backtop


Print 146 comment(s) - last by nstott.. on Feb 5 at 4:21 PM


The Earth seems to be naturally blocking warming effects of increased carbon levels by dropping water vapor levels.
Mother Earth appears to be solving the carbon-based warming "problem" for us

The U.S. is currently considering legislation that would enact steep restrictions on carbon emissions.  Already burdened from high insurance costs, high taxes, and a struggling economy, Congress is asking Americans to shoulder another load -- an estimated cost of $1,600 per citizen per year to fight warming.  And internationally climate change proponents have suggested other major lifestyle restrictions, such as bans on meat consumption and air travel.

Recently there has been a rash of incidents in which climate alarmists have been embarrassingly caught falsifying data or exaggerating facts and figures.  James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a leading climatology center, was found to have several curiously increased sets of temperature data in his studies, which he claimed were the result of a pesky Y2K bug.  At England's East Anglia University, emails leaked from the prestigious Climate Research Unit that revealed that the university's researchers intentionally falsified data temperature data and suppressed scientists who criticized warming.  The incident led to the center's director and prominent warming advocated, Phil Jones, to "temporarily" step down.

And most recently Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian official who was curiously appointed head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) despite not having any formal climate training, was forced to retract statements in a 2007 report which has been used by countries worldwide as a basis for the need to adopting sweeping emissions restrictions.  Mr. Pachauri, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, for his warming work, is now being pressured to resign.

Despite the apparent bias of many climate researchers, they do have one thing right; carbon levels have risen notably over the twentieth century from about 300 ppm to 375 ppm.  While still far from the estimated levels of around 3,000 ppm during the time of the dinosaurs (appr. 150 MYA), the rising levels do mark a legitimate trend.  However, there is increasing evidence that the rising carbon, contrary to alarmist reports is actually having remarkably little effect on global temperatures.

A new study authored by Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. could explain why atmospheric carbon is not contributing to warming significantly.  According to the study, as carbon levels have risen, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics has actually grown colder.  The lower temperatures at this "coldest point" have caused global water vapor levels to drop, even as carbon levels rise.

Water vapor helps trap heat, and is a far the strongest of the major greenhouse gases, contributing 36–72 percent of the greenhouse effect.  However more atmospheric carbon has actually decreased water vapor levels.  Thus rather than a "doomsday" cycle of runaway warming, Mother Earth appears surprisingly tolerant of carbon, decreasing atmospheric levels of water vapor -- a more effective greenhouse gas -- to compensate.

Describes Professor Solomon, "There is slow warming that has taken place over the last 100 years.  But from one decade to another, there can be fluctuations in the warming trend."

The study was published in the prestigious journal Science.

The new research could help explain why despite tremendously higher carbon levels, the planet was not inhospitable hundreds of millions of years ago.  By lowering water vapor levels, the planet might have been able to compensate, at least partially, for atmospheric carbon levels nearly 10 times higher than today's.

Admittedly the picture is still not clear about how our planet reacts to changes in atmospheric composition.  Other factors may also be at play in helping the Earth balance temperatures, including ocean currents and solar activity.  Ironically, no global warming model appears to accurately consider changing water vapor levels, and few offer decent consideration to solar activity.  Thus much of the model based research used to predict warming is likely badly flawed.

Despite the fact that current evidence points to a minimum role of carbon in affecting our planet's climate, the expensive movement to ban or restrict carbon globally retains significant momentum.  It remains to be seen whether politicians choose to consider the latest unbiased research, or instead forge ahead on a crusade against the rather weak greenhouse gas.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

They're figuring it out!
By Abrahmm on 1/29/2010 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 4
Quick, pass as much taxation and control legislation as you can before the truth is revealed and the gig is up!




RE: They're figuring it out!
By Chadder007 on 1/29/2010 7:44:13 PM , Rating: 4
Bump to a 6 for truth...most of it was about money.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By stromgald30 on 1/29/2010 7:49:40 PM , Rating: 5
The gig is never up! They've gone from global cooling to global warming. I'm sure they'll make the jump from global warming to water vapor preservation (or whatever catchy name the marketing people come up with).

Somehow, they'll "make" the science show that reduced water vapor is dangerous, so we'll "need" to cut carbon emissions by 50% to help prevent it from happening.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By HEIJIHUHU on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: They're figuring it out!
By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/30/2010 11:13:55 PM , Rating: 5
This may be a really stupid idea, but I'm going to post it anyway...

Is it really such a bad thing to be looking into alternative energy sources? Sure, the way everybody wants to go about it now is ridiculous (especially the eco-mentalists) but eventually we'll need something else. Why not start looking now?


RE: They're figuring it out!
By mcnabney on 1/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: They're figuring it out!
By porkpie on 1/31/2010 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 5
"Bah, putting anything before yourself and your own personal satisfaction RIGHT NOW is unAmerican."

Its' not about personal satisfaction. It's about the standard of living of every human being on the planet. Destroying the economy through restrictions on energy usage have caused more misery by far than even the worst postulated effects of AGW (assuming it even exists, which in retrospect is a pretty ridiculous idea.

"Less water vapor means less rain. Acidic oceans allow for lower fish production and algae growth"

Nonsense. A warmer world is a wetter, lusher world. Geologic history makes it clear. Any period in which temperature rose, both land and sea life flourished.

"I espect the wealthier nations will start building levies (like in New Orleans, which is technically below sea level), but poor nations will be screwed."

Sea level is yet ANOTHER case where AGW alarmists have been found to be tampering with the data (destroying or moving level markers in low-lying Pacific Islands)

Independent satellite data shows sea level rising a couple centimeters per DECADE...and much (if not all) of that increase is natural anyway (we are coming out an ice age after all). The "flooded cities" myth is just that. Childish pap for someone too stupid to be able to multiply two numbers together.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By mcnabney on 2/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: They're figuring it out!
By porkpie on 2/1/2010 11:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
"I don't know where you developed this fantasy that the whole world was a jungle"

I don't know where you developed the fantasy that I said any such thing. During the Late Devonian era, tropical foilage grew at latitudes approaching the Arctic circle. So the "whole world" wasn't a jungle no, but a considerable part of it was.

During the early Devonian now, there was widespread desertification...but even then, average rainfall across the entire planet was almost certainly significantly higher than today.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By SPOOFE on 1/31/2010 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Less water vapor means less rain.

Or it can mean more rain. If it's raining, it's no longer vapor.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By stromgald30 on 2/1/2010 12:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not arguing against conservation. I'm arguing against global warming and all the sensationalist movements that the "scientific community" puts out every few decades.

I completely agree that we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and I even have no problem with the government supporting research or subsidizing some of the alternative fuel efforts. It's just that all this global warming BS is not useful and a waste of time.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By Alexvrb on 1/30/2010 9:39:58 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry, the President has made it his top priority! Well, right after he tucks those evil bankers and lobbyists (who *somehow* snuck into the administration and hired themselves) safely under the rug.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By FaaR on 2/1/2010 6:00:26 AM , Rating: 3
Cynicisms and sarcasm aside, stopping the use of fossile fuels is still pretty much the best move we could ever make, due to all the positive benefits it would have on human life and the environment.

Even if global warming is complete bunk, smog and other pollution is a killer, literally. CO2 emissions also increases acidification of our oceans, and this DOES have a proven effect on marine life.

Besides, considering oil is a limited resource it would be smarter to save it for better uses (such as manufacturing plastics) than simply burning it in inefficient and polluting engines and furnaces.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By Ryanman on 2/1/2010 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Amen. There shouldn't have to be a psuedo-scientific guise to lessening our energy dependence and increasing our efficiency.


RE: They're figuring it out!
By porkpie on 2/1/2010 11:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
"CO2 emissions also increases acidification of our oceans, and this DOES have a proven effect on marine life."

The scares about CO2 acidification killing coral reefs and other ocean life have pretty much all been proven to be overblown. The ocean at present is slightly alkaline not acidic...and in the past 250 years, its pH has decreased only from 8.17 to 8.1. In about 30 centuries at this rate, the ocean might become slightly acidic.

But would that be bad? Corals (the lifeform supposedly most sensitive to pH changes) developed during the Ordivucian, when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 TIMES higher than they are today. And while corals in a few areas are dying, even more today are thriving. The problems originally chalked up to global warming seem to be nothing more than localized phenomena, caused by other factors.

"considering oil is a limited resource it would be smarter to save it for better uses "

Oil is not a limited resource. Natural petroleum is. There's absolutely no reason we can't make plastics or even synthesize synthetic petroleum itself, using nothing but co2 and water (they're all simply hydrocarbons, remember).


The Coming Ice Age
By nstott on 1/29/2010 4:26:00 PM , Rating: 5
Let bleating of the coming ice age (re)commence (See! They were right all along!). That, and taxation of the environmental toxin known as H2O.




RE: The Coming Ice Age
By lightfoot on 1/29/2010 6:21:23 PM , Rating: 5
No doubt. Hydrogen Hydroxide kills far more people every year than any other chemical compound known to man. It should have been banned long ago, and it is a travesty that this administration has wasted the last year without doing anything about it.


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By DominionSeraph on 1/29/2010 9:09:25 PM , Rating: 5
+1 for truth.

Inhalation of just a few cups of dihydrogen monoxide can kill a grown man. Children are even more susceptible.
It is the primary component of acid rain.
Even supposedly "green" fuel-cell vehicles emit dihydrogen monoxide as a pollutant.
Our fisheries are just full of it. Throughout the industrial era, fish have been literally swimming in the stuff.

And scientists just wave it all away, saying there's nothing to be alarmed about. Just how stupid do they think we are?


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By TerranMagistrate on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Coming Ice Age
By Duwelon on 1/30/2010 11:24:54 PM , Rating: 3
What's worse is that carrots have been killing for thousands of years and congress still hasn't done anything about it. Ever seen the surveys of people who have died throughout history and seen the correlations of the numbers that have eaten carrots? THEY'RE KILLERS.

Our mentally unstable lunatic liberals can correctly get on board of enslaving the human race in the name of junk science of AGW, why not because of the dangers of eating carrots? sigh.


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By SPOOFE on 1/30/2010 11:59:55 AM , Rating: 5
I hear it's prevalently found in almost every cancerous growth, and AIDS would not exist if we get rid of all dihydrogen monoxide.


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By bupkus on 1/30/2010 2:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
Leap frog wit. Please, don't stop.


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By JBird7986 on 1/30/2010 4:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
+1 for the Waterboy reference!


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By drycrust3 on 1/30/2010 2:46:09 PM , Rating: 5
Get it around electrical stuff and it becomes lethel too.

But seriously, it has been known for a long time that water vapour is far more important than carbon. I found a book which had these quotes in it:
"The principal atmospheric absorber for the entrant sunlight is water vapor, absorption by ozone being a minor factor qualitatively; the other gases are virtually transparent. Absorption of the outgoing radiation from the earth is again largely due to water vapor, with CO2 and ozone playing lesser roles. ... the temperature of the surface is closely dependent upon the amount and temperature of this vapor" (Harold K. Blum: Time's Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University Press, 1951, p 57).
"Calculations show that a 50-percent decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will lower the average temperature of the earth 6.9 degrees Fahrenheit. We can be reasonably sure that such a sharp drop in temperature would cause glaciers to spread across the earth." (Gilbert N. Plass: "Carbon Dioxide and Climate," Scientific American, Volume 201, July 1959, p. 42.
"Evidently then an ice-age would arise if the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere were destroyed or seriously weakened. This would happen if the concentrations of those gases of the atmosphere that are responsible for the blocking the infra-red were appreciably reduced. The gas of main importance in this respect is water vapor. The question therefore arises as to how the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere might be systematically reduced, especially the amount at a height of some 20,000 feet above the ground. In this may lie the answer to the riddle of the ice ages" (Fred Hoyle, above citation, p 8).
"Now conditions are often operative in the atmosphere, say at a height of about 20,000 feet, where a considerable concentration of water vapor exists that does not fall as rain because there is no way of forming large water drops out of the vapor - and only drops of an appreciable size can form as rain. The arrival from above of a large number of meteoric particle might well produce a drastic change in such a situation, since water drops would immediately tend to condense around the particles. If concentration of the water vapor were large enough, rain would probably fall." (Fred Hoyle, same citation, page 9).
I found the quotes in my "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris, they had these quotes (pgs 253 and 254).


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By thurston on 1/31/2010 1:36:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Get it around electrical stuff and it becomes lethel too.


Pure water does not conduct electricity very well.


RE: The Coming Ice Age
By LIWEIPINGPP on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: The Coming Ice Age
By edyhku on 2/1/10, Rating: -1
Regardless
By kontorotsui on 1/29/2010 4:32:47 PM , Rating: 4
Regardless of the effective influence of increased CO2 levels from human activity, doesn't mean we should stop transition to nuclear power and renewable sources, electric automotive and energy saving.
We can't keep burning carbon based products, which will eventually run out anyway and start more wars for control of these energy sources.




RE: Regardless
By sefsefsefsef on 1/30/2010 12:20:12 AM , Rating: 3
We should do those things, but not for the reasons that have been thrust upon us by global warming politicians. Those are reasonable long-term goals that can make energy more affordable, and really can improve our quality of life, but we shouldn't have those goals because somebody tricked us into thinking Manhattan was going to fall into the ocean if we didn't.


RE: Regardless
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2010 11:18:05 AM , Rating: 3
Nuclear power. Great. Electric cars. Dumb. You're worried about running out of oil and coal but you want to build billions of cars which require materials far more rare than oil or coal. Not to mention don't get the job done for the foreseeable future for anything other than inner city travel.


RE: Regardless
By geddarkstorm on 2/1/2010 5:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power coupled with fuel cells.. mmmmmm now that would be an idyllic future! Completely self contained... basically 100% recyclable infrastructure and power base; next to no pollution, abundant and cheap energy for all, and safer than anything we use now. And anything we may need in the deep future, we could easily grab from space, so we'd never be in danger of running out.

Why, FIT? Why didn't we live up to our potential? Where did we go wrong?


RE: Regardless
By MrPoletski on 2/1/2010 5:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
Thorium reactors FTW!


That can't be right...
By lightfoot on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: That can't be right...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
Of COURSE the earth is. If it didn't have strong negative feedbacks for controlling temperature, life never could have developed in the first place.

The idea that CO2 would lead to some runaway positive feedback loop was laughable when it was first proposed. Now that world temperatures have been declining for the past 10 years, its even more ludicrous.


RE: That can't be right...
By mandrews on 1/29/2010 4:34:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

Of COURSE the earth is. If it didn't have strong negative feedbacks for controlling temperature, life never could have developed in the first place.


Precisely. That's one of the central messages I've provided evidence for over my last couple years at the site.

Carbon levels may be rising notably, but they still remain laughably low when compared to historic levels. We could burn all the coal and gas reserves that are easily extractable and we still might not reach 3,000 ppm.

And even if we did, history has shown the effects would be relatively minor, perhaps a shift of a couple degrees C. And even in the most wild scenario that wouldn't happen for 400 to 500 years from now and assuming there's no progress on developing sustainable carbon fuel sources like genetically modified algae or bacteria.

In short, the only thing to be alarmed about when it comes to warming is how far some in the research community have gone to distort the scientific method, and how far some politicians have gone to sacrifice the well being of their citizens.


RE: That can't be right...
By rs1 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: That can't be right...
By SPOOFE on 1/30/2010 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your post = FUD. Maybe the guy's been talking about the issue because, oh, there's a good reason to? Perhaps there's been ample evidence that the mechanisms of water vapor's behavior have been inadequately modeled or studied? No, that couldn't be it. He's all biased and such. Yeah, that's it. He's biased, but the guys pushing AGW like it's the New Heroin, no, they're bastions of objectivity.

So there we have it: Providing evidence is biased, but politically motivated whoring isn't. You heard it here, folks.


RE: That can't be right...
By Duwelon on 1/30/2010 11:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about their agenda: Al Gore and whoever supports him directly wants carbon taxes they can profit off of, because they know once we're in it, there's no getting out. Luckily for the rest of humanity, hopefully, is that enough of their lies and junk science has been exposed. Now if only the useful idiots(read: tools) like Jason Mick would go find a real cause to get behind, something that doesn't involve enslaving the entire planet.


RE: That can't be right...
By gamerk2 on 2/1/2010 8:13:48 AM , Rating: 1
Funny, I didn't hear criticism when Bush enacted the SO2 cap-and-trade market; I guess he's a Gore follower then?


RE: That can't be right...
By porkpie on 2/1/2010 3:11:47 PM , Rating: 3
Funny, sulfur dioxide actually IS a pollutant, with direct effects on human health. Furthmore, the SO2 restrictions were a minimal impact on ONE industry (coal, which compensated primarily by building more scrubbers) rather than a massive, inescapable tax on EVERY single industry in the country.


Unscientific?
By rs1 on 1/29/2010 7:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus rather than a "doomsday" cycle of runaway warming, Mother Earth appears surprisingly tolerant of carbon, decreasing atmospheric levels of water vapor -- a more effective greenhouse gas -- to compensate.


So the researcher is suggesting that the planet has some automatic way of compensating for elevated atmospheric CO2 levels by lowering the level of atmospheric water vapor? That seems a little far-fetched to me.

Might a more plausible hypothesis be that we are seeing a reduced amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because we are currently at a solar minima? With a smaller amount of total energy coming in from the sun, it follows that less surface water would evaporate, leading to less water vapor in the atmosphere. It also follows that the upper levels of the atmosphere (where heat is provided primarily by interactions between the ozone layer and solar radiation) would be cooler (which would, in turn, force further water vapor out of the atmosphere).

That seems like a much more plausible theory to me than simply "the earth is automatically compensating for elevated CO2 levels, somehow". I very much doubt that the reduction of water vapor was the result of some automatic response of the planet, or that it was somehow triggered by rising CO2 levels. I guess we'll see which way it works when we get to the next solar maxima. Either water vapor levels will stay low, or they'll rise more-or-less in proportion to the change in solar energy received.




RE: Unscientific?
By Keeir on 1/29/2010 8:22:36 PM , Rating: 1
There's a couple of big hole in your plausible theory.

When the planet is -warmer-, one would expect increased water vapour in the air.

Warmer air will accept more water vapour in general. Warmer surface water temperatures should increase rated of evaporation, even if we had a mildly reduced amount of solar radiation. (Reduced water vapor levels should actually result in an increased amout of solar radiation hitting the surface...)

The second is... I've research similar before. The trend they are talking about has occured for a few decades now, and has continued regardless of the solar cycle.

::Shrug::


RE: Unscientific?
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 9:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
"...than simply "the earth is automatically compensating for elevated CO2 levels"

You're trying to dicuss things you don't understand. The precise statement is "the climate system contains negative feedback mechanisms to control temperature change". The earth heats up slightly, that lowers H20 in the upper atmosphere, which acts to damp the increase. It's nothing to do specifically with CO2.


RE: Unscientific?
By joshuasims1981 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Unscientific?
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:08:14 PM , Rating: 4
Lol, what? The only other "carbon-bearing molecules" in the atmosphere are those of methane, and that's about 1/300 of the amount of CO2 (which itself is already a trace gas, only about 300 parts per million). It has nothing to do with carbon at all, it's just a factor of increased GHG, which cools the stratosphere while heating the troposphere. End of story.

For your final error, water vapor in the atmosphere is not "in suspension"....nor is CO2 or even methane a "particulate", entities that are many TRILLIONS of times larger than a single molecule.


RE: Unscientific?
By rs1 on 1/29/2010 11:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the article? The lowered amount of water in the atmosphere was caused by cooler temperatures in the upper atmosphere, not warmer:

quote:
According to the study, as carbon levels have risen, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics has actually grown colder. The lower temperatures at this "coldest point" have caused global water vapor levels to drop, even as carbon levels rise.


Now, the part of the study that observed that the reduction in water vapor was due to cooler air over the tropics (which presumably interacts with the warmer, wetter air at lower altitudes to produce increased rainfall) is good. That's sound science based upon actual observation. However, the study has no observed, or even proposed, mechanism by which either increased CO2 levels or increased global temperatures would have caused this phenomenon of cooler than normal air in the upper atmosphere. Instead, it appears (or at least, this mandrews post would make it appear) that the researchers concluded that "since this cold air appeared while CO2 concentrations were rising, it must have been caused by the increased CO2 levels".

But correlation does not imply causation. It's just bad science.


RE: Unscientific?
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:53:35 PM , Rating: 1
"Did you even read the article? The lowered amount of water in the atmosphere was caused by cooler temperatures in the upper atmosphere, not warmer"

You apparently read it, but didn't understand it. The cooler temperatures in the stratosphere are linked to the warmer temperatures in the troposphere. GHGs reflect in both directions...increased heat in the lower atmosphere causes cooling in the upper atmosphere. Get it now?

"However, the study has no observed, or even proposed, mechanism by which either increased CO2 levels or increased global temperatures would have caused this phenomenon of cooler than normal air in the upper atmosphere"

Good god man, learn a little about your subject before trying to debate it. The phenomenom of stratospheric cooling has been one of the so-called "fingerprints" to prove AGW, and well known for the last 15 years.

That part isn't even in question. It's nothing new to this study. The new part of the study is that the OBSERVED cooling in the stratosphere can act to damp warming further down.

NOW, do you finally get it?


RE: Unscientific?
By munky on 1/30/2010 3:17:01 AM , Rating: 1
You man kinda like a few decades ago rising CO2 levels were seen along with rising temperatures, and thus the whole global warming scare was born? Yeah, that sounds awfully similar.


wait, wut?
By TSS on 1/29/2010 7:32:41 PM , Rating: 5
Is this study saying that if there's more CO2, there's less clouds?

So if there's a bunch of CO2 for plants to breathe, there'll also be more sunshine to feed photosynthesis?

Also water is a constant here on earth. It doesn't dissapear. Does this mean, with less water vapor there's more liquid water for the plants to feed off?

How the HELL did CO2 become the no.1 target for the green movement? no seriously, temperature correlation or not. At this point it's very much starting to look like they would've been better off picking *anything but* CO2. Even Oxygen.




RE: wait, wut?
By elgueroloco on 1/30/2010 1:36:19 PM , Rating: 3
Well, the thing is that the goal of reducing CO2 emissions actually has nothing to do with the environment. By forcing us not to produce energy, they force us to live a low tech, low consumption, low prosperity lifestyle which is idealized by socialists/greenies everywhere.

That's also why they oppose nuclear. It would solve the supposed problem they've invented, but would allow us to produce cheap, abundant energy and enable us to advance and live prosperously, which would defeat the real purpose of their movement.


Rich people worry about the environment
By nafhan on 1/29/2010 5:13:03 PM , Rating: 5
Something that a lot of environmentalists don't get: worrying about the environment is a luxury for most people. Do enough damage to the economy in the name of fighting global warming and in a few years nobody will care.




RE: Rich people worry about the environment
By DominionSeraph on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
By SPOOFE on 1/30/2010 12:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, life is very inefficient in a lot of ways. I'd love to hear a practical plan to alter that fact.

But the environment? We've been putting up with this myth of "fragile Mama Nature" for decades now, and it has to stop. There are very obvious and horrendous things we can do to the environment, like dumping arsenic in the groundwater. But there are also obvious controls we can apply that have a direct and observable effect.

There's a huge swath of the environmentalist movement that points to those events as justification for all sorts of Doomsday scenarios, but it's a huge leap of logic, based almost entirely on correlations and limited views of history with very little in the way of causal connections established.


Confused?
By owyheewine on 1/30/2010 11:20:03 AM , Rating: 3
Let's see. NASA computers that store climate data are the only ones in the world that were affected by Y2K, the CRU manipulated data and conspired to silence dissenters, a single unsupported theory caused fears of melting Himalaya glaciers, and now suddenly it's the water stupid.
How can any reasonably intelligent person believe anything these scientific whores say?
It's obvious this group reached a conclusion and then manipulater data and models to fit it.




RE: Confused?
By Jaybus on 1/31/2010 8:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can any reasonably intelligent person believe anything these scientific whores say?

Exactly. And which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did increased CO2 cause a warming of the oceans, or did a warming of the oceans cause an increased atmospheric CO2 level? Certainly, a decrease in water vapor will have a corresponding decrease in the amount of cloud cover. Less solar energy will be reflected back into space and instead will heat the surface.

Follow the money. Who stands to gain by blaming global warming on humans? Al Gore and company starting carbon credit brokerages? Scientists seeking grant money? There are many conflicts of interest related to global warming research, and even more so to global warming legislature. That in itself is enough to raise red flags. Combine that with Climategate and it is beyond me why everyone isn't skeptical of the man made global warming theories.


This only buys humanity a little bit more time
By Nighteye2 on 2/4/2010 11:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
We still need to change our way of life to become greener, more in balance with nature. And the sooner the better, even if the deathline for humanity has moved forward a bit.




By porkpie on 2/4/2010 1:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
"We still need to change our way of life to become greener, more in balance with nature?"

Why? Nature is not our friend. It's the enemy. It's what freezes us to death in the winter, kills us of heat in the summer. It brings us diseases, starvation, death from predators large and small, in thosands of different ways.

Science and technology has allowed us to modify nature to the point that we think the "natural" environment is friendly and hospitable. It is not. Never forget that.


http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
By BoboGO on 1/29/2010 5:49:14 PM , Rating: 3
The graph in this page entitled:
Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-v...

should be viewed by everyone.........

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12...




The Scandal Just Keeps Growing
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 9:53:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure ......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...




If you want the TRUTH read this...
By BoboGO on 1/30/2010 9:43:36 PM , Rating: 3
SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: December
Written by Christopher Monckton
Saturday, 23 January 2010


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/s...

PDF link at website.

Report Highlights:

The authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for freezing December 2009 warns those skeptical of extremist claims about the climate not to crow too soon: the faction profiting from the scare will not give up. Editorial Comment: Page 3.

Professor Bill Gray demonstrates that hurricanes have grown less intense as the world has warmed. Pages 4-6.

IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for nine years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This factor alone almost halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections. Pages 8-9.

Since 1980 global temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.4 °C)/century, not 7 F° (3.9 C°) as IPCC predicts. Pages 10-12.

Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century, and has scarcely risen since 2006. The oceans are not warming. Pages 13-14.

Arctic sea-ice extent is now beyond its summer low, but there was more summer ice than there was in 2007 or 2008. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 15-18.

Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is almost at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Page 19.

A cold start to winter set snow and ice records across the US and Eurasia. Pages 20-21.

Sunspot activity is back to normal: but, looking back it was a long – and cool – solar minimum. Page 22.

The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 23-26.

The Solar Ap Index of geomagnetic activity hits a new low: the graphs are in this month’s Science Focus. Pages 27-28.

As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 29-35.

The medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than the present, as our global map shows. Page 36.

And finally ... a cartoon that celebrates the extreme cold and snow that marked the end of the Copenhagan affair. Page 37.




3000 ppm!
By Phoque on 1/29/2010 6:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
These dinosaurs were having a good time, I guess I could be motorcycling all year round in Montreal at that level!




nah, doesnt matter
By zodiacfml on 1/29/2010 9:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
I believe what matters to most is the pollution and costs that drives the green movement.
Additionally, we should expect that all countries are getting more sophisticated lifestyles.




nice
By Smilin on 1/30/2010 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
If this does turn out to be a negative feedback loop that would be great. I'm all research dollars.




this is news?
By Baov on 1/30/2010 8:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
When it takes half the article to get to the actual story and the first half being selective history, we know what to expect.




GW is bunk!
By chunkymonster on 2/1/2010 3:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...no global warming model appears to accurately consider changing water vapor levels, and few offer decent consideration to solar activity. Thus much of the model based research used to predict warming is likely badly flawed.


This one sentence sums up the entire global warming fiasco!

Until one model is capable of considering all the factors that contribute to the effects of climate change (both warming and cooling effects) and scientists are fully understand the relationships and interactions between them, all we have in conjecture and speculation; at best.

Worst part is that legislation and taxation is being passed based these faulty findings. Who wins? The businesses and politicians to invest in and support climate change and related technology.

I agree with Penn & Teller, we should ban all industrial, commercial, and recreational use of dihydrogen monoxide!




Global lemming crisis
By spkay on 2/4/2010 4:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's really all about the potential global disappearance of the lemmings that has the politicians concerned. And determined to extract as much cash from citizens as possible before their complete demise.




By TheEinstein on 1/29/2010 4:41:42 PM , Rating: 1
These are the three unavoidables in life. However Libs and Greens want you to think that if you do not get taxed to the hilt, Climate Change will happen and result in your death...

sigh...

One would wonder... perhaps the more rapidly growing plants... perhaps just maybe... they are devouring more water moisture to help them grow, and that maybe just... well... an itsy bitsy level of a maybe... the increased amount of cosmic rays turning moisture into clouds might have something to do with this even more so?




BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!
By djkrypplephite on 1/30/2010 1:30:59 AM , Rating: 1
dihydrogen monoxide is a horrible chemical! if you inhale too much of it, you'll die! it's being used in nuclear power plants, in farming, when we wash our fruit it doesn't come out! it causes excessive sweating and urination, and it kills children every year when they are accidentally exposed to too much of it!




Unscientific my butt!!
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 1/30/2010 3:10:09 AM , Rating: 1
Dear rs1, I would hate to rain on your Ego, but nature is Dynamic and NOT Static. We know very little about nature and how it works.

The global-warming fanatics want control over people's lives (what we buy, eat, and drive,etc.). These people have been trying for decades to alarm us with impending doom. For example, in the 1970s the alarmists warned us of global cooling along with a coming disaster. Nature doesn't work in decades, it works in centuries and millennia. You can't go from cooling to warming in 40 years.

A truth that you may not want to hear is that nature will adapt to our presence no matter what we do. These "alarmists" think that we can "stop" climate change. We cannot control nature which means that climate change will happen whether humanity likes it or not. Another truth is that we have to live with nature and whatever changes happen we need to adapt to the changes (and not try to stop them); since the law of nature is simple:

ADAPT OR DIE.




ironic
By invidious on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
Let's hope...
By Connoisseur on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Let's hope...
By mandrews on 1/29/2010 4:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm fine and dandy with improving air quality in populated areas and all but it has to be done with as much foresight as possible.


I fail to see how getting "rid of one beast (CO2)" will improve air quality. Last time I checked carbon dioxide levels are far too low to induce hypercapnia.

In fact if the current research is true, it reducing carbon will have virtually no effect on air quality, while having a significant effect on taxpayers' wallets.

quote:
it has to be done with as much foresight as possible.


Why would it have to be done?


RE: Let's hope...
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/29/2010 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Why would it have to be done?


How about this?
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+2009+Was+Second+Hott...

Just because a study shows that some factor is temporarily decreasing warming, doesn't mean that significant damage could be done in the long run.

I don't entirely agree with current U.S. climate legislation, but I think dismissing the topic of warming wholesale is equally dangerous.


RE: Let's hope...
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Let's hope...
By jordanclock on 1/29/2010 5:19:13 PM , Rating: 1
1.5 degrees (Fahrenheit OR Celsius) is huge. Think about it for a second: The average temperature of the ENTIRE planet has increased by 1.5 degrees.


RE: Let's hope...
By dgingeri on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Let's hope...
By TheEinstein on 1/29/2010 8:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
I shudder to think what they said prior to the little ice age... by about 10 years.. "The tempature will rise 1.5 degrees, we will be doomed!"


RE: Let's hope...
By arazok on 1/29/2010 6:17:24 PM , Rating: 3
OMG, THE ENTIRE PLANET?!


RE: Let's hope...
By johnr81 on 1/31/2010 2:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
Way to throw units out the window. 1 degree C = 1.8 F, so if it was big in F, it's really big in C by your reasoning. Think about it for a second.


RE: Let's hope...
By dgingeri on 1/29/2010 5:27:22 PM , Rating: 3
Even better on this point: 1880 was one of the lowest temperatures of the "little ice age". I don't know about you. but I'd rather not go back to "the year without a summer" where it snowed in July in the northeast US.

Most people don't realize this, but the world has been far warmer than today in our recent past. During the middl eages (500-1100AD) there were actually vineyards and wine making in Scotland. I don't see this these days.

Also, there is extensive proof that the Vikings populated far inland areas of Greenland, raising cattle during those times. (Areas many climatologists claim were "covered with glaciers for millions of years".)

Also, there has recently been discovered that South American natives had a map dating back over 2000 years that shows part of Antarctica that is currently covered in ice, and that climatologists have claimed has been covered in ice "for millions of years", yet somehow, these natives knew about this bit of land. (Some have used it as evidence of ET contact, but I find it more believable that the ice simply isn't that old.)

Finally, there are several archeological digs of formerly coastal towns along the Mediterranean Sea in Isreal that are now 2-3 miles from the coast.

In short, the earth has been warmer and the seas have been higher, yet, not only did human beings survive, we thrived. This "Global Warming" or "Climate change" isn't going to doom us at all. We'll just adapt. Stupid people who built or bought homes in low lying areas might have to move, but nothing more than that.


RE: Let's hope...
By EglsFly on 1/29/2010 6:48:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, there has recently been discovered that South American natives had a map dating back over 2000 years that shows part of Antarctica that is currently covered in ice, and that climatologists have claimed has been covered in ice "for millions of years", yet somehow, these natives knew about this bit of land.
Yea, I saw that too. PROOF that the earth was much warmer back then. There was no way that they could have known where the land actually was under the ice since it takes recent sophisticated equipment to do that.

The earth naturally goes through warming and cooling phases! Spending billions of dollars to curb CO2 is only going to advance someones political agenda and nothing more.

In addition, interestingly: Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won't be prosecuted
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/Ne...


RE: Let's hope...
By Steven Morgan on 1/29/2010 5:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Using the current temperature outside your house is weak. It's 54 here in Seattle, well above the norm. Is that evidence of global warming?


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 5:33:45 PM , Rating: 4
"Using the current temperature outside your house is weak."

It's even weaker to use a worldwide group of temperature stations -- then throw out the coolest 75% of them, leaving only those showing a warming trend.


RE: Let's hope...
By omnicronx on 1/29/2010 5:44:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
leaving only those showing a warming trend.
Correction, leaving only those that have recently had a heating vent installed beside/near it ;) (actually happened)


RE: Let's hope...
By dgingeri on 1/29/2010 6:00:58 PM , Rating: 1
Kind of like saying "Look! Denver was 10 degrees above normal from July 3rd to August 10th! It's got to be global warming!" While ignoring that we were 15-20 degrees below normal for most of December.


RE: Let's hope...
By omnicronx on 1/29/2010 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can tell you right now that it is cold as hell outside in Ohio. It's 16°F outside right now after an entire day to "warm up". That's damn cold.
Who cares.. weather != climate.. Here in Toronto it didn't snow in November for the first time in something like 80 years, and it has been one of the warmest winters I can remember, but other than it being an interesting regional weather fact, it can't be used as evidence to prove/disprove global climate change.

Go a few hours north and they've been pounded with snow storm after snow storm, which just goes to show that regional weather has so many variables involved that using it as proof of climate change makes no sense.


RE: Let's hope...
By dgingeri on 1/29/2010 6:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
December 2009 was one of the coldest on record for Denver, with almost 3 times the normal snowfall. We had over 5 times the normal snowfall for December a couple years ago, and over twice the normal snowfall for November 2006 to May 2007. (This was partly due to 5 blizzards that hit from mid November to late December every single Friday for 5 weeks.)

The snowfall for one or two, or even five or ten, winters means nothing. You have to look and the whole. We can't even tell if the climate is changing, or how it is changing, until 25-50 years from now. This planet is over 4 billion years old. It changes. Everything changes. Nothing we do will make a significant difference.


RE: Let's hope...
By BoboGO on 1/29/2010 6:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
And that is why you must look at this:

Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-v...

The animated .gif by itself... There's also a modified YouTube video at the above story.........

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12...


RE: Let's hope...
By dgingeri on 1/29/2010 6:23:30 PM , Rating: 1
LOL!!!! I love it!

I find it funniest that CO2 levels were almost 10 times today's levels 300 million years ago, and temperatures were much higher than today, yet those were the very years when most coasts were covered in fresh water swamps (which gave us our coal) and the seas were abundant with algae (which gave us our oil) showing that life was hugely flourishing in that time, not drying up.

Yeah, we would have to adapt quite a bit if that were to happen today, but I don't see it happening without a major increase in human population, to perhaps about 30-50 billion.


RE: Let's hope...
By DominionSeraph on 1/29/2010 10:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
Concern about climate change is not, "OMG mosquitoes and lichen are going to go extinct!" It is very much about humans and concern over upsetting the human status quo. Humans currenly have a huge global population dependent on agriculture. Our industrial centers are fixed, and not particularly amphibious. National borders and the proliferation of firearms make migration a complicated affair.
While nature doesn't have a problem with mass die-offs and forced migrations, modern man has emotional difficulites with the former; and the latter has considerable economic impact, especially in the case of first worlders.

The idea of possibly fighting a migratory war just so that Americans can turn into Siberian peasants doesn't strike me as utopian.
America and Europe are awesome as-is. Why not keep things that way?


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 10:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Humans currenly have a huge global population dependent on agriculture"

And both historical precedent as well as common sense tells us that any expected warming will increase agricultural yields, not reduce them. Of course, the point is moot since the planet is now in a long-term cooling phase.

". Our industrial centers are fixed, and not particularly amphibious"

Even if the IPCC is correct, sea levels are expected to rise less than 2 feet over the next century...and 40% of that is normal melting NOT due to AGW. The myth about "flooded cities" doesn't stand up to the light of scrutiny.

"The idea of possibly fighting a migratory war just so that Americans can turn into Siberian peasants "

Did you spin the little propeller on your cap before typing that one? Even if Skokie Il warmed up from an average 54F to a blazing hot 57F, I don't see the population all moving to Siberia as a result.


RE: Let's hope...
By mxnerd on 1/29/2010 6:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
Well. it's hot as hell in California the whole "winter" except last week.

And rainfall here is getting less and less each year.

Climate is changing and high altitude snow is decreasing each year around the world. And you know what, all of your drinking water come from snow!


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 9:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
"And you know what, all of your drinking water come from snow! "

It doesn't have to. California is right next to the largest source of water on the planet -- the Pacific Ocean.

A few large nuclear desalination plants, and Cali could kiss all their water troubles behind.


RE: Let's hope...
By mxnerd on 1/29/2010 10:36:18 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not againt nuclear power, but if you think A few large nuclear desalination plants can turn sea water to drinking water for 30 million + people is easy task, think again.

We also need a lot of water for agriculture like fruits, vegie, rice, etc., and industrial usage, frontyear/backyard grass, bathing, car wash, restaurants, etc.

And what about other states? How do you transport the sea water to inland states for nuclear plants in those states?


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 10:47:43 PM , Rating: 3
"if you think A few large nuclear desalination plants can turn sea water to drinking water for 30 million + people is easy task, think again."

One nuclear desalinator plant in the UAE alone produces 80 billion gallons a day. Billion. Thats 2,600 gallons per person per day for everyone in California....from a SINGLE plant. And that's a plant built with 20 year old technology. I'm pretty confident that in 50 years or so, we can do much better.

In any case, your entire argument is a red herring. California is NATURALLY getting drier, while other states are getting wetter. It's natural climate change, and us driving or not driving our cars isn't going to change that.


RE: Let's hope...
By mxnerd on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 3:06:16 PM , Rating: 3
"World uranium reserves probably can last only 80 years."

Please learn a little about your subject before attempting to discuss it. Current known reserves of uranium are about 100 years. That means nothing. Why? Because we essentially stopped prospecting for uranium in the 1970s, when the environmental movement shut down the nuclear industry. Why spend money looking for more when you have enough for the next century? We only had a 20 year reserve of petroleum in 1910 also...did we run out of oil in 1930?

But your statement gets even more ridiculous. Our "100 year reserve" would last more than ten times as long, if we did nothing but reprocess out the plutonium and burn it as well. Currently we only extract about 1% of the total available energy from uranium.

Put together reasonable estimates of undiscovered uranium and reprocessing, and you get a supply good for the next 3-5000 years.

But wait! It gets even better. If and when we ever run out of uranium, we can easily switch to thorium, an element thats over THREE TIMES as prevalent as uranium.

So in other words, fission-based nuclear power will easily last us 10,000 years or more, a period of times twice as long as all of recorded human history.

By then, I'm pretty sure we'll either have fusion power working, or we'll be able to mine the asteroids for more uranium. Either way, I don't think its a problem for you and me to worry about.


RE: Let's hope...
By SPOOFE on 1/31/2010 2:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that "known reserves" for natural material include the caveat: "At current market prices." We know of a lot of nuclear fuel that can not be tapped for the prices that it is going for today; but as the easy-to-mine material dwindles, prices go up and suddenly it becomes more cost effective to access more. And since fuel is such a minute cost of running a nuclear plant, increasing the cost of fuel results in an infinitesimal increase in the cost of the energy.


RE: Let's hope...
By JediJeb on 2/1/2010 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing to remember about Uranium, it is going to undergo decay naturally even if we do not use it for fuel. So why not use it now, instead of waiting for it to decay into just another useless mineral?


RE: Let's hope...
By ani4ani on 2/4/2010 3:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Im afraid not my friend. Some of the worlds largest desal plants are now being built [by my company and partners] and they are barely getting to 600 million gallons a day, you are a factor of 1000 out on your calculations


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:50:43 PM , Rating: 4
Because right now the earth isn't warming at all. It's cooling. Already far more people die each year from cold than heat. And you want to waste resources fighting some mythical problem?

The 'science' of CO2 was always based on one very flimsy premise...that the very weak GHG of CO2 would somehow cause positive feedback. It never had any real evidence for it, and every day some new study seems to find direct evidence to counter it.


RE: Let's hope...
By mxnerd on 1/29/2010 6:33:29 PM , Rating: 1
If it's cooling than why high altitude snow is deceasing in an alarming rate around the world?


RE: Let's hope...
By Spazmodian on 1/29/2010 7:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of precipitation.


RE: Let's hope...
By mindless1 on 1/29/2010 10:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
Because it doesn't depend on temperature, it depends on water vapor levels. Heat -> Water Vapor + altitude = snow.


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 10:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
"If it's cooling than why high altitude snow is deceasing in an alarming rate around the world? "

Wow, so many mistakes in one single sentence. Very impressive. First of all, declining global temperatures are an established fact. Secondly, high altitude snowfall is not decreasing at an "alarming" rate. Thirdly, snowfall (as other posters have pointed out) depends more on precipitation levels than temperature. At high altitudes its almost always beow freezing...its not like a degree or two either way is going to keep it from snowing.


RE: Let's hope...
By mandrews on 1/29/2010 4:51:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How about this?

Tsk, tsk you ignore 2008 one off the coldest years. A couple years do not prove anything, especially since you're looking at a miniscule supposed "increase".

quote:
Just because a study shows that some factor is temporarily decreasing warming, doesn't mean that significant damage could be done in the long run.


There's been no evidence that has shown conclusively that raising atmospheric carbon will have any deleterious effects. "Doomsday" studies typically rely on flawed models and exaggerated statistics. I've reviewed many of the more alarmist works and by and large found them to be tripe.

If anything, there could be some mild benefits of higher carbon levels, such as higher crop yields. But I think it rather arrogant to suppose we can affect the climate for better or worse via crude carbon emissions.

quote:
I don't entirely agree with current U.S. climate legislation, but I think dismissing the topic of warming wholesale is equally dangerous.


Yet you seem to support it in your columns.


RE: Let's hope...
By Abrahmm on 1/29/2010 4:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
A group of scientists with questionable data collection methods and questionable data manipulation methods claim that in the very limited time frame that they have a climate record for, 2009 is the second hottest, but tied with 5 other recent years as second hottest. 5 recent years with relatively similar temperatures sounds like a leveling off, not warming.

On the other side, we have other data showing why warming hasn't been happening as all of the models had predicted it would.

The only logical conclusion thus far is that we have questionable data, a lot of hypothesis, no reliable theories and little understanding on what exactly is happening.

I don't know about you, but I would rather know the whole story and make a decision rather than know a sliver of it and jump to conclusions.


RE: Let's hope...
By DrKlahn on 1/29/2010 5:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to believe that study wasn't made to secure funding by supporting a certain viewpoint first Jason. I've lived pretty much in the same area of the country my entire life and 2009 is one of the COOLEST years I have ever experienced. So while I'm sure the data points show what they want it too, reality from where I am standing doesn't support it in the least.

This is yet another brilliant move from the current government. They admit that the U.S. is now a consumer economy and back an alarmist view that will take a large amount of disposable income out of said economy. Then they'll wonder why, despite their various plans, the economy continues to flounder.


RE: Let's hope...
By omnicronx on 1/29/2010 5:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really agree with this kind government spending either without any substancial proof, but the findings of these global warming fanatics are just as asinine as a comment like yours.

You can't use Regional weather to support your theory, whether it be the jet stream causing northerly winds to sweep down into the states, or ElNina/Nino, there are just too many variables that could easily account for this years lower temperatures in your area.

As I stated in another post, it has been one of the warmest years on record where I live, with yesterday and today being the first days that the temperature has gone well below zero, heck last week it was raining and 10 degrees (C). As interesting as this is, it does not prove nor support either theory.


RE: Let's hope...
By JediJeb on 1/29/2010 5:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
But that study says that 2009 was not the only "second hottest" year on record, there are 5 tied with it. It comes out to 5 of 12 years that have the same average temperature which would give a trend to stable temperatures instead of warming ones. Especially since 2005 was the hottest on record which is closer to the middle of the 12 year period.

Also taking into account that even when CO2 levels were at 3,000ppm as this article stated, even then the planet wasn't one big desert like the alarmist say will happen if we increase levels just a few more ppm over current ones. Until there can be models that take into account all the variables it is not wise to start making decisions that may ruin our economic futures. For all we truely know, dropping the CO2 levels now could have the opposite effect and cause rising temperatures, simply because we do not know all the variables and how they interact with each other on the grand scale. Also since most data shows temperatures rising before CO2, how do we know for sure that the rising CO2 and dropping water vapor are not natures way of keeping temperatures from rising even faster? Maybe increasing CO2 proportionally lowers water vapor, and since water vapor is the stronger greenhouse gas then it could eventually lead to strong cooling effects. If the data in this current report is truely indicitave of what is happening maybe that scenario should be modeled and see what the outcome is.

Scientist need to consider all models before setting theirselves rock solid on one conclusion. Afterall it wasn't that long ago that leading scientist though that it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound, or before that if a person traveled faster than a mile per minute they would die from the extreme stresses placed upon the body, both of which we now know are totally wrong because someone was crazy enough to postulate an opposing and unpopular theory.


RE: Let's hope...
By AlexWade on 1/29/2010 6:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Please read this and understand why I would trust a thief with my wallet before I would trust NASA GISS with temperature data.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/giss...

In short, the people telling us "this is the hottest year ever" are refusing to use raw data and refusing to provide legally binding Freedom of Information requests as to how they obtain the results they did. If the data is sound, then it can withstand scrutiny. That is science. Religion, on the other hand, requires blind faith based on what certain preachers say and silences dissent at all costs. Scientists who preach global warming fall into five categories, none of them good: money whores, eco-commies, ignorant, activists, or a mixture of those four. Dr. Hansen is an activist who has already been found guilty of making the past colder and the present warmer.

Shall I provide the link? I will if you want, but I much rather you do your own research. Everyone, please please please do objective research. Of course, this you will make you hated by people like Dr. Hansen. Be a science lover, please do objective research. (By the way, the website run friend of Dr. Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, realclimate.org, does not count. To see why realclimate.org does not count, please post "Global warming is a hoax, here is proof why ..." and see if it is not censored. Real science does not censor.)


RE: Let's hope...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/29/2010 4:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Reducing CO2 will have a big impact on air quality. It will cause less plant life therefor less and lower quality of Oxygen to breath. The planet has been taking care of itself for billions of years. It will continue to do so long after we are dead.


RE: Let's hope...
By mandrews on 1/29/2010 4:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
Its arrogant to think we can significantly reduce or increase carbon levels past their current concentrations even if we wanted to. And there's yet to be a clear picture exactly what, if any, effect halting carbon from increasing slightly would have on the Earth's climate.

Would you spend $30 trillion dollars or more on an unproven theory?

That's the key question.

If warming alarmists really wanted to enact some change, they'd spend that money on research to produce cheap, clean fusion power instead, or put it into biofuels research. Or better yet, cut taxes so businesses and universities can explore these topics without government intervention.


RE: Let's hope...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/29/2010 5:57:27 PM , Rating: 1
Amen to that brother...

I like the reduce taxes part the most.... That will also help the economy become stronger and can increase research... Wow a win win and we do not have to create a new government office that will cost money to run... Go figure.


RE: Let's hope...
By foolsgambit11 on 1/29/2010 6:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry - lower quality of oxygen? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Oxygen gas (O2) is oxygen gas, right? Maybe the air could be of a lower quality, since plants do some filtering of pollutants. Either way, though, you'll have to provide some evidence for the idea that CO2 levels dropping to lower levels (within reason, say back to 300ppm, even down to 250ppm - which would take more than a century) will negatively affect plant growth. It seems like this "CO2 is important" argument gets more and more 'out there' every time I hear it, without any documentation. Of course there must be some level of CO2 to support the ecosystem we're accustomed to - but what level should that be?

The issue, of course (and I don't want this to sound like I've made up my mind, I'm only stating the other side of the case) is that the planet may very well take care of itself, but that doesn't mean it will be ideal conditions for human life.

And it is obvious we don't know the full effects (if any) of human activity on global climate. Even this study (or DT's and Science's summary of it, at least) doesn't hazard a guess as to why upper air temperatures around the tropics have gotten cooler. Is there a link between higher CO2 and lower H2O, or is there only a correlation? Or did the study not even relate the two, and that's a media invention? Might H2O levels rise again, or do higher surface temperatures actually drive the decreasing stratospheric temperatures? The blurb at the link provided states that H2O levels rose from 1980 to 2000. Why? Then they decreased over the past decade. Why? The study only seems to suggest that models must be improved to take account of these fluctuations in H2O which aren't predicted or accounted for well with current models.

This study could be taken by GW advocates to say, "Look! The only reason we haven't seen greater Global Warming lately is this fluke drop in stratospheric temperatures. They're going to go back up, and we'll get hit with another big jump in temperatures!" Or, more subtly, "Global Warming has been disrupting the normal high-level wind currents, which will lead to dramatic changes in surface weather. Global Weirding is upon us!"


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
"you'll have to provide some evidence for the idea that CO2 levels dropping to lower levels...will negatively affect plant growth"

Good god, are you actually serious? Countles studies have proven that we are ALREADY seeing anywhere from a 5-30% increase in plant growth from the post-industrial CO2 spike. That's not even in question. Do you not realize that most large-scale greenhouses ALREADY boost their CO2 levels to about 1000ppm. That's about 3 times current atmospheric levels.

In other words, we're already conservatively growing enough extra food to feed some 600 million people...just from the CO2 increase that has already happened. A return to a CO2 level of 250ppm would negate that.

Some links on increased plant growth from CO2:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effects-of-Carb...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp061a/ndp061a.ht...
http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/189...


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:30:53 PM , Rating: 3
Do you honestly not realize that CO2 is REQUIRED for all life on earth? That if we could somehow remove what you call "a beast" from the air, we'd all die shortly thereafter?


RE: Let's hope...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/29/2010 4:43:07 PM , Rating: 1
Imagine all the CO2 replaced with pure Oxygen. How long before the next smoker or lighting bolt cause a real big bang... wow that would be an exciting day.


RE: Let's hope...
By nstott on 1/29/2010 4:56:26 PM , Rating: 4
No because the increase would be insignificant. Still roughly 20% of our atmosphere would be O2.


RE: Let's hope...
By DominionSeraph on 1/29/2010 10:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

As the answer to, "Are you smarter than a fifth grader," appears to be generally answered by, "No;" I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that 99% of people are clueless as to ninth-grade chemistry.

*Fracking idiots who think oxygen explodes.*


RE: Let's hope...
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 3:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
While O2 by itself is indeed not explosive, if you lit a match in a pure oxygen atmosphere, you might indeed think you've seen an explosion. The 70%+ N2 in our atmosphere has a remarkable damping effect on combustion.


Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
Asher!
By adiposity on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Asher!
By porkpie on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Asher!
By adiposity on 2/1/2010 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
Of course, Asher only ever submitted articles sympathetic to denial of Global Warming. Then one day, he disappeared, and Andrews appeared the same day.

And guess what Andrews only posts?

-Dan


RE: Asher!
By nstott on 2/3/2010 12:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
All hail MannBearPig, the natural process denier who keeps the spirit of Mann-made global warming alive! Now hurry and get back to deleting e-mails and raw data, adioposity!


RE: Asher!
By adiposity on 2/4/2010 2:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
They are the same person. Get over it. It has nothing to do with whether GW is a hoax or not. Personally, I find Asher's articles interesting.


RE: Asher!
By nstott on 2/5/2010 12:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
The 'changing of the guard' was made how long ago and you're telling me to get over it?!


RE: Asher!
By adiposity on 2/5/2010 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to anger you that I suggest they are the same person. That's what I meant by get over it.

I was just celebrating the return of Asher, as I do every time he posts an article. Nothing to get over.


RE: Asher!
By nstott on 2/5/2010 4:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
yes, it made me so angry. i lose sleep at night. please stop tormenting me... :P


Total misrepresentation of author's views
By mwnl on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 9:41:47 PM , Rating: 1
Lying doesn't really help your case. Quoting from the actual article abstract:
quote:
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...

You're quoting from some DIFFERENT article, published over a year ago:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/08127...


RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By mwnl on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By SPOOFE on 1/30/2010 12:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the no climate change claim

Who's claiming the climate doesn't change? Point them out so we all may laugh at them.


RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By mwnl on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 4:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dailytech:

"However, there is increasing evidence that the rising carbon, contrary to alarmist reports is actually having remarkably little effect on global temperatures."
That's accurate. According to the original predictions made by AGW alarmists in 1990, within 20 years temperatures should have risen by almost another full degree. Instead, they haven't changed, and in fact have been DROPPING for about 10 ten years now:

That's a fact. Not open to debate. And not a conclusion reached from a tenuous chain of reasoning in a scientific study.


By SPOOFE on 1/31/2010 1:53:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is totally false and deliberately vague to allow for back peddling when challenged.

Challenge it and find out how much back peddling(sic) you see. I think you'll be surprised by the reaction you get.


By seamonkey79 on 1/30/2010 1:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yarly... it's not a matter of whether the climate changes or not, it's the cause and 'solution' to it... namely, are people the cause or not, which more and more evidence is coming showing that a number of 'scientific' papers showing that humans are the cause have been misleading in the least, outright lies at the extreme.


RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By jrb531 on 1/30/2010 12:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Is it possible that Mother Earth is "trying" to slow down what we are doing but cannot do it alone?

Why must we always be forced to select between two extreames?

Pick 1

We can do ANYTHING we want without effect

Pick 2

The sky is falling?

Is it at least possible that the situation is not as bad as they make it but still bad enough that we need to take "some" action now?

IE start stearing the Titantic now before we are too close to the Iceburg to miss it?


By SPOOFE on 1/31/2010 1:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it at least possible that the situation is not as bad as they make it but still bad enough that we need to take "some" action now?

Sure, it's possible. The issue is that we can't make a conclusion either way based on the available evidence, despite all the claims that "the science is settled" and "science has reached a consensus".

Note that it's not the AGW "deniers" that are making those claims.


By gamerk2 on 2/1/2010 8:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, the water vapor effect is only a temporary one. The does explain the recent cooling in the US though [although I stress: The rest of the planet has continued to warm, not like anyone in the US would care to notice though...].

Ironically, cooling in the US was predicted by several climate models (due to varying factors; heat transfer across air currents is beyond my knowledge at this time).


RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 3:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Her data (in the article I cited)..."

You mean the article that's a year OLDER than the newer one she just published? Guess what? Science progresses...even a clueless AGW researcher occassionally figures out they made a mistake.

"I know it is a different article"

Then why try to pretend otherwise? This story was accurate. It correctly states the conclusions of her latest research...not that we need it anyway to know the world is cooling, and AGW is a farce.


RE: Total misrepresentation of author's views
By mwnl on 1/30/10, Rating: 0
By SPOOFE on 1/31/2010 1:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why not explain the misrepresentations I quoted?

Newer data supercedes older data. Crikey, that was hard.


By freeagle on 1/30/2010 11:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
porkpie is correct, the abstract you are quoting is from a different article - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/08127...

the article this dailytech post is talking about is http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci...

Susan Solomon has contributed to both articles. I can't compare them, as I don't have access to the second article. But the first one does not contain direct information about stratospheric water vapor


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki