatures have contributed to more powerful tropical storms in some areas of the world.

At variance

As discussions entered their final phase, the journal Science published a study comparing the IPCC's 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change report with what has actually happened.
IPCC models start from the year 1990, so that gives 16 years of data to compare.
The models had forecast a temperature rise between about 0.15C and 0.35C over this period. The actual rise of 0.33C is very close to the top of the IPCC's range.

A more dramatic picture emerges from the sea level comparison.
The actual average level, measured by tide gauges and satellites, has risen faster than the IPCC predicted it would due to simple thermal expansion of seawater, and at the maximum which the scientific body considered possible if its estimates for the melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets was included.
"Our intention with this study was to demonstrate how temperatures and sea levels have actually gone up," said study leader Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, "because 'climate sceptics' have cast doubt on IPCC projections and whether they are exaggerated."
The group suggests that if anything, the IPCC has been conservative.
-The most obvious cause of the discrepancy - a faster-than expected rise in carbon dioxide concentrations - is ruled out, as the observed CO2 rise has mimicked model projections fairly well.
Another explanation could be that the effect on temperature of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere - the factor called "climate sensitivity" - is higher than scientists had believed when they built their computer models.
Alternatively it could be natural climate variability.
"We cannot conclude the exact cause," commented Professor Rahmstorf, "but there is no doubt that for this period, the climate has been changing faster than the IPCC predicted."
Together with his co-researchers on this project, Professor Rahmstorf is in Paris for the IPCC discussions, which will on Friday morning end with the release of summary conclusions on the current state of climate science, drawing on the work of thousands of researchers.
The full climate science report will be released later in the year, as will other IPCC chapters looking at the probable impacts of climate change, options for adapting to those impacts, and possible routes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=798764) for reference purposes.

what about the warming spell on mars that strangely seems to conicide with the one on earth and is melting the martian ice cap? is that man made too? or could it be a simple solar cycle that has been going on for thousands of years?

is it occurring at the same rate? with the same atmosphere around earth? I know the answer to one of those questions.

The point of global warming activists (at least the ones worth talking about) isn't that there aren't causes outside of humanity. It's that humanity is eroding earth's natural "buffers" that help stabilize the effects.

sorry, not buying into the religion of environmental catastrophe...forecasters cant get teh 1 week forecast right, let alone 50 years...

just like we had the global cooling scare in the 70's, the acid rain scare in the 80's, the nuclear winter scare, ad nauseum..crap science used to scare money out of people and tax payers for scientists and environmental groups to feed their agenda, and excuses for the fascist minded political groups to try to force people to live the way they (the fascists) want, claiming they know better than anyone else how everyone else should live...and anyone who disagrees is some <insert lable here> and should be fined, imprisoned, kicked out ouf their jobs (as some want to do to scientists who call BS on man-made global warming).

sorry, not buying into the religion of environmental catastrophe...forecasters cant get teh 1 week forecast right, let alone 50 years...

just like we had the global cooling scare in the 70's, the acid rain scare in the 80's, the nuclear winter scare, ad nauseum..crap science used to scare money out of people and tax payers for scientists and environmental groups to feed their agenda, and excuses for the fascist minded political groups to try to force people to live the way they (the fascists) want, claiming they know better than anyone else how everyone else should live...and anyone who disagrees is some and should be fined, imprisoned, kicked out ouf their jobs (as some want to do to scientists who call BS on man-made global warming).

Predicting the weather in a week has nothing to do with predicting global warming. It's like predicting the performance of a stock portfolio: over the long term, it'll go up, but in a week or two, who knows?

What came out of the acid rain scare? Control over pollutants. What came out of the nuclear winter discussion? Disarmament treaties (though I think we're leaving the realm of science here...). Science knows what the effects of certain situations can be, whether that's molecules bonding into acid rain or erosion of the ozone layer causing the increase in certain EM wavelengths. The question is measuring if the conditions are ripe for the situation. Here's where denial, cynicism, politics, and an ungodly number of other factors tend to cloud up the situation.

By the Seventies, when global temperatures began to dip, many eminent scientists warned us that we faced a new Ice Age.
Really? :shake: Wrong, as mentioned many times prior.


Over the past half-century, we have become used to planetary scares. In the late Sixties, we were told of a population explosion that would lead to global starvation.

We ARE overpopulated, and there are plenty of starving people.

Then, a little later, we were warned the world was running out of natural resources.
We are.

Really? :shake: Wrong, as mentioned many times prior.I agree.We ARE overpopulated, and there are plenty of starving people. Ah, starvation began just recently. There was no starvation before we had so many people?

We ARE overpopulated, and there are plenty of starving people.

I agree.Ah, starvation began just recently. There was no starvation before we had so many people?

I am selling 'carbon food credits' if anyone wants to buy some. Basically you give me $5 for every extra ounce of food you eat and I will make sure part of that money is used to supply food to someone who needs it. That way one can still be wasteful with food but feel good about what they are doing for the public.

I am selling 'carbon food credits' if anyone wants to buy some. Basically you give me $5 for every extra ounce of food you eat and I will make sure part of that money is used to supply food to someone who needs it. That way one can still be wasteful with food but feel good about what they are doing for the public.

:confused: How does this scheme compare with paying money which goes toward solar or wind power facilities (carbon credits)?

Ah, starvation began just recently. There was no starvation before we had so many people?

Not the claim I made. :shake: I merely am saying that what the article brushed off as an error is actually quite accurate.

I figured since this couldn't be explained...it must be do to global warming! :lmao:

Swarm of Earthquakes Detected Off Central Oregon (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350870,00.html)

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Scientists listening to underwater microphones have detected an unusual swarm of earthquakes off central Oregon, something that often happens before a volcanic eruption — except there are no volcanoes in the area.

Scientists don't know exactly what the earthquakes mean, but they could be the result of molten rock rumbling away from the recognized earthquake faults off Oregon, said Robert Dziak, a geophysicist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Oregon State University.

There have been more than 600 quakes over the past 10 days in a basin 150 miles southwest of Newport. The biggest was magnitude 5.4, and two others were more than magnitude 5.0, OSU reported.

On the hydrophones, the quakes sound like low thunder and are unlike anything scientists have heard in 17 years of listening, Dziak said. Some of the quakes have also been detected by earthquake instruments on land.

The hydrophones are left over from a network the Navy used to listen for submarines during the Cold War. They routinely detect passing ships, earthquakes on the ocean bottom and whales calling to one another.

Seismic Faults 'Talk' to Each Other Before Earthquakes Hawaiian Volcano Spews Lava for First Time in 25 Years Scientists hope to send out an OSU research ship to take water samples, looking for evidence that sediment has been stirred up and chemicals that would indicate magma is moving up through the Juan de Fuca Plate, Dziak said.

The quakes have not followed the typical pattern of a major shock followed by a series of diminishing aftershocks, and few have been strong enough to be felt on shore.

The Earth's crust is made up of plates that rest on molten rock, which are rubbing together. When the molten rock, or magma, erupts through the crust, it creates volcanoes.

That can happen in the middle of a plate. When the plates lurch against each other, they create earthquakes along the edges.

In this case, the Juan de Fuca Plate is a small piece of crust being crushed between the Pacific Plate and North America, Dziak said.

I figured since this couldn't be explained...it must be do to global warming! :lmao:

And since your rationale cannot be explained, I propose cerebral warming (proly due to alcohol). :P

And since your rationale cannot be explained, I propose cerebral warming (proly due to alcohol). :P

Except I don't drink alcohol. But you are correct, when one thinks for himself as opposed to spouting theory off as some antedotal scientific law...cerebral warming is a definate side-effect! :lmao: Can you explain the seismic activity off the coast of Oregon? Can you explain the two years we had deadly hurricanes in the Atlantic/Gulf several years ago? Hint: one has been attributed to MMGW (albeit incorrectly)!

Except I don't drink alcohol. But you are correct, when one thinks for himself as opposed to spouting theory off as some antedotal scientific law...cerebral warming is a definate side-effect! :lmao: Can you explain the seismic activity off the coast of Oregon? Can you explain the two years we had deadly hurricanes in the Atlantic/Gulf several years ago? Hint: one has been attributed to MMGW (albeit incorrectly)!

So you're seriously comparing the relationship between atmospheric warming and hurricanes to that between atmospheric warming and earth quakes?

And stating that both are equally ludicrous?

The name of that logical fallacy escapes me at the moment.

Edit: Oh yeah, it's Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction)

So you're seriously comparing the relationship between atmospheric warming and hurricanes to that between atmospheric warming and earth quakes?

And stating that both are equally ludicrous?

The name of that logical fallacy escapes me at the moment.

Yes, I am explicitly stating that weather or geothermal phenomena happen and that MMGW is not the Holy Grail in explaining any of it as many try to.

Yes, I am explicitly stating that weather or geothermal phenomena happen and that MMGW is not the Holy Grail in explaining any of it as many try to.

And I will state that it is a strawman to ascribe the status of Holy Grail to the explanation of MMGW as the cause of either of those phenomena, esp the one you made up: earth quakes.

Perhaps you can identify the reputable climatologist who has conclusively stated that MMGW was the cause of the severity of hurricanes in 2005 and 2006.

Yes, I am explicitly stating that weather or geothermal phenomena happen and that MMGW is not the Holy Grail in explaining any of it as many try to.
really? what many?

I won't hold my breath...

....I won't hold my breath...Is breath-holding the latest MMGW advice from Al Gore? :teehee:

Is breath-holding the latest MMGW advice from Al Gore? :teehee:

No, I specifically remember him recommending not holding one's breath. :rolleyes:

And I will state that it is a strawman to ascribe the status of Holy Grail to the explanation of MMGW as the cause of either of those phenomena, esp the one you made up: earth quakes.

Perhaps you can identify the reputable climatologist who has conclusively stated that MMGW was the cause of the severity of hurricanes in 2005 and 2006.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

From your link:

The correct answer–the one we have indeed provided in previous posts is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible.

Could you point out the part where it conclusively says that MMGW is responsible for the severity of past hurricanes?

From your link:



Could you point out the part where it conclusively says that MMGW is responsible for the severity of past hurricanes?

Read further down the page rooob, not just to a single point that you think makes your case.

Read further down the page rooob, not just to a single point that you think makes your case.

Futher down to what?

Thus, we can conclude that both a natural cycle (the AMO) and anthropogenic forcing could have made roughly equally large contributions to the warming of the tropical Atlantic over the past decades, with an exact attribution impossible so far.

Read further down the page rooob, not just to a single point that you think makes your case.

I read most of the article and could not find anything which conclusively states that MMGW is responsible for the severity of particular hurricanes.

I did see where they state a relationship between GW and hurricane severity, but they were very careful to point out that no particular hurricanes could be blamed on GW, let alone MMGW.

Why don't you quote the part you think makes YOUR case?

Take your pick.


Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina's path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios (Fig. 1).

In the particular simulation shown above, the frequency of the strongest (category 5) hurricanes roughly triples in the anthropogenic climate change scenario relative to the control. This suggests that hurricanes may indeed become more destructive (1) as tropical SSTs warm due to anthropogenic impacts.

As we have discussed elsewhere on this site, statistical measures that focus on trends in the strongest category storms, maximum hurricane winds, and changes in minimum central pressures, suggest a systematic increase in the intensities of those storms that form. This finding is consistent with the model simulations.

Emanuel found a close correlation between increases in this measure of hurricane activity (which is likely a better measure of the destructive potential of the storms than previously used measures) and rising tropical North Atlantic SST, consistent with basic theoretical expectations. As tropical SSTs have increased in past decades, so has the intrinsic destructive potential of hurricanes.

The new results by Emanuel (Fig. 2) argue against this hypothesis being the sole explanation: the recent increase in SST (at least for September as shown in the Figure) is well outside the range of any past oscillations. Emanuel therefore concludes in his paper that "the large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented, and probably reflects the effect of global warming." However, caution is always warranted with very new scientific results until they have been thoroughly discussed by the community and either supported or challenged by further analyses

The observed warming is likely the result of a combined effect: data strongly suggest that the AMO has been in a warming phase for the past two or three decades, and we also know that at the same time anthropogenic global warming is ongoing.

Finally, then, we come back to Katrina. This storm was a weak (category 1) hurricane when crossing Florida, and only gained force later over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. So the question to ask here is: why is the Gulf of Mexico so hot at present - how much of this could be attributed to global warming, and how much to natural variability? More detailed analysis of the SST changes in the relevant regions, and comparisons with model predictions, will probably shed more light on this question in the future. At present, however, the available scientific evidence suggests that it would be premature to assert that the recent anomalous behavior can be attributed entirely to a natural cycle.

The current evidence strongly suggests that:
(a) hurricanes tend to become more destructive as ocean temperatures rise, and
(b) an unchecked rise in greenhouse gas concentrations will very likely increase ocean temperatures further, ultimately overwhelming any natural oscillations.
Scenarios for future global warming show tropical SST rising by a few degrees, not just tenths of a degree (see e.g. results from the Hadley Centre model and the implications for hurricanes shown in Fig. 1 above). That is the important message from science. What we need to discuss is not what caused Katrina, but the likelyhood that global warming will make hurricanes even worse in future.

Take your pick.

I see. So in your mind:

" indicate a tendency"

and

"This suggests"

and

"This finding is consistent"

and

"consistent with basic theoretical expectations"

and

"probably reflects"

and

"likely the result of a combined effect"

and

"suggests that it would be premature to assert that the recent anomalous behavior can be attributed entirely to a natural cycle."

and

"will very likely"

are conclusive statements.

To me, they read like a careful hedging of bets, not conclusive statements.

I see. So in your mind:

" indicate a tendency"

and

"This suggests"

and

"This finding is consistent"

and

"consistent with basic theoretical expectations"

and

"probably reflects"

and

"likely the result of a combined effect"

and

"suggests that it would be premature to assert that the recent anomalous behavior can be attributed entirely to a natural cycle."

and

"will very likely"

are conclusive statements.

To me, they read like a careful hedging of bets, not conclusive statements.


Whatever rooob,.

Whatever rooob,.

As in "whatever happened to the conclusive statements you claimed are in the linked article?"

Why don't you just admit that there aren't any?

Let me give you a clue. They don't include words like "consistent with" or "likely."

As in "whatever happened to the conclusive statements you claimed are in the linked article?"

Why don't you just admit that there aren't any?

Let me give you a clue. They don't include words like "consistent with" or "likely."

Hmmm, let's see. In a rather short article there are 8 paragraphs discussing different explanations as to how the increased intensity in Hurricanes can be explained by or linked to global warming but since they couched their explanations with words and phrases such as "consistent with" or "likely" then they aren't trying to say that global warming has nothing to do with it ??


Simply incredible.

Hmmm, let's see. In a rather short article there are 8 paragraphs discussing different explanations as to how the increased intensity in Hurricanes can be explained by or linked to global warming but since they couched their explanations with words and phrases such as "consistent with" or "likely" then they aren't trying to say that global warming has nothing to do with it ??


Simply incredible.
correct. Scientists are generally very cautious and conservative in their language, despite what many people think. There are decent correlations and a plausible causal link between hurricane stats and GW. (Of course, none exist between GW and earthquakes, which set off this topic again.) However, there are too many factors at the local scale (butterfly effects, if you will) to tell how much of a role global warming had on any one hurricane. That's like asking what effect a smudge of dirt has on a coin flip based on one flip.

Demo, if there was a strong link, you could use hurricanes as a measure of GW. Nobody is saying you can do that. Rather, they are observing that some hurricane statistics that have changed over the years could be explained by GW. But there may be alternative explanations as well.

I sincerely think that your accusations come from misunderstanding the language of scientists :dontknow:

Hmmm, let's see. In a rather short article there are 8 paragraphs discussing different explanations as to how the increased intensity in Hurricanes can be explained by or linked to global warming but since they couched their explanations with words and phrases such as "consistent with" or "likely" then they aren't trying to say that global warming has nothing to do with it ??


Simply incredible.

No, "they aren't trying to say that global warming has nothing to do with it "

First of all, you presented this link in response to my request for conclusive statements by a reputable climatologist that the severity of recent hurricanes was caused by MMGW.

Your linked article presents a number of plausible links between MMGW and severe hurricanes, without stating any conclusions.

In fact, they prefaced said links with denial that there can be such conclusions.

So they aren't saying it has "nothing to do with it," nor are they concluding that there is definite cause and effect. They are outlining the possible mechanism of the cause and effect.

Sorry if I have not stated this clear enough for you to understand my meaning.

Hurricanes: A Sign of Things to Come? (http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue3/0305p10.html)

In his address to the 2005 World Summit on 14 September, United States President George Bush made reference to the thousands of people trying to piece back together their lives after the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina, which he described as “one of the worst natural disasters in American history”. Less than two weeks later, the same stretch of the Gulf Coast was hit by Hurricane Rita, although the effect was not as devastating.

In a landmark paper published a month before Katrina hit, hurricane specialist Kerry Emmanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated that an increase in sea temperature was responsible for tropical storms that were 50 per cent stronger and more powerful than those a few decades before. Warmer sea temperatures is one of the theorized consequences of global warming—a phenomenon that occurs when emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases effectively form an “envelope” around the earth, creating a greenhouse effect.

UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland believes that these hurricanes are a symptom of global warming. “It is a wake-up call for everybody. You have two of the worst hurricanes ever hitting the United States within weeks of each other. There is no doubt the climate is changing.”

The World Summit Outcome document acknowledges the challenge posed by climate change and renews Member States commitment to take action against this threat. Adnan Amin, Director of the UN Environment Programme in New York, told the UN Chronicle: “It’s a very significant political statement, that all Member States signed on to the document and reaffirmed their commitment to the UN Convention on Climate Change and to stabilize greenhouse gas and recognize that mankind is contributing to climate change.” He also said that global warming “is a very serious threat to the future of humanity” and in particular poses a serious threat for small island States. “There’s a potential that these States will be wiped off the face of the earth.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that melting ice caps and glaciers could result in a rise in sea level between 15 and 95 centimetres by the end of the century. For low-lying island States such as Antigua and Barbuda, global warming threatens their existence. John Ashe, that country’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, told the UN Chronicle that he was “deeply concerned” with the predicted rise in sea levels, saying that “in the Pacific, most of the island States tend to be atolls and some are at or below sea level. … Clearly, a number of these countries will be inundated; then we’ll have a situation where the islands that people currently inhabit would become uninhabitable”. Environmental researcher Norman Myers predicted that by the year 2050 up to 150 million people could become “environmental refugees” due to rising sea levels.

For example, the highest point of the island nation of Tuvalu is approximately 4 metres above sea level. The threat of submergence has forced the Government to sign an agreement with New Zealand to relocate many of its citizens in the coming decades. Tuvalu came to international attention in 2002 when they threatened to take Australia and the United States to the International Court of Justice—the World Court—for failing to make a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Tuvaluans felt that this failure threatened their very existence, a breach under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declares that a population may not be deprived of its means of subsistence. According to a Tuvalu News report, Australia is the world’s biggest per capita emitter and the United States is the single largest polluter of greenhouse gases. — Jane Lloyd

Interesting opinion piece...quite bias in his analysis but provides some excellent points and what I like to call half truths (the statement is correct but the context must be analyzed...a classic example was when Kerry and Pelosi said Bush's tax cuts placed a higher burden on the poor. As a percentage of total taxes paid, they were correct. Where I consider it a half truth is that the poor were still spending less on taxes). Overall, if you factor through the author's zeal...I think pretty spot on.

More United Nations Global Warming Propaganda (http://politicalgrind.com/2007/11/23/more-united-nations-global-warming-propaganda/)

Panic! Chaos! Armageddon! Apocalypse! Gloom! Doom!

What happened?

The United Nations, in its continuing quest to be relevant and thereby gain control over the world’s resources and its peoples, has launched another attempt to panic mankind into submission.

The UN, already demonstrably morally and ethically bankrupt (remember their Oil For Food swindle, and how they sat out or are sitting out genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Sudan?), is playing the only card it holds for all it is worth – the “Man-Caused Global Warming” Joker. This time even their top guy, UN General Secretary Nan Ki-Poo (Sorry, I started to type Ban Ki-moon, but then thought his global warming pronouncements were so operatically overly dramatic that I couldn’t help poking a little low humor at him. For that I apologize, since in my heart of hearts I wish I could come up with something appropriately more humorous and worthy of this UN drama queen).

In the UN’s most recent attempt at relevance:

The United Nations says sea levels will rise 4.6 feet in the next 1,000 years. That’s 5.5 inches per century, slightly less than sea levels rose the past century, and the century before, and … well, you get the picture.

Maybe we should try to put the sea level increases in historical perspective. Have sea levels risen prior to the era of “man-caused” global warming?

Glad you asked.

Since the end of the last glacial period 18,000 years ago, sea levels have risen over 400 feet, or an average of over two feet per century. So now we’re in a panic because we think sea levels will rise less than half a foot per century? When the historical average is over two feet per century? For the past 180 centuries?

Memo to United Nations scientists – the Earth is in an interglacial period. There’s an easy way to tell if Earth is in a glacial or interglacial period. Is Chicago under a mile thick ice cap? If “no,” then we’re in an interglacial period.

If “yes,” then Earth is deep in a glacial period.

Check again in about 10,000 to 20,000 years. The odds are very good you’ll have to dig through a mile of ice to find Chicago again.

The United Nations says that “global warming is unequivocal.” It certainly took the UN a long time to arrive at the obvious. The fact is, global warming has been unequivocal since the early 1900’s, when it was clear that the Little Ice Age had ended in the mid-1800’s, and that a sustained warming period had begun.

Interestingly, this warming period became a cooling period from about 1945 to 1975, during the period of greatly increased production of carbon dioxide from human activities. According to the anthropogenic global warming crowd, it’s not supposed to happen like that. I have been waiting for them to provide a coherent explanation for this anomaly for a long time.

I have also been waiting for them to explain why there was a sustained warming period from 1910 to 1945 that saw an increase of 0.4° C, and that it took almost twice as long, from 1945 to 2005, to get another increase of 0.4° C.

The UN pronouncement is a model for cherry-picking information. It’s interesting when they announce that eleven of the twelve hottest days on record occurred since 1990. Left unsaid is that the recorded record they are looking at only began in 1978, at the end of a prolonged cooling period. More appropriately, according to recently revised NASA weather statistics, five of the ten warmest years occurred before World War II, with 1934 the warmest, 1921 second, and 1998 third.

The UN also cites recent hurricane activity as proof of intensifying storm activity as a result of global warming. Oddly enough, hurricanes have been more numerous and more powerful, even during cooler periods.

During the warming period of 1970 to 1994, hurricane activity was extremely low, resulting in unprecedented coastal population growth and development. Prior to this period of low activity, hurricanes were numerous and strong from 1926 to 1970. Unlike the UN scientists, true experts in hurricanes have long recognized that there is a cycle for hurricane activity that is called the “tropical multi-decadal signal,” and that each cycle can last for 20 or 30 years, or longer.

Much has been made of Katrina and the hurricanes of 2005 by global warming alarmists. These same alarmists have nothing to say about the very benign hurricane seasons of 2006 and 2007. I suppose they will now shift their attention to the cyclone that just killed 15,000 Bangladeshi. However, they will probably not mention that in 1970 an estimated almost half a million Bangladeshi were killed by a cyclone.

Also sure to be overlooked, the over half a million Chinese and Indians killed by three powerful storms in the late 1800’s.

The UN of course notes that global warming will have its greatest impact on the poor. I suppose the UN experts won’t notice that during the past two centuries, more that 131 million perished from famine, or that in recent years famine has become more a result of bad government – China, Ethiopia, North Korea – than of climate change. In fact, only five million of the 131 million deaths from famine occurred after 1970, and almost all were in that paragon of world communism, North Korea.

Predictably, the UN even mentions that wildfires are a sign of out-of-control global warming. However, wildfire frequency has decreased during the past 200 years, while wildfire severity increased due to fire suppression causing fuel buildup in many areas, while population growth and development in fire-prone areas has increased dramatically.

To summarize, the United Nations continues their near-panicked quest to be relevant. They say mankind has caused the world to become abnormally warm, while ignoring much warmer periods like the Holocene Optimum, Roman warm period, and the Medieval Warm Period.

The UN says warming will cause the seas to rise half a foot per century, overlooking that past centuries on average had rates of sea level increase quadruple the current rate.

The UN says the current warming is the highest recorded, overlooking the warming that occurred during the first half of the 1900’s, or the ever greater warming one thousand, two thousand, and five thousand years ago.

The UN says warming will cause more powerful storms, maybe almost as bad as the ones before 1970, or even the horrific ones of the late 1800’s.

According to the UN, warming will also cause more famine, although the trend has been a dramatic reduction in famines during this warmer period, as long as you’re not living in a communist country.

Finally, as fresh as yesterday’s headlines, there are the wildfires, which have been decreasing for 200 years.

The UN’s experts may be dumb, but they and Al Gore are dumb like a fox (although not as smart as an ox). The United Nations experts and Al are betting on ignorance of history and science on the part of the world’s peoples to get their message across.

From all indications, they’re betting on a sure thing.

Is Jan Egeland or Adnan Amin a reputable climatologist?

Is Jan Egeland or Adnan Amin a reputable climatologist?

The issue is do they have the power to influence policy and control how money sent to the U.N. in dues will be dispensed. Everyone knows looks, power and money make the world go round...not qualificiations!

good god, that second article is like all the "denier" posts combined into one.

good god, that second article is like all the "denier" posts combined into one.


So then you disagree with the facts he presented? Could you point us to the real facts?

So then you disagree with the facts he presented? Could you point us to the real facts?
I can -- look through all the posts on this thread :lol:

correct. Scientists are generally very cautious and conservative in their language, despite what many people think. There are decent correlations and a plausible causal link between hurricane stats and GW. (Of course, none exist between GW and earthquakes, which set off this topic again.) However, there are too many factors at the local scale (butterfly effects, if you will) to tell how much of a role global warming had on any one hurricane. That's like asking what effect a smudge of dirt has on a coin flip based on one flip.

Demo, if there was a strong link, you could use hurricanes as a measure of GW. Nobody is saying you can do that. Rather, they are observing that some hurricane statistics that have changed over the years could be explained by GW. But there may be alternative explanations as well.

I sincerely think that your accusations come from misunderstanding the language of scientists :dontknow:


Bonk, it's my belief that when four scientists write a short article where they repeatedly demonstrate ties between hurricane intensity and global warming, that they are trying to make the case that global warming IS INDEED the cause.

Bonk, it's my belief that when four scientists write a short article where they repeatedly demonstrate ties between hurricane intensity and global warming, that they are trying to make the case that global warming IS INDEED the cause.

"Making the case" and stating conclusions are two very different things.

1. Here's the evidence.

2. Guilty!

Bonk, it's my belief that when four scientists write a short article where they repeatedly demonstrate ties between hurricane intensity and global warming, that they are trying to make the case that global warming IS INDEED the cause.
roob beat me to it. There are plenty of examples in science where correlations were found and it seriously looked like one thing caused another, but it was later learned that it was something else. In science, it is rare to see someone claim proof of something unless you have absolute proof.

As I've said, there is evidence and a plausible causal link between warming and hurricanes. However, hurricane formation is too complicated to be solely governed by one factor. So even if GW is linked to hurricane statistics, that by no means indicates that hurricanes will always be more intense/more frequent than they were in the past. And more importantly, it doesn't mean that hurricane statistics are a good metric for GW.

roob beat me to it. There are plenty of examples in science where correlations were found and it seriously looked like one thing caused another, but it was later learned that it was something else. In science, it is rare to see someone claim proof of something unless you have absolute proof.

As I've said, there is evidence and a plausible causal link between warming and hurricanes. However, hurricane formation is too complicated to be solely governed by one factor. So even if GW is linked to hurricane statistics, that by no means indicates that hurricanes will always be more intense/more frequent than they were in the past. And more importantly, it doesn't mean that hurricane statistics are a good metric for GW.


And there is a difference between a "scholarly" paper and an "editorial" one. In a paper that was to be submitted for review (and where scientists were the target audience) I would agree with you.

But, this is editorial of sorts. A "position" paper if you will.

If they didn't believe there was a direct link between the two, why load the article up with so much evidence trying to show that link ?

If they didn't believe there was a direct link between the two, why load the article up with so much evidence trying to show that link ?

Cause that's what the evidence shows?

And there is a difference between a "scholarly" paper and an "editorial" one. In a paper that was to be submitted for review (and where scientists were the target audience) I would agree with you.

But, this is editorial of sorts. A "position" paper if you will.

If they didn't believe there was a direct link between the two, why load the article up with so much evidence trying to show that link ?
it's on realclimate. Scientists and armchair scientists ARE the target. And it's written by scientists. They're merely presenting the evidence and saying that there may be a relationship. That wasn't your challenge. Your challenge was finding scientists who say that MMGW has a unitary and overpowering effect on hurricanes.

it's on realclimate. Scientists and armchair scientists ARE the target. And it's written by scientists. They're merely presenting the evidence and saying that there may be a relationship. That wasn't your challenge. Your challenge was finding scientists who say that MMGW has a unitary and overpowering effect on hurricanes.

And again, the way they presented the information leads me to the conclusion that THEY believe that this is the case.

And again, the way they presented the information leads me to the conclusion that THEY believe that this is the case.
:scratchh: they believe that GW has an impact on hurricanes, or that recent hurricanes are the fault of GW?

However, hurricane formation is too complicated to be solely governed by one factor. So even if GW is linked to hurricane statistics, that by no means indicates that hurricanes will always be more intense/more frequent than they were in the past. And more importantly, it doesn't mean that hurricane statistics are a good metric for GW.

Yet the world's troposphere and oceans are far more simple and can be solely governed by one factor? :confused: I always thought those larger things (troposphere, oceans) that were made up up smaller things (hurricanes) were far more complex! Hmmmm!

it's on realclimate. Scientists and armchair scientists ARE the target. And it's written by scientists. They're merely presenting the evidence and saying that there may be a relationship. That wasn't your challenge. Your challenge was finding scientists who say that MMGW has a unitary and overpowering effect on hurricanes.


BTW, here is what RealClimate has to say about their "target audience".

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.

I wouldn't say that scientists are the target audience. Armchair scientists maybe, but they include the interested public and journalists.

:scratchh: they believe that GW has an impact on hurricanes, or that recent hurricanes are the fault of GW?

They believe that GW at least has an impact on the severity of hurricanes.

Yet the world's troposphere and oceans are far more simple and can be solely governed by one factor? :confused: I always thought those larger things (troposphere, oceans) that were made up up smaller things (hurricanes) were far more complex! Hmmmm!
who said they are? :scratchh: But oftentimes, local phenomena are more complex than a global one. Look at your bathtub while the faucet's running. The water moves in predictable waves and is a uniform temperature. Except by the faucet, where it's quite random and a different temperature.

They believe that GW at least has an impact on the severity of hurricanes.

Yes. But you were supposed to be arguing that GW is causing an increase in frequency/severity of hurricanes. Not that it may have an impact.

Yes. But you were supposed to be arguing that GW is causing an increase in frequency/severity of hurricanes. Not that it may have an impact.

Not just GW, MMGW. And he supposedly had reputable climatologists who have conclusively stated that.

Check out this article about Earth Hour. It's a good read.


http://dailysliceoftech.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-march-29-between-hours-of-8-p.html

Yes. But you were supposed to be arguing that GW is causing an increase in frequency/severity of hurricanes. Not that it may have an impact.

Their argument was that id DOES have an impact and that impact is an increase in the severity of the hurricanes.

Their argument was that id DOES have an impact and that impact is an increase in the severity of the hurricanes.
that article is pointing out possible connections that can be seen in the data. They still haven't concluded that it certainly has an impact, nor that its impact overwhelms all other factors, and CERTAINLY haven't concluded that GW will lead to further activity in the future. That is, the current state of feeling is that GW may contribute some bit to hurricanes; however, it is impossible to say that the particular strength of one hurricane or another is caused by GW or that GW alone can be blamed for hurricanes.

Perhaps you can identify the reputable climatologist who has conclusively stated that MMGW was the cause of the severity of hurricanes in 2005 and 2006.
Kerry Emanuel at MIT is a great example of someone that use to claim that the increase in hurricane intensity over the past 30 years or so was due to global warming. Quite recently, Emanuel, faced with new evidence and more "robust" computer model, has moderated his opinion.

Yes. But you were supposed to be arguing that GW is causing an increase in frequency/severity of hurricanes. Not that it may have an impact.I think that you and rooobosmith are a bit too picky here. In the article posted by Demosthenes9, scientists clearly argued that GW is causing an increase in hurricane intensity.

I think that you and rooobosmith are a bit too picky here. In the article posted by Demosthenes9, scientists clearly argued that GW is causing an increase in hurricane intensity.

And we don't disagree with that.

The article posted was claimed to contain conclusive statements wrt recent severe hurricanes being caused by MMGW.

It does not contain such conclusive statements.

And we don't disagree with that.

The article posted was claimed to contain conclusive statements wrt recent severe hurricanes being caused by MMGW.

It does not contain such conclusive statements.
First we need to make sure that you and I are talking about the same conclusion:
"GW is causing an increase in hurricane intensity" (We are not talking about event frequency here).

That being said, I think that the article is as conclusive as any climate research can be. When someone use "will very likely" in this context, it is quite conclusive. Actually, I even think that the author was way too conclusive. Kerry Emanuel realized that he was too assertive and probably regrets it. He has changed his mind since and adopted a more uncertain viewpoint.

First we need to make sure that you and I are talking about the same conclusion:
"GW is causing an increase in hurricane intensity" (We are not talking about event frequency here).

No, it was MMGW.

That being said, I think that the article is as conclusive as any climate research can be. When someone use "will very likely" in this context, it is quite conclusive.


No, "likely" is stating a probability. "Very likely" is stating a high probability, without even specifying how high.

These are not "conclusions" that the poster claimed.

Actually, I even think that the author was way too conclusive. Kerry Emanuel realized that he was too assertive and probably regrets it. He has changed his mind since and adopted a more uncertain viewpoint.

That just helps prove my point; that no reputable climatologist has conclusively stated that MMGW was the cause of the severity of recent hurricanes.

No, it was MMGW.



No, "likely" is stating a probability. "Very likely" is stating a high probability, without even specifying how high.

These are not "conclusions" that the poster claimed.



That just helps prove my point; that no reputable climatologist has conclusively stated that MMGW was the cause of the severity of recent hurricanes.
I understand what you mean by "conclusive" now. Do you know any reputable climatologist that has conclusively stated anything?

No, it was MMGW.Does it make a difference for hurricanes if it is MM?
You are so picky :)

Percentage shares of greenhouse gas methane produced by cows and livestock:
38%
link (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1065876.ece)

It's so much more fun to blame "big oil" and SUVs than to evaluate our own habits and preferences, because that approach fits in with the promotion of class conflict favored by the Left.

Percentage shares of greenhouse gas methane produced by cows and livestock: 38%

link (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1065876.ece)

It's so much more fun to blame "big oil" and SUVs than to evaluate our own eating habits.

I read another one third comes from coal powered electric companies. Time to go nuclear??? :nod: Seems a more efficient and more powerful solution to our energy crisis and CO2 reduction lies in the hands of nuclear technology. Yet with 8 years of an oil tycoon as President and 8 years before him from an adulterer who appointed a woman who used to protest nuclear plants as his Secr. of Energy...seems like we continue to move backwards! :mad:

Percentage shares of greenhouse gas methane produced by cows and livestock:
38%
link (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1065876.ece)

It's so much more fun to blame "big oil" and SUVs than to evaluate our own habits and preferences, because that approach fits in with the promotion of class conflict favored by the Left.

Well if the Sun says it (without attribution), it must be true. Great source X! :rolleyes:

Should we continue to emit GHG with unnecessary SUV's and cows?

Which emissions will be easier to capture/control? I hear grass fed cattle belch a lot less.

I read another one third comes from coal powered electric companies. Time to go nuclear??? :nod:

Is nuclear the only other option? :shake:

Is nuclear the only other option? :shake:

I think nuclear is both cleaner and more efficient than any other source of electricity. If we could get enough of them (nuclear power plants) built, perhaps we would have enough of an energy surplus to finally make electicity cheap and available enough to make the higher performance electric cars a viable option. It would also be nice to stop using those coal and oil power plants.

I think we should be more like France in one aspect... Not requiring nuclear plants to be so isolated. I saw cooling towers less than 100 yds from the freeway, much like "The Two Tits" by Camp Pendleton. However, in France, it wasn't in such an isolated location.

I think nuclear is both cleaner and more efficient than any other source of electricity.

It may be more efficient, but with all the nuclear waste, hardly cleaner than wind or solar, or even hydro-electric.

Is nuclear the only other option? :shake:

Not the only option but when you are trying to provide energy to populated areas, you would be wasting your time with other alternatives. Don't think you are going to light up California, Northeast, Florida, or Texas with some wind farms and water turbine generators. Requires way too much land or water power that just isn't there. Check out the equation E=mc^2 where c~3E8 and you can see with less than a gram of processed uranium, you can produce an obscene amount of energy which is >99% efficient. Of course, if we stand around twidling our thumbs for another decade, we can have this discussion when the infrastructure is literally at the brink of chaos due to the combination of effects of pollution, rolling black outs, increased energy reliance on the ME, etc.

It may be more efficient, but with all the nuclear waste, hardly cleaner than wind or solar, or even hydro-electric.

I would not avoid those avoid utilizing those. Solar is a great supplement, but requires too much space to be a single source. Even if we covered every roof with panels on the south facing side (I think in an ideal world, we would have this on every building). Even wind has limited application. Hydro-electric has its limitations of application too. Even geothermal has its limits.

Nuclear is the only one that we can get as much utility for the amount of space it occupies. We can also build them anywhere. As for the waste, armor piercing rounds are often made of depleted uranium for military application. :D

Well if the Sun says it (without attribution), it must be true. Great source X! :rolleyes:The role of animal agriculture in the production of greenhouse gases has been clearly documented, including by the UN, and it has been presented here before. You've complained and been proven wrong. Education appears futile. It's clear that your requests for further documentation are not made out of an interest in learning or gathering facts.

The role of animal agriculture in the production of greenhouse gases has been clearly documented, including by the UN, and it has been presented here before. You've complained and been proven wrong. Education appears futile. It's clear that your requests for further documentation are not made out of an interest in learning or gathering facts.

Your source was weak and you know it.

The role of animal agriculture in the production of greenhouse gases has been clearly documented, including by the UN, and it has been presented here before. You've complained and been proven wrong. Education appears futile. It's clear that your requests for further documentation are not made out of an interest in learning or gathering facts.

Does the role of animal agriculture negate there being any benefit from trying to minimize greenhouse gasses where we can? By all means, use as many animal by products as possible to help solve the problem. Such as fertilizer for plants that absorb Co2. I don't see why one form of greenhouse gas generation negates concern over another. It is a good thing that we didn't use such thinking when determining the dangers of lead and asbestos in homes, citing the cancer hazards of one to say that the other isn't dangerous.

Maybe the problem is that the human population is too large and needs to drastically cut in order to save Mother Earth from all the bad things people do to it.

Maybe the problem is that the human population is too large and needs to drastically cut in order to save Mother Earth from all the bad things people do to it.

Are you still here?

I thought you were volunteering to help with the population reduction. :P

Maybe the problem is that the human population is too large and needs to drastically cut in order to save Mother Earth from all the bad things people do to it.

Muslim extremists are trying but Bush keeps getting in the way. Maybe BHO will win and they can finally find more success. :lmao:

P.S. I agree with your point!

Maybe the problem is that the human population is too large and needs to drastically cut in order to save Mother Earth from all the bad things people do to it.

Nonsense, maybe if all the environmentalists who believed that the earth was overpopulated, euthanized themselves for the greater good it would add some weight to this argument.

Mother earth can go pound sand.

There is nothing you can do to the earth one way or the other. You can’t save it, and you can’t destroy it.

There is nothing you can do to the earth one way or the other. You can’t save it, and you can’t destroy it.

Bet me good money ;)

Bet me good money ;)

All money is good money. :)

All money is good money. :)

Not if the earth is destroyed. I think bonk loses his bet even if he wins.

Not if the earth is destroyed. I think bonk loses his bet even if he wins.

Who is destroying the earth? :)

Who is destroying the earth? :)

No one. We're just making it uninhabitable.

At least for as many people as currently exist.

Who is destroying the earth? :)
the idea that we can't is fairly preposterous. Detonate all nuclear weapons at once. It won't blow the earth into pieces, but it will make some nice dents and destroy almost all life.

Check out the equation E=mc^2 where c~3E8 and you can see with less than a gram of processed uranium, you can produce an obscene amount of energy which is >99% efficient.

Which sounds nice, but in realilty the energy you get from a gram of processed uranium generates thousands and thousands of tons of radioactive waste.

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html)

04/24/08

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.

With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.

Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology.

He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales.

In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability.

He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful.

"We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies."

His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out.

"The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said.

:lol: thanks X, I forgot about that guy. For those of you who don't know, Moore was 3 parts political activist, one part scientist, who 30-something years ago decided that a good way to stop nuclear testing is to stand by the testing ground. Of course, then he left greenpeace for the consulting money and (more relevantly) in 2006, he became co-chair of the pro-nuclear energy Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. And by pro-nuclear, I mean they were created by the nuclear power industry.

This is about as shocking as if Peter Moore (before he left MS) had said, "I don't see any other consoles having a future. You should invest in Xbox 360."

Personal fusion reactors is the way to go!

I believe in global warming, but I am totally against liberal laws that prohibit plastic bottles, plastic bags, certain light bulbs.

Hurricane Expert: School Silencing Me Over Global-Warming Views (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html)

A pioneering expert on hurricane forecasting says he may soon lose funding due to his skepticism about man-made global warming, according to a report in the Houston Chronicle.

Dr. William Gray, who once said that pro-global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children," claims that Colorado State University will no longer promote his yearly North Atlantic hurricane forecasts due to his controversial views.

Gray complained in a memo to the head of Colorado State’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences that "this is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign [sic] in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," the Chronicle reports.

School officials denied that Gray’s stand on global warming was an issue, and said that they are cutting back on media support for his forecasts due to the strain it places on the school's lone media staffer.

"It really has nothing to do with his stand on global warming," Sandra Woods, dean of the College of Engineering at CSU, told the Chronicle. "He's a great faculty member. He's an institution at CSU."

In the fall of 2005, Gray passed lead authorship of the yearly hurricane forecasts to his former student Philip Klotzbach, but he continues to head the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU.

CSU will continue to publicize Gray's yearly forecasts as long as they are co-authored by Klotzbach, officials told the Chronicle last week, but will end their support if Klotzbach, who recently earned his doctorate, moves to another institution.

"It seems peculiar that this is happening now," Donald Wright, a professor on public relations at Boston University, told the Chronicle. "Given the national reputation that these reports have, you would think the university would want to continue to promote these forecasts."

One friend said Gray's views highlight the politically charged atmosphere that surrounds global warming research in the United States.

"Bill Gray has come under a lot of fire for his views," former director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank, currently chief meteorologist at Houston's KHOU-TV, told the Chronicle. "If, indeed, this is happening, it would be really sad that Colorado State is trying to rein in Bill Gray."

The Chronicle noted that Gray's views on global warming had become increasingly personal, with characterizations of former colleagues and students who disagreed with him as "medicine men" and a "Gang of Five" conspiring to promote the idea of man-made climate change.

Gray contends it's all a hoax contrived by scientists hungry for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and foreign powers seeking to create a single world government.

In fact, he says, the warming cycle will soon end, and the Earth will begin a period of temporary cooling.

Seems blatantly idealogical to maintain that his opponents are motivated solely by a quest for personal glory.

He might at least acknowlege that they believe in the possibility of a real threat to the liveability of the planet.

Also ironic is that his doubts about GW do not seem to apply to his certainty of a reversal of current trends.

he can contend all he wants :dontknow: I've heard people contend that the reason they're not millionaires is because the black man took his job and the Jews controlled his luck. Doesn't mean they're right.

Seems blatantly idealogical to maintain that his opponents are motivated solely by a quest for personal glory.

He might at least acknowlege that they believe in the possibility of a real threat to the liveability of the planet.

Also ironic is that his doubts about GW do not seem to apply to his certainty of a reversal of current trends.

Fact is that you get money showing GW is a real phenomena. You get more if you can tie it to man. So it is easy to follow the money. Also, he isn't doubting GW from a cyclic nature but man's contribution so your last sentence is a bit dishonest.

he can contend all he wants :dontknow: I've heard people contend that the reason they're not millionaires is because the black man took his job and the Jews controlled his luck. Doesn't mean they're right.

Way to debate his opinions. Instead of showing a refutable proof to show he is incorrect, your best defense is to compare him to others complaining. Why not just compare him to the one claiming MMGW is real and absolute since their opinon doesn't make them right either? ;)

Fact is that you get money showing GW is a real phenomena. You get more if you can tie it to man. So it is easy to follow the money. Also, he isn't doubting GW from a cyclic nature but man's contribution so your last sentence is a bit dishonest.



Way to debate his opinions. Instead of showing a refutable proof to show he is incorrect, your best defense is to compare him to others complaining. Why not just compare him to the one claiming MMGW is real and absolute since their opinon doesn't make them right either? ;)
umm...you get plenty of money saying it DOESNT exist as well. Just like you do if you want to show that cigarettes don't hurt you. :rolleyes:

There wasn't anything in that article to debate. It was him claiming that people are out to get him because he doesn't "believe." I responded appropriately. Let me know if I missed something in the article.

Fact is that you get money showing GW is a real phenomena. You get more if you can tie it to man. So it is easy to follow the money.


Actually I think the oil/coal companies will pay far more if you can tie it to natural causes. You might get a job as Chief Scientist at Exxon.

Also, he isn't doubting GW from a cyclic nature but man's contribution so your last sentence is a bit dishonest.

No, I'm just pointing out that his certainty is just as inappropriate as that of his critics.

I don't think either side can be certain, yet.


Way to debate his opinions. Instead of showing a refutable proof to show he is incorrect, your best defense is to compare him to others complaining. Why not just compare him to the one claiming MMGW is real and absolute since their opinon doesn't make them right either? ;)

Since the article only presented opinions, that's all there is to debate.

Post some real evidence and we can debate that.

This could have some long reaching affects over than protecting the polar bear... seems like a backdoor way to force the administration into delving more into the global warming theory...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9NGJ0_eVkxqgpEFC6RMHVlvT9qwD90BLBPO0

Judge orders federal government to decide polar bear listing
By DAN JOLING – 3 hours ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A federal judge has ordered the Interior Department to decide within 16 days whether polar bears should be listed as a threatened species because of global warming.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken agreed with conservation groups that the department missed a Jan. 9 deadline for a decision. She rejected a government request for a further delay and ordered it to act by May 15.

"Defendants have been in violation of the law requiring them to publish the listing determination for nearly 120 days," the judge, based in Oakland, Calif., wrote in a decision issued late Monday. "Other than the general complexity of finalizing the rule, Defendants offer no specific facts that would justify the delay, much less further delay."

Allowing more time would violate the Endangered Species Act and congressional intent that time was of the essence in listing threatened species, Wilken wrote.

A spokesman for the Interior Department said Tuesday the decision was being reviewed.

"We will evaluate the legal options and will decide the appropriate course of action," said Shane Wolfe in an e-mail statement.

The ruling is a victory for conservation groups that claim the Bush administration has delayed a polar bear decision to avoid addressing global warming and to avoid roadblocks to development such as the transfer of offshore petroleum leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast to oil company bidders.

"We hope that this decision marks the end of the Bush administration's delays and denial so that immediate action may be taken to protect polar bears from extinction," Greenpeace representative Melanie Duchin said in a statement.

A decision to list polar bears due to global warming could trigger a recovery plan with consequences beyond Alaska. Opponents fear it would subject new power plants and other development projects to federal review if they generate greenhouse gasses that add to warming in the Arctic.

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty has said the department needed until June 30 to complete a legal and policy review of the proposed listing.

Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead author of the petition submitted in 2005, called the judge's order a huge victory, despite not knowing whether polar bears ultimately will be listed.

"It means that whatever political interference going on right now is going to be short-circuited," she said. "The politicians and the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., are going to have to stop interfering with the decision and get it out the door."

The law requires a decision based on science, she said, and science shows the Arctic is thawing.

"The science is perfectly clear. There's no dispute. The polar bear is an endangered species," she said.

In response to the petition filed in 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed in December 2006 that polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because of the loss of their primary habitat, Arctic sea ice.

Summer sea ice shrank last year to a record low, about 1.65 million square miles in September, nearly 40 percent less ice than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000. Some climate models have predicted the Arctic will be free of summer sea ice by 2030. A U.S. Geological Survey study generated in response to the listing petition predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

A decision on the proposed listing was due Jan. 9, but Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall said in January that a delay was needed to make sure it came in a form easily understood. He promised a decision within a month, but that deadline also passed and the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace sued in March.

We are naive if we believe that six billion people on the planet has no effect on the Earth's climate.

We are arrogant if we believe humans are the sole cause of global climate change.

We are naive if we believe that six billion people on the planet has no effect on the Earth's climate.

We are arrogant if we believe humans are the sole cause of global climate change.

Livestock are responsible for a third of the world's GH gases, electrical powerplants for another third, and termites by weight are more abundant than humans and put out more GH gases than humans...so you do the math? To put the blame on human activities is self centered at best so your second statement is spot on!

Livestock are responsible for a third of the world's GH gases, electrical powerplants for another third, and termites by weight are more abundant than humans and put out more GH gases than humans...so you do the math? To put the blame on human activities is self centered at best so your second statement is spot on!

But it's humans who have dramatically shifted the balance of GHG emissions in the last 100 years.

Termites have been massive for millions of years. :P

Not sure about the livestock. There used to be millions of buffalo before we wiped them out.

But it's humans who have dramatically shifted the balance of GHG emissions in the last 100 years.

Termites have been massive for millions of years. :P

Not sure about the livestock. There used to be millions of buffalo before we wiped them out.

So if nuclear power can make a significant dent in the emission of GH gases, why are liberals always voting against nuclear energy? You don't realize how much coal power affects you because you grew up in that environment. Asthama; brochitis; lung cancer; etc. have all been attributed to coal emissions. Go visit Pittsburg sometime! When those emissions are responsible for a third of the GH gases, it seems like you liberals would be demanding more nuclear power. Shame liberals in France have more foresight than liberals in the U.S..

Fact is that you get money showing GW is a real phenomena. You get more if you can tie it to man. So it is easy to follow the money. It's FAR FAR easier to "follow the money" to the bank accounts of those who doubt GW. Just look at Exxon's bank account.

Al Gore made money from his movie, but his real dollars come from sitting on the board of Apple and a dozen other companies. Being an environmentalist won't make you rich.

If there was global warming we would be using less energy----less oil, gas, coal for heating. This has been one of the coldest, longest winters we have ever had in most of the country.

You rarely hear the term "global warming" anymore---now its "climate change"

The earth is not even at optimum temp. It needs to warm up dramatically. Proof?--Greenland used to be filled with lush crops in places that are now completely covered with ice.

So if nuclear power can make a significant dent in the emission of GH gases, why are liberals always voting against nuclear energy? .

If nuclear energy is so great, why do they need a liability shield?

Do you know what France is doing with all their nuclear waste?

Not clear they have all the problems solved.

Personal fusion reactors, FTW!

If there was global warming we would be using less energy----less oil, gas, coal for heating. This has been one of the coldest, longest winters we have ever had in most of the country.

You rarely hear the term "global warming" anymore---now its "climate change"

The earth is not even at optimum temp. It needs to warm up dramatically. Proof?--Greenland used to be filled with lush crops in places that are now completely covered with ice.
climate change is used because it's more accurate. Some places will get colder, even possibly go into an ice age.

There is no "optimum temp." The point is, climate changes can destroy infrastructure and crops. That's trillions of dollars in losses.

And finally, you will be using energy for A/C if it's warmer :)

But it's humans who have dramatically shifted the balance of GHG emissions in the last 100 years.

Termites have been massive for millions of years. :P

Not sure about the livestock. There used to be millions of buffalo before we wiped them out.
livestock "emissions" change depending on their food. IIRC, free range cattle are much less gassy than typical meat cattle due to diet. Might be similar for buffalo as well.

Keep in mind, we also used to have a lot more grassland and forest, too.

There is no "optimum temp." The point is, climate changes can destroy lead to the production of infrastructure and crops where it originally was not possible. That's trillions of dollars in losses of more food and resources for our growing population.



Fixed that for you so we could at least present both sides of global warming. Increased temperatures are not all bad...as you said, there is no optimal temperature (except to me which is anything between 70-110 degrees). We will use less heating oil in the winter, and areas once covered with snow will have more sunshine and can be developed for crops.

Fixed that for you so we could at least present both sides of global warming. Increased temperatures are not all bad...as you said, there is no optimal temperature (except to me which is anything between 70-110 degrees). We will use less heating oil in the winter, and areas once covered with snow will have more sunshine and can be developed for crops.
yeah -- we'll produce infrastructure and crops in Canada and other currently frozen tundra. But that means we'll have to build from scratch -- not an easy thing to do, and it requires considerable investment. And we'll have lost all of our infrastructure that's underwater, which would be trillions of dollars worth. That's the "other side."

And that's ignoring the fact that with this new land is likely to come a political struggle as people stake claims for the first time. and again -- less heating = more a/c. When does CA get more blackouts?

yeah -- we'll produce infrastructure and crops in Canada and other currently frozen tundra. But that means we'll have to build from scratch -- not an easy thing to do, and it requires considerable investment. And we'll have lost all of our infrastructure that's underwater, which would be trillions of dollars worth. That's the "other side."

Sorry but maybe it is time for cities that are build below sea level to wash away as it defies logically normalcy. Also, you act like seas will rise a foot in a decade. I think your time scale is a bit off.

Also, just because it is 0.6 degrees warmer in the past 100 years doesn't mean you can't grow crops anymore. It isn't like Georgia Peanuts grow at 85 degrees but don't grow at 85.6 or Florida Oranges grow at 95 degrees but not at 95.6. I think you are being a bit dramatic in your gloom and doom scenario!

And that's ignoring the fact that with this new land is likely to come a political struggle as people stake claims for the first time. and again -- less heating = more a/c. When does CA get more blackouts?

So we might start fighting wars over geography? :eek: Well that hasn't happened much! :lmao: So what is more important, greenhouse gases or energy? My answer is energy. If the liberals would get off their asses and quit delaying nuclear energy, we could all get our way. :nod:

If the liberals would get off their asses and quit delaying nuclear energy, we could all get our way. :nod:

Who are these "liberals" who are single-handedly blocking all the nuclear power plants that utilities are just dying to build?

And again, if nuclear is so great, why do they need a liability shield?

It's the governments responsibility to invest in new technologies. Trying to gradually move consumers to 'being more green' is never going to work. People don't give enough, it has to be in their direct interest. Just like trying to get the public to donate enough to solve world hunger didn't work. It's about the technology and not getting people to make minor pointless changes.

Who are these "liberals" who are single-handedly blocking all the nuclear power plants that utilities are just dying to build?

And again, if nuclear is so great, why do they need a liability shield?

I believe he's referring to Congrssional Democrats who have blocked nuclear energy initiatives for the past few decades now.

I believe he's referring to Congrssional Democrats who have blocked nuclear energy initiatives for the past few decades now.

Yeah? What bills?

Is there some federal prohibition I have not heard about?

Or is the nuclear industry looking for MORE SUBSIDIES?

Yeah? What bills?

Is there some federal prohibition I have not heard about?

Or is the nuclear industry looking for MORE SUBSIDIES?

In all honesty I have no idea, as it isn't something that interests me nor do i follow closely, but I do know that Democrats have consistently blocked efforts. Whether it is a fundamental disagreement with nuclear energy or there were legitimate concerns about corporate welfare handouts, I don't know.

Just for the record, I'm VERY uncomfortable with the idea of nuclear energy, so this isn't really an issue I kill the Dems on.

Human warming hobbles ancient climate cycle (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2541737720080427?sp=true)
Sun Apr 27, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon dioxide emissions and Earth's ability to absorb them, but now the planet can't keep up, scientists said on Sunday.

The finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ancient Antarctic ice bubbles that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.

Climate scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural mechanism regulates our planet's temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those skeptical about human influence on global warming point to this as the cause for recent climate change.

This research is likely the first observable evidence for this natural mechanism.

This mechanism, known as "feedback," has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.

"These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change ... that we're going to see in the next several hundred years," Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. "Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium."

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide -- a powerful greenhouse gas -- was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.

14,000 TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE

Zeebe analyzed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author determined that it waxed and waned along with the world's temperature.

"When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age," he said. And while Earth's temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial periods between them, the planet's mean temperature has been going slowly down for about 600,000 years.

The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.

Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.

And it appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years.

"This is a time period that we can hardly imagine," he said. "They are way too slow to help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period of time."

Looks like GW is now responsible for predatory animals. So much for getting a Great White as a pet! :mad:

Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/04/wildlife.climatechange)

Three decades have passed since the movie Jaws sent terrified bathers scrambling out of the ocean. But as any beach lifeguard knows, there's still nothing like a gory shark attack to stoke public hysteria and paranoia.

Two deaths in the waters off California and Mexico last week and a spate of shark-inflicted injuries to surfers off Florida's Atlantic coast have left beachgoers seeking an explanation for a sudden surge in the number of strikes.

In the first four months of this year, there were four fatal shark attacks worldwide, compared with one in the whole of 2007, according to the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville.

'The one thing that's affecting shark attacks more than anything else is human activity,' said Dr George Burgess of Florida University, a shark expert who maintains the database. 'As the population continues to rise, so does the number of people in the water for recreation. And as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water, we will have an increase in shark bites.'

Some experts suggest that an abundance of seals has attracted high numbers of sharks, while others believe that overfishing has hit their food chain. 'I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a convenient excuse,' Burgess said. Another contributory factor to the location of shark attacks could be global warming and rising sea temperatures. 'You'll find that some species will begin to appear in places they didn't in the past with some regularity,' he said.

New Smyrna Beach, Florida, is called the shark attack capital of the world. It has had more recorded incidents per square mile than any beach on Earth. So far this year there have been 10 attacks on surfers, including three in three days last week, although officials say most of the wounded were able to make their own way to hospital.

'It's more like a vicious dog bite, half a dozen stitches, a few bandages, that sort of thing,' said Scott Petersohn, a captain with the Volusia County Beach Patrol, which covers 47 miles of coastline including New Smyrna Beach.

'The sharks that inflict the most damage here, the black tips, can be about two or three feet long. There are some bigger ones along our coast, tiger sharks and bull sharks, but there's a sustainable food supply for them. People are not on the menu for sharks.'

At Solano Beach, California, where 66-year-old David Martin was killed last week by a great white shark estimated to be 4.5 metres long, and off the Mexican coast near Acapulco, where 25-year-old American tourist Adrian Ruiz fell victim to a suspected tiger shark, there were conflicting claims.

Meanwhile, the wildlife protection group Wildcoast has accused the Mexican authorities of 'international shark hysteria' over the slaughter of at least 10 near the beach at Troncones on the Pacific coast where Ruiz died. A navy spokesman said a 200-metre line with baited hooks was set up to catch any sharks threatening the beach.

'They more than likely had nothing to do with the attack. Since sharks are threatened in Mexico, this is the worst type of vengeance security imaginable,' said Aida Navarro, the group's wildlife conservation programme manager.

'It's the equivalent of stepping on to the plains of the Serengeti when you step into the water,' Burgess said. 'It's not like a swimming pool. This is a wilderness experience and with it comes a certain amount of risk.

'What's needed is some kind of system to prevent people and sharks coming together in a dangerous way.'

Looks like GW is now responsible for predatory animals. So much for getting a Great White as a pet! :mad:

Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/04/wildlife.climatechange)

Three decades have passed since the movie Jaws sent terrified bathers scrambling out of the ocean. But as any beach lifeguard knows, there's still nothing like a gory shark attack to stoke public hysteria and paranoia.

Two deaths in the waters off California and Mexico last week and a spate of shark-inflicted injuries to surfers off Florida's Atlantic coast have left beachgoers seeking an explanation for a sudden surge in the number of strikes.

In the first four months of this year, there were four fatal shark attacks worldwide, compared with one in the whole of 2007, according to the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville.

'The one thing that's affecting shark attacks more than anything else is human activity,' said Dr George Burgess of Florida University, a shark expert who maintains the database. 'As the population continues to rise, so does the number of people in the water for recreation. And as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water, we will have an increase in shark bites.'

Some experts suggest that an abundance of seals has attracted high numbers of sharks, while others believe that overfishing has hit their food chain. 'I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a convenient excuse,' Burgess said. Another contributory factor to the location of shark attacks could be global warming and rising sea temperatures. 'You'll find that some species will begin to appear in places they didn't in the past with some regularity,' he said.

New Smyrna Beach, Florida, is called the shark attack capital of the world. It has had more recorded incidents per square mile than any beach on Earth. So far this year there have been 10 attacks on surfers, including three in three days last week, although officials say most of the wounded were able to make their own way to hospital.

'It's more like a vicious dog bite, half a dozen stitches, a few bandages, that sort of thing,' said Scott Petersohn, a captain with the Volusia County Beach Patrol, which covers 47 miles of coastline including New Smyrna Beach.

'The sharks that inflict the most damage here, the black tips, can be about two or three feet long. There are some bigger ones along our coast, tiger sharks and bull sharks, but there's a sustainable food supply for them. People are not on the menu for sharks.'

At Solano Beach, California, where 66-year-old David Martin was killed last week by a great white shark estimated to be 4.5 metres long, and off the Mexican coast near Acapulco, where 25-year-old American tourist Adrian Ruiz fell victim to a suspected tiger shark, there were conflicting claims.

Meanwhile, the wildlife protection group Wildcoast has accused the Mexican authorities of 'international shark hysteria' over the slaughter of at least 10 near the beach at Troncones on the Pacific coast where Ruiz died. A navy spokesman said a 200-metre line with baited hooks was set up to catch any sharks threatening the beach.

'They more than likely had nothing to do with the attack. Since sharks are threatened in Mexico, this is the worst type of vengeance security imaginable,' said Aida Navarro, the group's wildlife conservation programme manager.

'It's the equivalent of stepping on to the plains of the Serengeti when you step into the water,' Burgess said. 'It's not like a swimming pool. This is a wilderness experience and with it comes a certain amount of risk.

'What's needed is some kind of system to prevent people and sharks coming together in a dangerous way.'

Not sure what this has to do with GW TBH.

You hippy-crites! When it comes to saving the planet do celebrities practise what they preach? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=564215&in_page_id=1773)


Is the hot air emitted by celebrities when they spout ecological platitudes a greenhouse gas?

If so, then the melting of the polar ice caps just moved a step closer, following calls by Trudie Styler, a leading celebrity ecological hypocrite - call them hippy-crites for short - for the general public to eat more locally grown vegetables.

Campaigning against food miles might seem an unlikely cause for Styler, given that a tribunal last year heard how she ordered her personal chef to travel over 100 miles to make a bowl of pasta for her youngest child and has sold olive oil and honey from her Tuscan estate, Il Palagio, 1,000 or so miles away, in Harrods in London.

So it was hardly surprising that an alert journalist present at the lecture, which was being staged as part of the Earls Court Real Food Festival, had the wit to question the environmental record of Styler and her husband Sting.

The couple's carbon footprint, the impertinent ink-stained wretch pointed out, has been estimated at 30 times greater than the average Briton's. How did Styler and Sting - who have seven homes - square that with their environmental crusading?

Styler conceded that as Sting "has a 750-person crew to bring around the world, it is a difficult challenge".

Her rare moment of ecological candour was shortly replaced by the more familiar self-congratulation and justification, however.

"I would like to think that we both work pretty hard for the rights of indigenous people and for the rights of conservation of the Amazon rainforest, but we do need to get around," she said.

Of course, Sting and Trudie's "do as I say not as I do" approach to the dilemma of environmental pollution is by no means unusual among the carbon-guzzling lifestyle of the celebrity elite.

Here's a roll call of some other startlingly hippy-critical celebrities:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/029travolta_228x447.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/028chrismartin_468x397.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/028DiCaprio_468x347.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/029bradgelina_468x507.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/029Streisand_468x374.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/029madonnna_468x273.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/029princecharles_468x164.jpg

No facts No proof… nothing but the opportunity to advance his own agenda. The great Nobel Prize winner wants us all to believe that over 40,000 dead is a result of global warming.
So at this point, am I supposed to feel responsible for their deaths?

Come on Al…




Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a 'Consequence' of Global Warming
Former vice president tells NPR's 'Fresh Air' cyclone is example of 'consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.'

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/6/2008 4:04:54 PM


Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.



Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.



“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”



Gore claimed global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify.



“It’s also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is although any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming – we’ve always had hurricanes,” Gore said. “Nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms – the larger ones and trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”



In October 2007, CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano disputed Gore’s claim that there is a strong correlation between intense storms and global warming. He explained that “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5-percent increase.”

I don't see where AG is quoted saying the cyclone was "a consequence of GW."

I don't see where AG is quoted saying the cyclone was "a consequence of GW."


Now I remember what drove me out of this forum… starting to wonder why I checked back…

Now I remember what drove me out of this forum… starting to wonder why I checked back…

Cause you can't justify what you posted?

Oh, I guess you can justify misrepresenting what AG said cause you're just posting that someone else did it.

Just like the continuous repetition of his claiming to "invent the Internet.:rolleyes:

I don't see where AG is quoted saying the cyclone was "a consequence of GW."

True, but look here:


“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

The language is very subtle. The "and" right before the statement changes the nature of the entire phrase. So while robosmith is right to say that Gore never explicitly calls the cyclone a "consequence of Global Warming", we have to admit the juxtaposition of the two statements is intentional.

Right there

You mean "consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming?"

That's not the same as "consequences of GW."

Did you miss the "scientists have long predicted" and "might be?"

Very different than the conclusive statement of the title.

I can see how you might be confused though. A little careful reading might clear things up for ya.

You mean "consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming?"

That's not the same as "consequences of GW."

Did you miss the "scientists have long predicted" and "might be?"

Very different than the conclusive statement of the title.

I can see how you be confused though. A little careful reading might clear things up for ya.

Lol, I did read it and I noticed the difference upon reading it more closely. That's why I was edited my response. :)

Predicting the weather in a week has nothing to do with predicting global warming. It's like predicting the performance of a stock portfolio: over the long term, it'll go up, but in a week or two, who knows?

What came out of the acid rain scare? Control over pollutants. What came out of the nuclear winter discussion? Disarmament treaties (though I think we're leaving the realm of science here...). Science knows what the effects of certain situations can be, whether that's molecules bonding into acid rain or erosion of the ozone layer causing the increase in certain EM wavelengths. The question is measuring if the conditions are ripe for the situation. Here's where denial, cynicism, politics, and an ungodly number of other factors tend to cloud up the situation.

Yes... Most scientists, but not all, who have studied the issue agree with the global warming hypothesis... they could be wrong, it would not be the first case of mass hysteria to sieze hold of even "the experts", but I tend to throw my hat behind those scientists who have studied the issue being that I lack the credentials to make an assesment.

The vast majority say that it is occurring because of C02 emissions.-- sadly, I have no good reasons to doubt them. On scientific matters we have no choice but to defer to the consensus of the scientists.

Yes... Most scientists, but not all, who have studied the issue agree with the global warming hypothesis... they could be wrong, it would not be the first case of mass hysteria to sieze hold of even "the experts", but I tend to throw my hat behind those scientists who have studied the issue being that I lack the credentials to make an assesment.

The vast majority say that it is occurring because of C02 emissions.-- sadly, I have no good reasons to doubt them. On scientific matters we have no choice but to defer to the consensus of the scientists.
does it surprise you that some don't agree? There are a few people in academia who still believe that the universe is geocentric.

does it surprise you that some don't agree? There are a few people in academia who still believe that the universe is geocentric.

No not at all ... There are always dissenters... merely a small nod to the possibility of a mass hysteria which can infect even "the experts".

Like I said on scientific issues like this I have no choice but to go along with the majority of scientists as I am not in a position to make a scientific judgement of this kind. It is something I have to take seriously.

No not at all ... There are always dissenters... merely a small nod to the possibility of a mass hysteria which can infect even "the experts".

Like I said on scientific issues like this I have no choice but to go along with the majority of scientists as I am not in a position to make a scientific judgement of this kind. It is something I have to take seriously.
While nobody's completely immune to hysteria, scientists for the most part are much less prone to it than the general population. We tend to like facts. :)

A little careful reading might clear things up for ya.
That's rich. :lmao:

That's rich. :lmao:

I read things more carefully now that bush fooled me.

I just can't trust anyone anymore...







:lmao:

While nobody's completely immune to hysteria, scientists for the most part are much less prone to it than the general population. We tend to like facts. :)

True ..."Just the facts maam"http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/graphics/webb.jpg

UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
April 2008 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.



- don't forget though, that this is just 'weather'. If it had been record high temperatures for April, the claim would be it was because of anthropogenic global warming. However, since it is 'cold' and not 'hot', it's just weather. :rolleyes:

UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
April 2008 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.



- don't forget though, that this is just 'weather'. If it had been record high temperatures for April, the claim would be it was because of anthropogenic global warming. However, since it is 'cold' and not 'hot', it's just weather. :rolleyes:

April was a lot colder than I remembered previous April's to be.

UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
April 2008 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.



- don't forget though, that this is just 'weather'. If it had been record high temperatures for April, the claim would be it was because of anthropogenic global warming. However, since it is 'cold' and not 'hot', it's just weather. :rolleyes:
don't forget, though. Global warming means monotonic temperature increases! :rolleyes:

don't forget, though. Global warming means monotonic temperature increases! :rolleyes:

:doh: That's right! Global Warming also means that temperatures are falling!. How could I forget that?

don't forget, though. Global warming means monotonic temperature increases! :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that occur after the ice caps melt completely? Until then, we would have cooler water coming down via currents, cooling the oceans and consequently cooling the air over the oceans which would result in colder wind in the interim...

Wouldn't that occur after the ice caps melt completely? Until then, we would have cooler water coming down via currents, cooling the oceans and consequently cooling the air over the oceans which would result in colder wind in the interim...

He was being sarcastic.

There are never monotonic trends in temperative, GW or not.

http://a.slickdeals.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=94475&stc=1&d=1210468838 (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

Above: Ten year trend for January temperatures 1998-2008 was DOWN 1.83 degrees/decade.

Below: Twenty year trend 1895-1915 was UP 0.41 degress/decade.

It must have been because we had more SUVs than we do now.

http://a.slickdeals.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=94478&stc=1&d=1210469244

http://a.slickdeals.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=94475&stc=1&d=1210468838 (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

Above: Ten year trend for January temperatures 1998-2008 was DOWN 1.83 degrees/decade.

Below: Twenty year trend 1895-1915 was UP 0.41 degress/decade.

It must have been because we had more SUVs than we do now.

http://a.slickdeals.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=94478&stc=1&d=1210469244

why'd you pick those years? ;) BTW, I find it hilarious that with all the bitching and moaning by some people here about "data quality," you're trying to draw conclusions off of data that calls itself preliminary. :lol:

why'd you pick those years?The data on that source go back only to 1895, hence the start date. The two

I picked to different period lengths (10 years and 20 years) just to give you something about which you could complain.
;) BTW, I find it hilarious that with all the bitching and moaning by some people here about "data quality," you're trying to draw conclusions off of data that calls itself preliminary. :lol:I find it humorous that you somehow determined that I was trying to draw conclusions based on the graph.

The data on that source go back only to 1895, hence the start date. The two

I picked to different period lengths (10 years and 20 years) just to give you something about which you could complain.I find it humorous that you somehow determined that I was trying to draw conclusions based on the graph.
you posted something on a debate board. youre either giving your opinion, drawing a conclusion, or wasting space. it's not the first, so :dontknow:

you posted something on a debate board. youre either giving your opinion, drawing a conclusion, or wasting space. it's not the first, so :dontknow:

Why not a "preliminary" conclusion to go along with the "preliminary" data ?? :)

Why not a "preliminary" conclusion to go along with the "preliminary" data ?? :)
I vote for premature jackulation.

Why not a "preliminary" conclusion to go along with the "preliminary" data ?? :)
ok -- and what would that be? If you cherrypick data, you can usually find anything you want. That's why it's illegal in statistics.

ok -- and what would that be? If you cherrypick data, you can usually find anything you want. That's why it's illegal in statistics.

Kinda like the alarmist crowd does, going back 100 years or so? :scratch:

Good for the goose, good for the gander. :nod:

Kinda like the alarmist crowd does, going back 100 years or so? :scratch:

Good for the goose, good for the gander. :nod:

Why do you keep repeating this 100 year figure?

There is climate data from ice cores and sediment going back up to 850,000 years.

ok -- and what would that be? If you cherrypick data, you can usually find anything you want.

Hence the Global Warming Hypothesis alarmists!

That's why it's illegal in statistics.

I don't know if it is actually illegal! :lmao: Also, anyone with a basic understanding on statistics know it is just as subjective as cherrypicking data and there is a host of different statistical approaches to data one can take. I remember sitting in a doctoral thesis defense of a friend watching two professors argue about the type of statistics used for almost half an hour.

Why do you keep repeating this 100 year figure?

There is climate data from ice cores and sediment going back up to 850,000 years.

So tell me what the +/- uncertainty is for an ice core 50,000 years old? When we are debating a possible increase of 0.6 degree in 100 years, do you really believe that ice core temperatures are as certain as IR or thermometer data from today? Do you think you can get within 2 degrees accurate estimation?

So tell me what the +/- uncertainty is for an ice core 50,000 years old? When we are debating a possible increase of 0.6 degree in 100 years, do you really believe that ice core temperatures are as certain as IR or thermometer data from today? Do you think you can get within 2 degrees accurate estimation?

Relevance to my assertion?

You deny that conclusions can be drawn from historical trends revealed in ice cores and sediments?

Relevance to my assertion?

You deny that conclusions can be drawn from historical trends revealed in ice cores and sediments?

yes :nod: accurate ones to be sure.

Kinda like the alarmist crowd does, going back 100 years or so? :scratch:

Good for the goose, good for the gander. :nod:
:scratchh:

Hence the Global Warming Hypothesis alarmists!


:scratchh:


I don't know if it is actually illegal! :lmao: Also, anyone with a basic understanding on statistics know it is just as subjective as cherrypicking data and there is a host of different statistical approaches to data one can take. I remember sitting in a doctoral thesis defense of a friend watching two professors argue about the type of statistics used for almost half an hour.

Well, you can do any statistical test you want to some data. But not all of them are right. You wouldn't do a T-test when you need to compare variances, for example. So I have no idea how what you're saying is relevant. Stats are real. Just because people use them incorrectly doesn't mean they don't work.



So tell me what the +/- uncertainty is for an ice core 50,000 years old? When we are debating a possible increase of 0.6 degree in 100 years, do you really believe that ice core temperatures are as certain as IR or thermometer data from today? Do you think you can get within 2 degrees accurate estimation?

Actually, they're quite good. See all the previous discussions of ice cores on this thread.

yes :nod: accurate ones to be sure.

So there is nothing to be learned from data which is not highly accurate?

Ever heard of error analysis?

Relevance to my assertion?

You deny that conclusions can be drawn from historical trends revealed in ice cores and sediments?

I am saying estimates are hardly steadfast. Carbon dating is more accurate than looking at ice cores but one can still be off by 1000-10,000 years using a more accurate method of analyzing isotopic decay. So yes, I would seriously question temperature accuracy based on ice core samples. Examining trapped gases or sediments, okay, you can derice historical TRENDS...but temperatures, hardly accurate...especially when we are debating whether the Earth's temperatures have increased 0.6 degrees Farenheit in as little as 100 years.

So there is nothing to be learned from data which is not highly accurate?

Ever heard of error analysis?

Sure.. you know that it was warm and cold and warm and cold . Thats pretty much it for sure. I have read you can get several ice core layers a day. so all they truely prove is there is some warming and cooling. They are hardly proven to be annual. You can gather all sorts of interesting hypothesis from cores. Devil is always in the details. Accuracy matters when you are asking a society to buy into a theory that can have an impact on the society and how we live. So yes accuracy matters. If you and others like you stopped pushing it as if its happening they way you do, then i am ok with accepting it as a disscussion to be looking into until its proven to be something other than cyclical.

Sure.. you know that it was warm and cold and warm and cold . Thats pretty much it for sure. I have read you can get several ice core layers a day. so all they truely prove is there is some warming and cooling. They are hardly proven to be annual. You can gather all sorts of interesting hypothesis from cores. Devil is always in the details. Accuracy matters when you are asking a society to buy into a theory that can have an impact on the society and how we live. So yes accuracy matters. If you and others like you stopped pushing it as if its happening they way you do, then i am ok with accepting it as a disscussion to be looking into until its proven to be something other than cyclical.
ummm...what have you read talgot?

ummm...what have you read talgot?

Excerpts from drillers that were in greenland. It was a while back..Basically they would say somedays they would get several of these layers a day depending on the weather. I will try and recall where I read it if I get time.

Why do you keep repeating this 100 year figure?

There is climate data from ice cores and sediment going back up to 850,000 years.

Excuse me, let me be more precise: 114 years is the period of record as of this posting. It's not any less arbitrary than 100 years though, so the point remains the same.

Excuse me, let me be more precise: 114 years is the period of record as of this posting. It's not any less arbitrary than 100 years though, so the point remains the same.

:confused: And that point would be....?

delete

:confused: And that point would be....?
FUD, ftw

Excuse me, let me be more precise: 114 years is the period of record as of this posting. It's not any less arbitrary than 100 years though, so the point remains the same.
sorry, what source are you looking at for that?

World CO2 levels at record high, scientists warn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/12/climatechange.carbonemissions)
David Adam guardian.co.uk, Monday May 12 2008

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high, according to new figures that renew fears that climate change could begin to slide out of control.

Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year. Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be re-absorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic. If more of our carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere, it means emissions will have to be cut by more than currently projected to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on impacts, said: "Despite all the talk, the situation is getting worse. Levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere and the rate of that rise is accelerating. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change and the scale of those impacts will also accelerate, until we decide to do something about it."

....Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year. Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be re-absorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic........As I've said before, I'm convinced there's a good chance that changes in the ocean play a key role in its ability to absorb and retain CO2 and hence in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

:doh: That's right! Global Warming also means that temperatures are falling!. How could I forget that?
Well, if you wanted to be fair, you should also discuss the March 08 global temperature data:

Global Highlights

The global surface (land and ocean surface) temperature was the 2nd warmest on record for March in the 129-year record, 1.28° F (0.71° C) above the 20th century mean of 54.9° F (12.7° C). The warmest March on record (+1.33° F/0.74° C) occurred in 2002.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/mar08.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/05/19/hurricane-warming-climate.html

Global Warming May Reduce Hurricanes
Seth Borenstein, Associated Press

Katrina: Can't Blame Warming?

May 19, 2008 -- Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors -- anywhere west of Puerto Rico -- will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors.

The biggest storms -- those with winds of more than 110 mph -- would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

It's not all good news from Knutson's study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent, Knutson's study says.

And Knutson said this study significantly underestimates the increase in wind strength. Some other scientists criticized his computer model.

MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, while praising Knutson as a scientist, called his conclusion "demonstrably wrong" based on a computer model that doesn't look properly at storms.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist, said Knutson's computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and "fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity."

Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said it is not just the number of hurricanes "that matter, it is also the intensity, duration and size, and this study falls short on these issues."

Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn't produce storms surpassing 112 mph.

But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn't part of this study, praised Knutson's work as "very consistent with what's being said all along."

"I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny," Landsea said.

Hurricane season starts June 1 in the Atlantic and a Colorado State University forecast predicts about a 50 percent more active than normal storm season this year. NOAA puts out its own seasonal forecast on May 22.

In a normal year about 10 named storms form. Six become hurricanes and two become major hurricanes. On average, about five hurricanes hit the United States every three years.

Granted, it may be wrong. Certainly controversial. Just thought I'd keep people informed ;)

Jupiter's Three Red Spots (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html)

"...Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator."

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/jupiterSpots_hst_c800.jpg

Jupiter's Three Red Spots (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html)

"...Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator."

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/jupiterSpots_hst_c800.jpg

Pretty, aren't they? Or are you insinuating that it must be due to the same source of climate change as on earth? I actually have the Nature article cited in the "climate change" link sitting on my desk as I type. Haven't read it yet, though. Stuff about Jupiter's storms actually made the cover of Nature in January.

"...Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator."

But is it getting warmer overall? Or just near the equator and getting cooler at the poles?

Please explain how this is not OT.

But is it getting warmer overall? Or just near the equator and getting cooler at the poles?Would "large scale climate change" refer to .... large scale climate change?...are you insinuating that it must be due to the same source of climate change as on earth?...I'm insinuating that climate change is a fascinating, complex topic.

I love how "global warming" evolved into "climate change," because that accommodates cooling as well.

Would "large scale climate change" refer to .... large scale climate change?

"Large scale" could refer to just 10% of the planet.

"Global" generally refers to 100% of the planet.

Would "large scale climate change" refer to .... large scale climate change?I'm insinuating that climate change is a fascinating, complex topic.

I love how "global warming" evolved into "climate change," because that accommodates cooling as well.
it didn't evolve into it. The term changed to be more appropriate. The discussion and projected consequences have been the same.

Pretty, aren't they? Or are you insinuating that it must be due to the same source of climate change as on earth? I actually have the Nature article cited in the "climate change" link sitting on my desk as I type. Haven't read it yet, though. Stuff about Jupiter's storms actually made the cover of Nature in January.

Considering that Mars is also experiencing a warming spell, it adds fuel to the notion that this is related to solar or cosmic activities / events, and has nothing to do with evil white men during the Industrial Revolution, and now evil white men in the USA and Europe, who now have to return to living in the stone age to assuage the fears of the hippies and wackos.

evil white men in the USA and Europe, who now have to return to living in the stone age to assuage the fears of the hippies and wackos.

You must be tired from building that giant strawman.

Do you really think it is "hippies and wackos" that author the scientific studies explaining and predicting MMGW?

Just to give you a sense of the number, the 2007 Budget of the U.S. Government was $2.7 Trillion and the National Debt is ~$9.4 Trillion. And you can believe, the U.S. would be expected to incur a massive contribution of the expense:

$45 trillion needed to combat warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change)

TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. (I support these...good luck getting Congress to approve it!)

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth. (Envisions? What a subjective word! :lmao: )

"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels. (Why choose that year and not the middle 1800's since temperatures have increased only 0.6 degrees since then and the accuracy of the measurements is in question)

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans. (Yet nothing about increased farm lands, lower energy savings as it is more expensive to heat than to cool, increases food supply, etc.)

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century. (I am okay with this...just don't ask me to pay for it. Put incentives in place to encourage businesses)

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy. (Maybe we could just buy energy credits directly from Al Gore)

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy. (guess who will be paying for that???)

The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground. (maybe it is time to abandon coal power for something more efficient which produces less waste??? Well...that's an idea!)

The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.

Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said. (I give them much credit for this knowledge which has seemed to escape most U.S. politicians and many liberals up until the past few years)

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. (Developing counties = massive taxation on Americans)

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy. (guess who will be paying for that???)
I don’t see a problem here. The end of the article states that these investments would be made by the private sector and governments. More to the point, these are investments (“commercialization of energy technologies”) and are likely to be lucrative considering the price of oil will remain high and probably will continue to increase. I am ready to bet that it should be a better venture than the 3 trillion invested in Iraq.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. (Developing counties = massive taxation on Americans)

The US is not a developing country :confused:

Just to give you a sense of the number, the 2007 Budget of the U.S. Government was $2.7 Trillion and the National Debt is ~$9.4 Trillion. And you can believe, the U.S. would be expected to incur a massive contribution of the expense:

$45 trillion needed to combat warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change)

TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. (I support these...good luck getting Congress to approve it!)Poor analysis of the article.

First, this is a worldwide figure, not a US figure.

Second, this is the figure that must be spent between this year and 2050. You compared a one-year American budget with forty-two years of worldwide spending.

Third, the world will consume energy anyway. If we don't build these plants, we will build others, refurbish others, drill/refine/process more petroleum, fight more wars, etc.

Liberal Political Correctness concerning the myth of man-made Global Warming is crossing into the realm of being complete lunacy. Banning bonfires on the beach? You alarmists crack me up if it wasn't so sad that you people actually believe that banning bonfires on the beach will actually have an effect of global temperatures! :lmao:

Beach bonfires may be banned

They fuel global warming, parks department says :lmao:

Seattlepi.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366025_bonfire06.html?source=mypi)

Last updated June 5, 2008 11:29 p.m. PT

By KERY MURAKAMI
P-I REPORTER

Even with the skies overcast and threatening rain, Khang Nguyen, 18, and Joel Juan, 19, kicked back after school at Alki Beach.

"It's just a relaxing way to hang out with friends," Nguyen said of the bonfire crackling in front of them one evening earlier this week.

But Seattle Parks and Recreation might do what even this week's chilly weather couldn't -- douse the long tradition of beach bonfires at Alki and at Golden Gardens.

Park department staff is recommending reducing bonfires at the two beaches this summer and possibly banning them altogether next year.

The park board will hear the recommendation Thursday, and the city plans to run public-service announcements and hand out brochures later this month about the effects of bonfires on global warming.

According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."

Under the proposal, the department in July would reduce the number of fire rings at Alki from six currently to three and at Golden Gardens from 12 to seven.

Then later this year, the department would consider banning bonfires or requiring fees and permits to reduce the number of bonfires next year.

It's the second time in the past few years the tradition of lounging by a fire at the beach has run up against the environmental ramifications of bonfire smoke.

Parks and Recreation recommended banning the fires in 2004, after a violation notice from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to the city after someone set a couch on fire at Alki Beach. However, 1,200 people signed a petition to save Alki's bonfires, and 100 others signed a petition to save the ones at Golden Garden.

Instead, park staff said the department should do more to regulate what people burn and make sure the fires are out by 11:30 p.m.

"I think people still feel the same way (about preserving bonfires)," said Larry Carpenter, treasurer of the Alki Community Council. "Old-timers see bonfires as a tradition that they did as children and growing up. It's a nostalgia thing."

At Alki on Wednesday night, Linda Garcia, a 56-year- old West Seattle resident, walked her dog and made a slightly rose-colored argument for preserving her beloved bonfires. "It's so windy around here it probably doesn't pollute that much.

"They have to try to take everything away," she said.

Sara Russell, 34, who also was walking her dog, rolled her eyes at the idea of banning bonfires to stave off global warming.

"If they really wanted to do something, they could enforce the no-cruising law, because in the summer you see so many cars cruising around here," she said.

Russell's neighbor, Debbie Nichols, said that last July Fourth, she got up at 5:30 a.m. to grab one of the fire pits. "I wrapped myself in a blanket and sat there all day," Nichols said. "We use the fire pits all year round."

Since the park board last heard the issue, the department assigned more staff to the two sites. The number of fires using illegal materials has dropped by two-thirds, according to the park memo.

The memo also noted that restrictions could cause illegal fires and fights over the limited number of fire pits. Charging fees to use the pits could disproportionately bar youths and low-income people from having bonfires, the report said.

But Mayor Greg Nickels' plan to reduce climate-threatening pollutants "begs the question of whether Seattle Parks is acting responsibly ... to systematically reduce controllable contributions to global warming," the memo said.

"I can certainly understand it. (Global warming) is a legitimate concern," said Robert Drucker, vice president of the Sunset Hill Community Association.

Still, he said of the bonfires at Golden Gardens: "It's a long-standing tradition. I think people would be upset to see it go."

But at Alki, Nguyen said he'd be OK with banning bonfires.

"By all means, I'd rather not have bonfires than have global warming," he said.

As a sliver of silvery sky shrank under the growing clouds, Nguyen played a guitar, and maybe for the last year, the flames licked the salt air.

MORE INFORMATION

The Seattle Board of Park Commissioners will hear the bonfire ban proposal at its next meeting, Thursday at 7 p.m. The meeting will be at the park department's offices at 100 Dexter Ave. N.

Beach bonfires may be banned

They fuel global warming, parks department saysI think they're using Global Warming as the excuse, but it isn't the reason they are seeking to ban the bonfires.

I think they're just trying to shut down rowdy parties.

I think they're using Global Warming as the excuse, but it isn't the reason they are seeking to ban the bonfires.

I think they're just trying to shut down rowdy parties.
:iagree:

Most likely, they're looking to knock down on parties and the broken glass and hot ash that results from them

Why can't the parks department be taken at their word? Why must excuses for the 'real underlying reason' for banning bonfires be brought up?According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."

Why can't the parks department be taken at their word? Why must excuses for the 'real underlying reason' for banning bonfires be brought up?According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."

why should they?

why should they?

Why should they be honest? Is that really your question?

why should they?

Better question: why should they not be taken at their word? Do you have any evidence that this is not what it looks to be on the surface? Any evidence at all?

Or, more likely, is the quick reaction to find an ulterior motive for this move to ban bonfires a hurried way to keep the Man Made Global Warming Alarmists from looking like lunatic fanatics? :crazy:

Or, more likely, is the quick reaction to find an ulterior motive for this move to ban bonfires a hurried way to keep the Man Made Global Warming Alarmists from looking like lunatic fanatics? :crazy:

Logical fallacy.

Character assassination by association.

Just cause this (non scientific) group cites MMGW as a reason to do something, means nothing about other groups' assessments of the danger of MMGW.

Better question: why should they not be taken at their word? Do you have any evidence that this is not what it looks to be on the surface? Any evidence at all?

Or, more likely, is the quick reaction to find an ulterior motive for this move to ban bonfires a hurried way to keep the Man Made Global Warming Alarmists from looking like lunatic fanatics? :crazy:
ok....let's say they have no ulterior motive and are being stupid. What's your point?

Why should they be honest? Is that really your question?
no -- he's asking an empty why. The only proper response is "why not?"

Seattle Parks Will Not Act On Beach Fires


Responding to a story reported in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Tim Gallagher clarified that Parks does not intend to take any action this year.

The briefing is an opportunity to make the Board, which has many new members, aware of the costs and issues associated with beach fires, and to let them know what the options are for regulating them.

In 2004, Parks did a substantial analysis of the issues surrounding beach fires after receiving a citation from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency for allowing the burning of illegal fuels. Parks decided at that time, with the support of the Park Board, to continue them with some education and regulation.

Parks continues to receive a steady trickle of complaints about associated behaviors--drinking, loud music, and huge amounts of trash, and continues to have concerns about the costs of managing the program.



http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=8527&Dept=14

http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=8527&Dept=14
fancy that. OOC, TR, are we supposed to take this article at its word, since it doesn't mention GW? Just trash, partying, etc.

thanks for the followup, Tony.

thanks for the followup, Tony.

No problem and for added fun here's a link to the original memo referenced in TR's article

http://westseattleblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/parkboardbriefingpaper.doc

and I quote

• This briefing on Alki and Golden Garden beach fires – a fifteen week season from late May to the end of September--is for informational purposes only.

• The issue before the Board is whether or not to reduce, eliminate, or establish further controls on beach fires at Alki Beach and Golden Gardens to mitigate or stop the impact of this current practice on global warming and park user enjoyment. The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon foot emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming. The current and future importance of Mayor Nickels’ Climate Action Now (CAN) Initiative begs the question of whether Seattle Parks is acting responsibly and adhering to the tenets of working effectively, in real time, to systematically reduce controllable contributions to global warming.

Further, behaviors such as drinking, associated with beach fires and the crowds they draw, continue to bring in many complaints from other park users.

How lame are we to still be debating about global warming? Any sane person who has taken the time to understand scientific facts has already moved onto debating and talking about what can be done about it.

Even Richard Branson, who just a few years ago completely laughed at the concept of global warming, has taken the time to understand all the facts and is doing something about it.

http://www.upi.com/img/upi_logo.png

Study: The sun is not producing sunspots (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/06/12/Study_The_sun_is_not_producing_sunspots/UPI-10221213287277/)

BOZEMAN, Mont., June 12 (UPI) -- Scientists attending a U.S. international solar conference say the sun has stopped producing sunspots for the past couple of years.

Although periods of solar inactivity are normal, the researchers said the current dormant period has gone on longer than usual.

The anomaly was a major point of discussion for approximately 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America who attended last week's solar conference at Montana State University.

Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at Montana State University, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum solar activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. Minimum activity generally occurs as the cycles change. Solar activity refers to phenomena such as sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions that, together, can disrupt satellites in space and technology on Earth.

The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. But currently the sun is as inactive as it was two years ago and scientists said they aren't sure why.

They said the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots and that period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700.

http://www.upi.com/img/upi_logo.png

Study: The sun is not producing sunspots (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&sdtid=440669&sdfid=18&u2=http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/06/12/Study_The_sun_is_not_producing_sunspots/UPI-10221213287277/)

BOZEMAN, Mont., June 12 (UPI) -- Scientists attending a U.S. international solar conference say the sun has stopped producing sunspots for the past couple of years.

Although periods of solar inactivity are normal, the researchers said the current dormant period has gone on longer than usual.

The anomaly was a major point of discussion for approximately 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America who attended last week's solar conference at Montana State University.

Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at Montana State University, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum solar activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. Minimum activity generally occurs as the cycles change. Solar activity refers to phenomena such as sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions that, together, can disrupt satellites in space and technology on Earth.

The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. But currently the sun is as inactive as it was two years ago and scientists said they aren't sure why.

They said the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots and that period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700.
so you're hoping the sun bails us out?

so you're hoping the sun bails us out?I'm hoping that real science wins out over politics, dogma, and populism, and I'm hoping that folks who should know better don't have knee-jerk reactions to any bit of news that runs counter to their belief system.

How lame are we to still be debating about global warming? Any sane person who has taken the time to understand scientific facts has already moved onto debating and talking about what can be done about it.

Even Richard Branson, who just a few years ago completely laughed at the concept of global warming, has taken the time to understand all the facts and is doing something about it.

The debate ,my friend, is MMGW.. not Global warming. No one denies there is warming. Just as there has been cooling . The debate is this a mm thing that we have really any control over and should screw american life as we know it to latch on to some made up notion MMGW exists. There is no scientific proof as you alledge that there is MMGW.

so....you believe in global warming and man's effect on the planet? :hug:

Either that, or you a) have no idea what you just posted b) believe that the converse of every statement is true or c) are trolling. :dontknow:

come on.. you know better. He is posting scientific evidence that is counter to this newer belief that MMGW is truth with no discussion needed. I think he has stated many times he is neither for nor against MMGW. Just that science has not proven as much.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/03-05Statewidetrank_pg_final.gif

NOAA: U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080606_ncdcspring.html)

June 6, 2008

The March-May spring season was the 36th coolest on record for the contiguous United States, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Separately, last month ended as the 34th coolest May for the contiguous United States, based on records dating back to 1895.

The average spring temperature of 51.4 degrees F was 0.5 degree F below the 20th century average. The average May temperature of 60.3 degrees F was 0.7 degree F below the 20th century mean, based on preliminary data.

U.S. Temperature Highlights

The March-May temperatures were cooler than average from the Northwest and extending throughout the central Plains and upper Mississippi Valley. In all, 19 states had a cooler-than-average spring.

Twenty-five states were cooler than average for May. Pennsylvania was much cooler than average and ranked eighth coolest.

The unusually cool temperatures kept the nation’s overall temperature-related residential energy demand for May above average. Based on NOAA’s Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index, contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was approximately 3.5 percent above average in May, but near average for the spring season.
Florida, Texas, and Washington were warmer than average for May.

come on.. you know better. He is posting scientific evidence that is counter to this newer belief that MMGW is truth with no discussion needed. I think he has stated many times he is neither for nor against MMGW. Just that science has not proven as much.
:shake: what he posted has nothing to do with MMGW or GW in general. What part makes you think it does?

WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER: 'I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?' (http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html)

John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman


You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

:shake: what he posted has nothing to do with MMGW or GW in general. What part makes you think it does?

He has consitantly made arguements that the sun and other natural things have caused cool downs and warmups. That article was just more support for that.

He has consitantly made arguements that the sun and other natural things have caused cool downs and warmups. That article was just more support for that.
no it wasn't. It was an observation that there has been little solar activity over the past couple years. Anyway, your first statement is incorrect as well. He consistently tries to show that ALL warming and cooling is done by natural things. He's been shown to be wrong every time, though :dontknow:

no it wasn't. It was an observation that there has been little solar activity over the past couple years. Anyway, your first statement is incorrect as well. He consistently tries to show that ALL warming and cooling is done by natural things. He's been shown to be wrong every time, though :dontknow:

Now come on. Thats not true. He may lean towards cooling and warming being natural and we have little effect as we think we do.. but he is a science guy as well.. he has never denied emmissions do not play some role in heating and cooling.

:shake: what he posted has nothing to do with MMGW or GW in general. What part makes you think it does?IMNHO, solar activity does indeed affect our climate.

I think that a discussion of climate should be flexible enough to allow consideration of factual information concerning the sun and should not exclude anything that is not in lockstep with PCGW ideology.

IMNHO, solar activity does indeed affect our climate.

I think that a discussion of climate should be flexible enough to allow consideration of factual information concerning the sun and should not exclude anything that is not in lockstep with PCGW ideology.
The sun affects our climate? :jawdrop: Go on. I can't imagine how the main form of energy in the solar system affects our climate. Way to go out on a limb! [/sarcasm]

You don't need to precede that statement with IMNHO. Anyone who doesn't think the sun affects climate should be dropped into a cold river to get a shocking wakeup call.

If you wanted to talk about factual information of the sun, there is plenty of it. Volumes, in fact. The thing is, most of it, like what you posted, is irrelevant. The only thing that your article shows is that there is a slight possibility that the sun might buy us some time to solve our problem. the thing is, that article only mentioned one previous incident, which is very difficult to draw any correlative conclusion from. If that's right, it's good news -- but it still doesn't say anything about GW because the converse of a true statement isn't necessarily true.

It's not that what you posted isn't "in lockstep with PCGW ideology," whatever that is. It's that it has nothing to do with it whatsoever -- either for it or against it.

Full text of speech (http://www.columbia.edu/jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf)

WASHINGTON (AP) (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3NLY5naFMJIsbKHNeiWIKMTsEiQD91G3IBG0) — Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action.

James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.

"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."

Hansen brought global warming home to the public in June 1988 during a Washington heat wave, telling a Senate hearing that global warming was already here. To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he was called a prophet, and addressed a luncheon at the National Press Club where he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing.

To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030. That carbon capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.

Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million.

Hansen said he'll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.

"The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this."

Frank Maisano, a spokesman for many U.S. utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a scientist, his "stop them all approach is very simplistic" and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise.

The year of Hansen's original testimony was the world's hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

Longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., citing a recent poll, said in a statement, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."

But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, "Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
On the Net:

* Hansen's speech: http://www.columbia.edu/jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

Global coolingwarming! :whee:

The skyglobe is fallingwarming! The skyglobe is fallingwarming!

Global coolingwarming! :whee:

The skyglobe is fallingwarming! The skyglobe is fallingwarming!

This is familiar territory...

What percentage of doctors have to tell a person to lose some weight before he/she takes them seriously?

80%
90%
Mortician?

......the people in government don't care about the environment....the only thing they care about is money......and that they are getting lots of it.....

......the people in government don't care about the environment....the only thing they care about is money......and that they are getting lots of it.....
fixed

......the people in government don't care about the environment....the only thing they care about is money......and that they are getting lots of it.....
so vote new people into govt....

This is familiar territory...

What percentage of doctors have to tell a person to lose some weight before he/she takes them seriously?

80%
90%
Mortician?
Isn't it amazing how you can leave for a year and it's like nothing's changed?

Isn't it amazing how you can leave for a year and it's like nothing's changed?

cycles my friend. :) Just like cycles in the earth .. so goes threads. :D

Isn't it amazing how you can leave for a year and it's like nothing's changed?

cycles my friend. :) Just like cycles in the earth .. so goes threads. :D

:lmao: I know. Aren't you two still having the same debate in the Evolution thread?:lmao:

Catch a clue:

>>
Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would." <<

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.


Hold on. This guys entire argument is that CO2 can't be a problem because it's natural and because it only occurs in trace amounts? Would he be interested in replacing his drinking water with a supply containing trace amounts of arsenic? After all, it's natural and would only be in trace amounts, it couldn't possible hurt him, could it? His argument is ridiculous and complete BS.

Hold on. This guys entire argument is that CO2 can't be a problem because it's natural and because it only occurs in trace amounts? Would he be interested in replacing his drinking water with a supply containing trace amounts of arsenic? After all, it's natural and would only be in trace amounts, it couldn't possible hurt him, could it? His argument is ridiculous and complete BS.

And your argument is that because something (arsenic) is bad in trace amounts, then CO2 must also be? Sorry, but i sounds like you both are using pretty poor logic.

And your argument is that because something (arsenic) is bad in trace amounts, then CO2 must also be? Sorry, but i sounds like you both are using pretty poor logic.
No -- that was a counterexample. more than enough to discredit the quoted argument completely. :)

More Global Warming insanity from the MMGW Alarmists... :rofl2: No surprise here, insanity brought to you from the liberal haven of Madison, Wisconsin. :crazy:

Mike Ivey: Should Madison ban the drive-through?

www.madison.com (http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/293046)

Mike Ivey — 6/25/2008 5:35 am

First it was a proposed ban on plastic bags.

Now, a member of the influential Madison Plan Commission wants to ban the restaurant drive-through -- or at least restrict the ubiquitous symbol of America's auto-centric lifestyle.

"Given the concern about all the carbon going into the atmosphere, I'm not sure we should be building more places for people to sit idling in their cars," says Eric Sundquist, who was appointed to the citizen panel by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz this spring.

A former newspaper reporter in Atlanta now working as a researcher at the UW-Madison's Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Sundquist notes that several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant (www.ecospace.cc/culture/drive-thru-ban.htm).

"Bans haven't gotten as far in the U.S., although I know San Luis Obispo, Calif., has one," he says.

The issue came up last week during discussions over a conditional use permit for a new Starbucks coffee shop along a congested frontage road across from East Towne Mall.

The site at 4302 E. Washington Ave., in front of the Crowne Plaza Hotel, formerly housed the Frame Workshop retail store but has been vacant for more than a year. Property owner Tim Neitzel now wants to lease half of the 3,300 square foot retail building for a Starbucks that will also feature indoor and outdoor seating.

To facilitate the drive-through, developers are using a portion of the Crowne Plaza parking lot. Drivers picking up their morning coffee will have to make a circle route through the property to avoid potential traffic backups.

But nearby business owners are concerned about bringing more cars through the already congested intersection of East Washington and Continental Lane. The owner of a gas station on the frontage road said it's not uncommon for cars to wait through three traffic signal cycles to get across East Washington.

East Towne area Ald. Joe Clausius admitted the intersection is a problem and said with the Starbucks it "could get very backed up." Still, he said the corridor is badly in need of some redevelopment.

"I'm constantly getting peppered with questions from people about what is happening there and when will it happen," he says.

City officials have given their lukewarm support to the Starbucks, which is scheduled for a November opening. They say it could help create a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere near the Crowne Plaza.

"While many future customers will likely be driving automobiles, hotel guests and residents to the north represent a potential walking customer," says city planner Heather Stouder.

Sundquist voted for the Starbucks but is planning to bring the issue up before the city's Long Range Transportation Planning Commission on which he also serves.

"I know a ban might be difficult so a better approach might be to restrict them," he says, noting an ordinance in Davis, Calif., puts a number of restrictions on drive-throughs, including one relating to air pollution.
These people are absolutely insane.

No -- that was a counterexample. more than enough to discredit the quoted argument completely. :)

lol only cause you agree with his stance :P lol

Hold on. This guys entire argument is that CO2 can't be a problem because it's natural and because it only occurs in trace amounts? Would he be interested in replacing his drinking water with a supply containing trace amounts of arsenic? After all, it's natural and would only be in trace amounts, it couldn't possible hurt him, could it? His argument is ridiculous and complete BS.

No -- that was a counterexample. more than enough to discredit the quoted argument completely. :)

You take in a gram of arsenic and I will take in a gram of CO2 and we will see how equivalent they are. :lmao:

lol only cause you agree with his stance :P lol

You take in a gram of arsenic and I will take in a gram of CO2 and we will see how equivalent they are. :lmao:


Agree or disagree with MMGW, Nicolas did not attempt to equate CO2 with arsenic- that's Paperboy's error.

All Nicolas did was apply a logical test to the "natural" argument (and it did not pass).

Conclusion= CO2 emissions are not capable of upsetting the environmental balance because they are (a) natural (b) are emitted in "trace" amounts

Nicolas tested this by substituting another natural substance that is capable of upsetting systemic balance even in trace amounts

So, even if (a) and (b) are true, it cannot lead to the conclusion the the substance is not harmful.

So Bonk's right, the quoted argument failed the logic test, making it useless as part of a larger argument against MMGW.

Agree or disagree with MMGW, Nicolas did not attempt to equate CO2 with arsenic- that's Paperboy's error.

:shake: I never implied that that is what he was talking about.

Just because a miniscule amount of something (in this case arsenic) can do damage bears nothing on whether or not a miniscule amount of CO2 can do damage to Earth.

I could come back with an equally faulty statment and say something along the lines of "since it takes a relatively high amount of dihydrogen monoxide to cause harm to humans, he must be correct about needing high amounts of CO2 to cause harm to Earth."

:shake: I never implied that that is what he was talking about.

Um... note the bold.
And your argument is that because something (arsenic) is bad in trace amounts, then CO2 must also be? Sorry, but i sounds like you both are using pretty poor logic.
Does a question mark absolve you of implication? (note, I am implying that it does not)


Just because a miniscule amount of something (in this case arsenic) can do damage bears nothing on whether or not a miniscule amount of CO2 can do damage to Earth.

I could come back with an equally faulty statment and say something along the lines of "since it takes a relatively high amount of dihydrogen monoxide to cause harm to humans, he must be correct about needing high amounts of CO2 to cause harm to Earth."

You did make the error and you are continuing to make it.

Yes, you could make a faulty statement. But you could not "come back" with one, and it would not be "equally faulty."

You cannot do these things because Nicolas made no argument. The only thing Nicolas did was to discredit the quoted argument by demonstrating that it fails logical examination.

For all we know, Nicolas thinks that MMGW doesn't exist, but has the intellectual integrity to want such an argument to based in sound reason.

Um... note the bold.

Does a question mark absolve you of implication? (note, I am implying that it does not)
If there is an implication there it is only because of the initial implication in Nicolas's post, as it would appear that he was the one that attempted the relation.

You cannot do these things because Nicolas made no argument. The only thing Nicolas did was to discredit the quoted argument by demonstrating that it fails logical examination.
No, the only thing he showed is that trying to counter a seemingly illogical statement with an illogical statement doesn't show anything.

No, the only thing he showed is that trying to counter a seemingly illogical statement with an illogical statement doesn't show anything.

He provided a test that demonstrates that shows natural+trace <> harmless,

It shows that the quoted argument was fallacious- or as Nicolas put it, B.S.

If you'd like to dispute the logic, you're welcome to come up with your own test that shows that natural+trace = harmless:dontknow:

He provided a test that demonstrates that shows natural+trace <> harmless,

It shows that the quoted argument was fallacious- or as Nicolas put it, B.S.

If you'd like to dispute the logic, you're welcome to come up with your own test that shows that natural+trace = harmless:dontknow:

Isn't the problem with his example that C02 occurs naturally.. whereas his arguement he added a natural to a hypothetical?

Isn't the problem with his example that C02 occurs naturally.. whereas his arguement he added a natural to a hypothetical?
que? arsenic is natural, as is water.

look -- there's no getting around it. the idea that a small amount of something can make a huge difference is truth, despite what the author Nicolas quoted states.

Isn't the problem with his example that C02 occurs naturally.. whereas his arguement he added a natural to a hypothetical?

I might be misunderstanding, but what part is hypothetical? IMO, there was no "what if?" component.

Since his only job was to prove that natural+trace <> harmless he only had to find a substance that met both of those conditions, yet was still known to be harmful.

Both CO2 and Arsenic occur and may be consumed naturally.
Arsenic is know to be harmful even at trace levels.
Seems like a pretty good parity to me.

I might be misunderstanding, but what part is hypothetical? IMO, there was no "what if?" component.

Since his only job was to prove that natural+trace <> harmless he only had to find a substance that met both of those conditions, yet was still known to be harmful.

Both CO2 and Arsenic occur and may be consumed naturally.
Arsenic is know to be harmful even at trace levels.
Seems like a pretty good parity to me.

I ment he, in his example, said add arsenic to water. in nature co2 goes in the air naturally.

que? arsenic is natural, as is water.

look -- there's no getting around it. the idea that a small amount of something can make a huge difference is truth, despite what the author Nicolas quoted states.

I agree, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. Trace amounts of arsenic in water can do much to poison the water; they can't do much to change its temperature.

That said, the whole 'trace amounts' thing is by far the weakest part of his article and the immediate point at which I stopped reading to myself and said, "WTF? He's not really arguing that, is he?"

que? arsenic is natural, as is water.

look -- there's no getting around it. the idea that a small amount of something can make a huge difference is truth, despite what the author Nicolas quoted states.

My understanding is the author ment that relatively speaking the trace amount of co2 is so small that mmgw is unlikely due to co2.

I ment he, in his example, said add arsenic to water. in nature co2 goes in the air naturally.

I don't think it would impact the soundness of the test, but in this case we don't have to worry about it.

Poisonous levels of arsenic leeches into groundwater through natural processes, it need not be added intentionally.

However IF the additional CO2 we emit is doing what the scientific concensus thinks it it doing, then the practice of adding poison beyond the natural levels in our water would be a very apt comparison indeed.

I don't think it would impact the soundness of the test, but in this case we don't have to worry about it.

Poisonous levels of arsenic leeches into groundwater through natural processes, it need not be added intentionally.

However IF the additional CO2 we emit is doing what the scientific concensus thinks it it doing, then the practice of adding poison beyond the natural levels in our water would be a very apt comparison indeed.

Agreed ,accept for the concensus part. Far from a concensus.;)

My understanding is the author ment that relatively speaking the trace amount of co2 is so small that mmgw is unlikely due to co2.
and he didn't do anything to back up that assumption. He merely said the amount of CO2 is small. Ergo, it can't be causing GW.

Ironically, the ion channels in his nervous system that helped him think up that conclusion work based completely on the principal of small amounts cause big change. Especially calcium. A few calcium molecules make a neuron go crazy.

and he didn't do anything to back up that assumption. He merely said the amount of CO2 is small. Ergo, it can't be causing GW.

Ironically, the ion channels in his nervous system that helped him think up that conclusion work based completely on the principal of small amounts cause big change. Especially calcium. A few calcium molecules make a neuron go crazy.

That explains my wife!!! Genius Bonk! :)

That explains my wife!!! Genius Bonk! :)
Why do you think I went into neuroscience? :lol:

Why do you think I went into neuroscience? :lol:

:lol:

Rather than the arsenic / water comparison, though, a much better refutation of what he said would be to demonstrate that trace amounts of an element can cause drastic temperature / weather changes.

:lol:

Rather than the arsenic / water comparison, though, a much better refutation of what he said would be to demonstrate that trace amounts of an element can cause drastic temperature / weather changes.
That would show that he's certainly wrong in that case. But since the logic behind his decision is "small can't influence big," the arsenic example was fine.

Anyway, basically every scientific paper on GW shows that :lol: That's what the whole thing's about!

That would show that he's certainly wrong in that case. But since the logic behind his decision is "small can't influence big," the arsenic example was fine.

I object to this comparison, as noted previously.

Anyway, basically every scientific paper on GW shows that :lol: That's what the whole thing's about!

And here we're arguing in circles. He's claiming that the papers are BS because of their assumptions (that small can influence big, weather-wise), so refuting it by stating that "well, the papers say so" doesn't do so much for me.

Again, I think his argument in this area is full of crap. But I don't see it easily refuted by just stating "hey, some arsenic makes water poisonous."

And here we're arguing in circles. He's claiming that the papers are BS because of their assumptions (that small can influence big, weather-wise), so refuting it by stating that "well, the papers say so" doesn't do so much for me.

Again, I think his argument in this area is full of crap. But I don't see it easily refuted by just stating "hey, some arsenic makes water poisonous."

I dunno what to tell you, as this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with logic. His statement was that small can't influence big. This was discredited with a counterexample that everyone can agree is true. Now, that doesn't mean that this is true in the case of climate change....except that papers say that it IS true.

It's not circular logic because he completed the circle with a false statement. Since his statement is false (using something outside of the circle), his criticism of the papers is false. The papers find that small does influence big.

Hope that makes sense. Let me know if I can clarify it better.

First of all the author is asking the wrong question.

The question shouldn't be:

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth?

It should be

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: If I were to increase the concentration of CO2 relative to the reference concentration that I've chosen what would the effects be?

I dunno what to tell you, as this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with logic. His statement was that small can't influence big. This was discredited with a counterexample that everyone can agree is true. Now, that doesn't mean that this is true in the case of climate change....except that papers say that it IS true.

It's not circular logic because he completed the circle with a false statement. Since his statement is false (using something outside of the circle), his criticism of the papers is false. The papers find that small does influence big.

Hope that makes sense. Let me know if I can clarify it better.

Your clarifications have been fine. I'm just saying there's a break in the refutation. We *know* that small can affect big in things that are not weather related. We don't "know" -- at least from the arguments presented in the past twenty-odd posts -- that small can affect big in things that are weather related.

Except for the "knowledge" from the papers -- which are the precise things that he's arguing against.

And you'd acknowledge certainly that there are areas of science in which small cannot influence big. Anyway, what I'm saying in two main points is:

1) The author is full of crap when trying to prove that "small can't influence big" in weather.
2) Our refutations are full of crap when trying to prove that "small does influence big" in weather, just because it does in other areas.

I think that I'm agreeing with you for the most part, except that you hold a lot more faith in the scientific papers than I do. Do I believe that there's some chance that people like this guy are right and that the scientists are wrong? Yes, I do. I don't think that's likely, but I don't discount it.

Your clarifications have been fine. I'm just saying there's a break in the refutation. We *know* that small can affect big in things that are not weather related. We don't "know" -- at least from the arguments presented in the past twenty-odd posts -- that small can affect big in things that are weather related.

Except for the "knowledge" from the papers -- which are the precise things that he's arguing against.

And you'd acknowledge certainly that there are areas of science in which small cannot influence big. Anyway, what I'm saying in two main points is:

1) The author is full of crap when trying to prove that "small can't influence big" in weather.
2) Our refutations are full of crap when trying to prove that "small does influence big" in weather, just because it does in other areas.

I think that I'm agreeing with you for the most part, except that you hold a lot more faith in the scientific papers than I do. Do I believe that there's some chance that people like this guy are right and that the scientists are wrong? Yes, I do. I don't think that's likely, but I don't discount it.
so you just don't think the scientists are right. Do you have a particular reason for this, or are you just weary? It's fine to be weary, but don't use this guy as a reason.

The papers say that little changes can make a big difference in weather. The guy refutes this by saying "small change having large effect is impossible." Since this is a false statement, his refutation is invalid, and the papers are either truthful, or incorrect for a different reason. It's rare that so many papers reaching the same conclusion are all incorrect, but there's a first for everything. :)

so you just don't think the scientists are right. Do you have a particular reason for this, or are you just weary? It's fine to be weary, but don't use this guy as a reason.

I think the scientists are right. I don't know it, and I find the claims of "proof" far from conclusive.

This guy's argument hasn't swayed me a bit -- again, this line about CO2 proves nothing.

The papers say that little changes can make a big difference in weather. The guy refutes this by saying "small change having large effect is impossible." Since this is a false statement, his refutation is invalid, and the papers are either truthful, or incorrect for a different reason. It's rare that so many papers reaching the same conclusion are all incorrect, but there's a first for everything. :)

Oh -- you see, I think it's possible what he's saying about CO2 specifically not having a large change on the weather is correct. (Though, again, I don't think it's likely.) I find his logic behind the statement wrong, but that doesn't mean his statement happens to be wrong.

When I think about Global Warming, again I think back to my engineering transportation classes. They were full of nice, scientific formulas that were neatly accepted by many people, and neatly pushed for solutions that generally revolved around subways or buses.

It was clear only if you adjusted some of the underlying assumptions a hair, that these outcomes could be radically shifted.

That's my fear -- I've got no clue how much of the MMGW science is a house of cards; I don't suspect it is but I'm skeptical because I have seen this sort of thing before.

Oh -- you see, I think it's possible what he's saying about CO2 specifically not having a large change on the weather is correct. (Though, again, I don't think it's likely.) I find his logic behind the statement wrong, but that doesn't mean his statement happens to be wrong.

The amount of papers saying that CO2 fluctuations DO have a large effect says otherwise.


When I think about Global Warming, again I think back to my engineering transportation classes. They were full of nice, scientific formulas that were neatly accepted by many people, and neatly pushed for solutions that generally revolved around subways or buses.

It was clear only if you adjusted some of the underlying assumptions a hair, that these outcomes could be radically shifted.


I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about here. Is it how to do the most efficient transport for the most amount of people using the fewest resources? That seems like the question you're asking. However, it's a subtle difference from the transportation system that would be best utilized by people. this second bit involves human psychology -- something that has, in the past, been ignored in many transportation systems and architectural designs. In fact, because of this ignorance, many people have died -- ie in fires at nightclubs where doors were either scattered or swung inwards. See "critical mass" by Ball for a thorough discussion.

If this isn't what you mean, please let me know. I love discussing stuff with engineers :)


That's my fear -- I've got no clue how much of the MMGW science is a house of cards; I don't suspect it is but I'm skeptical because I have seen this sort of thing before.

Few things in science are, mostly because scientists are quite slow to accept any radical change. what examples have you seen?

The amount of papers saying that CO2 fluctuations DO have a large effect says otherwise.

Yes, he's arguing against much of the printed word. Which is one reason I tend to disbelieve his notions. But I won't rule them out.



I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about here. Is it how to do the most efficient transport for the most amount of people using the fewest resources? That seems like the question you're asking.

Yes, but it also involves figuring out how many people will use various forms of transportation depending on the cost to use, the time it takes, the method of transport, etc.

It's certainly a softer science, as it takes many (harder to predict) human inputs into account. But, again, I found with a few variable tweaks you could pretty much get the study to generate whatever result you wanted.

Though my exercise in this was purely undergrad in the early '90s, I saw that my thoughts here were reproduced in real life -- the BART to the (SFO) airport studies that were concocted in the mid-'90s to show how many riders would use the service were never matched by the real numbers. Anecdotally, I've seen this repeated in several other transit predictions.

In another optimization model, we generated an ideal site for a landfill given town constraints. Again, you could produce whatever result you wanted by switching a few assumed constants.

Do I believe that the global warming science is as erratic as these soft-science studies? Absolutely not. But I'm admittedly not fully convinced that we completely understand the models that we're using to generate the results we do (and implicitly all of the underlying science that affects the weather).

Again, I'm a lukewarm believer. And I'll be the first to admit I have no grand knowledge of this subject.

Few things in science are, mostly because scientists are quite slow to accept any radical change. what examples have you seen?

I think I've said enough. I've got a real fear of scientific models, especially ones with numerous variables and dependent on multiple assumptions.

Global warming could increase terrorism, official says (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html)

Story Highlights
# Climate change could destabilize "weak" states, intelligence chair says
# Global warming could spark mass migrations, classified report finds
# U.S. food production could increase with climate change, report suggests
# But it says U.S. coasts could be threatened by larger storm surges

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday.

Climate change "will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions," Thomas Fingar said. "All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African, Asian, Central American and Central Asian countries."

People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and some may turn to terrorism, he said.

"The conditions exacerbated by the effects of climate change could increase the pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity," he said.

"Economic refugees will perceive additional reasons to flee their homes because of harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure on countries receiving refugees, many of which "will have neither the resources nor interest to host these climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Reactions to the report broke down along partisan lines, with Democrats generally praising it and Republicans expressing doubts. Committee members had concerns about the report's secrecy, reliability and use of intelligence resources.

Global warming may have a slight positive effect on the United States, since it is likely to produce larger farming yields, Fingar said

But it is also likely to result in storm surges that could affect nuclear facilities and oil refineries near coasts, water shortages in the Southwest and longer summers with more wildfires, the study found.

International migration may also help spread disease, Fingar added, and climate change could put stress on international trade in essential commodities.

"The United States depends on a smooth-functioning international system ensuring the flow of trade and market access to critical raw materials, such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate change and climate change policies could affect all of these," he warned, "with significant geopolitical consequences."

The report was the conclusion of the most comprehensive government analysis the U.S. intelligence community has ever conducted on climate change. Fingar emphasized that it could make no hard and fast predictions, saying that the operative word in his assessment was "may."

Wealthy countries will be able to handle the situation better than poorer ones, he said.

"We assess that no country will be immune to the effects of climate change, but some will be able to cope more effectively than others," he said. "Most of the struggling and poor states that will suffer adverse impacts to their potential and economic security are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia.

"However, the spillover -- from potentially increased migration and water-related disputes -- could have a harmful global impact," he added.

Fingar painted a mixed picture of the effects of climate change on the United States itself.

"Most studies suggest the United States as a whole will enjoy modest economic benefits over the next few decades, largely due to the increased crop yields," he said.

"Costs begin to mount thereafter, however, and some parts of the United States -- particularly built-up coastal areas -- will be at greater risk of extreme weather events and potentially high costs related to losses in complex infrastructure."

The impact of fighting and preparing for climate change may be greater than the effect of global warming itself, Fingar said.

"Government, business and public efforts to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change -- from policies to reduce greenhouse gases to plans to reduce exposure to climate change or capitalize on potential impacts -- may affect U.S. national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself," he said.

The report, the "National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030," relied on U.S. government, military, academic and United Nations studies of climate change.

The report itself is classified, which some members of the House committee objected to.

"I am disappointed it is classified," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California. Secrecy "prevents this report from being released and discussed in public domain."

Committee Chairman Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would ask the administration to declassify it.

Markey opened the hearing by saying "human beings all over the planet face death or damage or injury if we do not act."

He blasted the White House stance on climate change, saying, "The Bush administration continues to limit what their experts know. The president doesn't want America to know the real risk of global warming."

Republicans on the committee criticized the report as wasteful, with Rep. Darrell Issa of California calling it a "dangerous diversion of intelligence resources."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, said that the report was unreliable and that its authors admitted as much.

"We have a lot of information where we are incapable of assessing it," Fingar conceded.

Hoekstra also questioned the committee's priorities.

"There are a lot more pressing issues out there for the intelligence community to be focused on right now that would help keep America safe," he said.

The assessment "was a waste of time, a waste of resources for the intelligence community to be focused on this issue versus other folks in the government that could have done this job and have a responsibility for doing it."

Fingar said the intelligence community had relied on the science of others because it did not itself monitor climate change. He said the assessment was based on midrange predictions of global warming.

Yes, he's arguing against much of the printed word. Which is one reason I tend to disbelieve his notions. But I won't rule them out.

Sounds good. Scientific skepticism is healthy. :)


Yes, but it also involves figuring out how many people will use various forms of transportation depending on the cost to use, the time it takes, the method of transport, etc.

It's certainly a softer science, as it takes many (harder to predict) human inputs into account. But, again, I found with a few variable tweaks you could pretty much get the study to generate whatever result you wanted.

Though my exercise in this was purely undergrad in the early '90s, I saw that my thoughts here were reproduced in real life -- the BART to the (SFO) airport studies that were concocted in the mid-'90s to show how many riders would use the service were never matched by the real numbers. Anecdotally, I've seen this repeated in several other transit predictions.

In another optimization model, we generated an ideal site for a landfill given town constraints. Again, you could produce whatever result you wanted by switching a few assumed constants.


Ah, yes. These kinds of models can be a great pain -- again, because they rely heavily on human psychology, something that's quite difficult to model ;) However, you can sometimes actually model human behavior as mindless particles -- there are a number of papers on this. Since this was early 90's, there's a good chance that this wasn't realized and the model either completely ignored the humans (which would lead to lousy fits period) or over-complicated the model (which would likely lead to huge coverage due to unnecessary parameters). IIRC, the "boid" model simulations hadn't even been around too long then.


Do I believe that the global warming science is as erratic as these soft-science studies? Absolutely not. But I'm admittedly not fully convinced that we completely understand the models that we're using to generate the results we do (and implicitly all of the underlying science that affects the weather).

Again, I'm a lukewarm believer. And I'll be the first to admit I have no grand knowledge of this subject.

I think I've said enough. I've got a real fear of scientific models, especially ones with numerous variables and dependent on multiple assumptions.

Again, a quite respectable position. Skepticism is what drives science. Just be assured that all models I've ever seen do a good job of exploring the parameter space, and while they lead to different rates of warming, they all, for the most part (without using bizarre parameters) lead to the same qualitative conclusions. That said, I'm a neuroscientist/biologist and don't follow this too much either -- just research for this thread and passing articles in the journals I skim (nature, science, etc). I do know that there are many papers NOT based on models, though, as well. Keep in mind, though, that you can have an understanding of the climate without understanding weather. It's just like having an understanding of the stock market over longer-terms but being unable to predict squat about what'll be good in the next week.

Global warming could increase terrorism, official says (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html)


We've actually talked about this before. global warming will expose new habitable land and make some existing land inhabitable. Which will undoubtedly lead to people moving. Since these new areas have been basically untouched, they'll be in the same state as the wild west wrt govt authority. If you have people like the Basques trying to form their own country in areas where govt does have influence, imagine how hectic it'll be when people are separated from most influence.

*lots of good stuff snipped*

It's just like having an understanding of the stock market over longer-terms but being unable to predict squat about what'll be good in the next week.

Sounds fair enough. I don't understand the stock market, either. (Oddly, this in some way parallels my fears about the global warming experts -- from my views, many of the Wall Street "experts" don't seem to understand the stock market as well.)

Pretty shocking stuff

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

What scares me is many scientist who don't believe in global warming are a very small percentage and are many times paid by big oil . Also when you corner a Republican about global warming they say theres not enough evidence to hurt our economy. We are talking about are planet, once we go too far we may not be able to go back.

I am more than a bit worried about the possibility of no ice on the arctic. That means the ocean will absorb the heat from the sun, as opposed to generally letting the sunlight reflect off of the ice and back into space.

So, big run on the Saskatchewan housing market?

Pretty shocking stuff



http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

The sky is falling ! the sky is falling! How do they know ice has always been there? Heck they have found plants and animals fossilized way up there.. tropical and warm weather ones mind you. This is fearmongering at its best with little basis for its conclusions.

The sky is falling ! the sky is falling! How do they know ice has always been there? Heck they have found plants and animals fossilized way up there.. tropical and warm weather ones mind you. This is fearmongering at its best with little basis for its conclusions.
links please. You sure you're not talking about the south pole? I've heard of fossils being found in northern greenland and northern iceland, landmasses NEAR the north pole. Never heard of fossils, much less tropical fossils, being found at the north pole which has no landmass besides frozen water.

BTW -- afaik, there WASN'T always ice at the north pole. though this was hundreds of millions of years before humans came about. Since we humans have figured out how to cope with the earth, there's always been ice up north. That's what's important, at least from our perspective.