backtop


Print 513 comment(s) - last by plowak.. on Mar 14 at 12:01 PM


World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data.  The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program.   Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column.  The views and comments are those of the author only.





Comments     Threshold


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

And the moral of the story is...
By geddarkstorm on 2/26/2008 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 5
Climate fluctuates. The world isn't going to follow our preconceived ideas even if a panel of scientists says it should. But that's what we call leaning; if we knew everything we'd have nothing to learn, and when it comes to climate we obviously have a lot. Things like this are very interesting to read and learn about, it just isn't a surprise, especially involving climate where one would expect there to be a lot of fluctuations.

I guess we'll find out in another year more of what's going on (what the trend is, or if this is just a blip so to speak), but this has definitely been one heck of a winter.




RE: And the moral of the story is...
By MadMaster on 2/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: And the moral of the story is...
By porkpie on 2/26/2008 2:09:27 PM , Rating: 5
Three hundredths of a degree. I'm quaking in boots here in fear over that.

The earth warmed up 1900-1940, when hardly anyone was driving cars. And now that CO2 is twice as high, the whole planet is cooling! Somehow I don't think CO2 is the devil-gas you people claim it is.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By liminality on 2/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: And the moral of the story is...
By Hawkido on 2/27/2008 6:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm just a dad, husband and citizen who's trying to show some responsibility in a world of excess.


You forgot gullible fool...

And if you are not able to do without your plastics and modern appliances first without imposing your bunk legislation on the rest of us, then add Hypocrite to the list.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By robinthakur on 2/28/2008 9:21:32 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed, I find the whole global warming thing really disturbing. Its like the Akira cult (from Akira). Its like the scientists are competing with the religious nuts to convince us that "Armageddon is coming soon". The most disturbing thing is that Governments are being coerced by a mouthy minority lobby to act and legislate against a phantom problem and their is a real anti-progress, anti-west, anti consumerism and anti-technology flavour to it all. I would almost say that the mod's reaction is against how far we have come from more simple times and the extent to which technology has entered our lives and the puritan feeling that excess in all its forms is somehow 'wrong'?.

Global warming might well be completely unrelated to environmental pollution and to the fact that Oil and Gas (and eventually coal) are likely to run out, both utter tragedies whcih are 100% genuine. Don't get me wrong, I feel that pollution is absolutely wrong and we need to completely reduce the amount of items we send to land-fill and recycling them where possible makes sense. We need to urgently find replacement fuels to replace oil.

This does not imply that Global Warming is related to any of the above. I feel that the net effect of the overstated Global Warming craze is just one where Governments and companies tax you either directly or indirectly more on anything they can. Its already happening in the UK. To believe that they are motivated by concern for the environment is gullible at best and kidding yourselves. They do it for votes, and they do it to extract more money and control out of the populace. The human condition dictates that we must be having an effect on the planet (in our minds) After all we are more than 6 billion humans in the world, and that number seems awfully big, doesn't it? The whole CO2/warming correlation I have always considered tenuous at best and the whole idea seems entirely self-important and too far fetched to be believable...

The worst case scenario is that the earth gets too hot/cold to support human life, humanity dies out and then it returns to balance eventually in a couple of thousand years. Problem solved.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By plowak on 3/14/2008 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
2012, 2012, 2012...


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By cloudsifter on 2/27/2008 8:35:08 PM , Rating: 5
Dad, don't take "you people" so personally. Check the Constitution- there was no "right to not be offended". I know the school conditioned you to be offended at every little thing that 'feels' uncomfortable. I just purchased a chill pill offset in your name. And new evidence shows 'again' that it's ok to let your kid play contact sports, without getting a trophy, cause everyone DOESN'T win. Did you ever notice it's mostly the kids who were brought up in the timeout era who came up with all of this bunk? Now acting up in school is a 'mental disease'... what has come of this world? Keep drinking the fluoride water. Yes, even 1ppm was bad for us and it didn't help our teeth. Tell me, are you a member of K.O.O.K.S ( K eep O ur O wn K ids S afe)?

Showing some 'responsibility' is teaching your kids not to dive in head first when Mr. Al Gore claims to have thousands of scientists (many of whom flat-out deny endorsing the 'theory'), and is proven grossly wrong on the major claims of his global warming (oops, they changed it cause that wasn't popular- "Climate Change" now) theory in a liberal country, in a liberal court. Responsibility is teaching kids to practice what you preach- not "Al Gore's do as I say not as I do" while I spread the word on Global...sorry- Climate Change. Responsibility is to teach them what a joke "carbon offsets" or credits are. Responsibility is to show them what a crock it was to 'fill in the blank' on the chart when the Global Warming data didn't fit the model. So, I'm not sure what you mean by us people "ignoring' the evidence". Us people did not ignore the evidence- evidence that we did not have to "doctor". " but to deny that pumping billions of tons of small particles into the air may not lead to global warming is insane"? I don't deny that it may not lead - I go one further and say the evidence says it is NOT leading to that. But, once the GW crowd gets stuck in a loop, they just don't let go, even when the evidence is countered- scientifically. I don't blame you too much though, the education system has gone so liberal and if it feels good (save the earth- the new religion) do it. It's not your fault. And, of course, all of the new industry that was put on the fast track to come up around the bogus theory, well, if we changed now, jobs would be lost and we just can't do that. GW/CC is just a big money grab.

What science would YOU have to see to get you off this global warming bandwagon? Is the fact that those who came before you WROTE IT DOWN- including the ice age hoax of the 70's and now, the GW/CC crisis? How much more plain can it get besides a picture right in front of your face?

Dad, follow my voice- come toward the light... listen
real hard at about 4:30min mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVQI-GI6Is

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-...


By SilthDraeth on 2/28/2008 9:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
Woot you mentioned fluoride. So many people do not believe me that it is horrible. And don't forget aspartame.


By initialised on 3/2/2008 8:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVQI-GI6Is uses the same logic as the argument justifying belief in god and ignores the case in point where we cannot influence climate change.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By DrTech on 2/27/2008 10:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
You say we are "pumping billions of tons of small particles into the air" -- I think you are confused. Particles in the atmosphere (e.g., soot) cause cooling. The air has gotten cleaner, and this has contributed to warming. CO2 is a gas, and pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere probably causes some warming. By how much, who really knows. The point of the article is that while we are worrying about global warming, an ice age could come along and freeze our butts off. It seems we have a society of worriers. When I was growing up, we worried about global cooling. Then there was Ebola, the bird flu, nuclear melt downs, and pesticides. Look, on average, we are living longer, which says to me that the net effect of all human actions is good, not bad.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By KeypoX on 3/7/2008 10:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You say we are "pumping billions of tons of small particles into the air" -- I think you are confused. Particles in the atmosphere (e.g., soot) cause cooling. The air has gotten cleaner, and this has contributed to warming. CO2 is a gas, and pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere probably causes some warming.


no no i think you are the one confused. C02 even though its called a gas is still made up of "billions of tons of small particles" despite you not being able to see it it is made of particles with a mass and weight. Soot is the incomplete combustion of carbon to gas. the theory of global warming is that the gas particles are getting trapped in the atmosphere causing a green house effect.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By PlasmaBomb on 3/13/2008 8:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Technically Carbon dioxide is a molecule. It's made up of an atom (particle) of carbon and two oxygen atoms.

I think atom is a better way of expressing it, and saves confusion of a gas with particulates.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By plowak on 3/14/2008 11:48:55 AM , Rating: 1
Noop, carbon dioxide is just a bunch of hot air.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By Vangel on 2/27/2008 11:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
The moral of the story is that people are gullible and will believe all kinds of things rather than check facts and use common sense. When I was in school the scientists and the media were pushing the global cooling story and jumping up and down trying to get the governments to 'do something.' A few years later they were arguing for global warming driven by CO2 even though the science clearly showed that the earth had been warmer during the MWP and Roman Warming and common sense would expect that after a period that we called the Little Ice Age one would expect temperatures to go up.

As a father myself I do not want to see scarce resources being wasted on terrible mathematical models and wild speculation. There are too many problems in the world that require serious attention to waste resources on something that is not real.


By initialised on 3/2/2008 8:45:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As a father myself I do not want to see scarce resources being wasted on terrible mathematical models and wild speculation. There are too many problems in the world that require serious attention to waste resources on something that is not real.
Sadly religion is part of being human


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By leebert on 2/28/2008 12:53:55 AM , Rating: 5
You seem well intentioned but you've been utterly misled:

1. Even the pro-AGW researchers concede that the sun played a dominant role in GW until the mid-to-late 20th century.

2. The IPCC cites CO2 as causing 40-45 PERCENT of AGW in the past century. According to them it's been the biggest component, but not the majority component.

3. By the "poles" I assume you mean the Arctic. Most of the Arctic melt-off of the past 150 years has been due to dirty snow caused by soot coupled with increased solar activity (see above). Same goes for Kilimanjaro in the tropics with the added factor of loss of recharge precipitation due to deforestation lossage of arboreal microclimates. Westerly-borne (Asian) soot has been causing more than half of the ice pack lossage in the American Rockies as well. The rest is due largely to local soot & land use changes (deforestation) that have altered recharge precipitation patterns.

4. Likewise SOOT has been discovered to cause more warming than surface dimming (cooling). SO much so that it's found to be accountable for up to HALF of what's been blamed on CO2. Time to revise some computer models, eh? Note how the rhetoric has shifted from "CO2" to "greenhouse gases."

Look, I think you are trying to do the responsible thing but what politicos around the world have latched onto is a way to conscript your conscience by calling you into a noble endeavor. But how noble is that endeavor, actually?

Let's look @ Kyoto. As it is structured Kyoto TAXES Western countries for their CO2 use, exempts developing countries (importantly China & India) from those same taxes & PAYS them instead (again CHina & India) to eliminate CO2 sources & develop low-CO2 energy sources. If you believe in AGW looks good on paper.

In practice this is how it's being found to work:

1. Western factory jobs are already being off-shored to China, India, elsewhere in Asia.

2. The Kyoto CO2 "taxes" further encourage the loss of domestic production by increasing the incentive to offshore production. Bad for labor? You bet. But somehow in pro-labor Europe this hasn't become a big issue quite yet, but it's starting to simmer.

3. The whole point of Kyoto is overall lower CO2 emissions. Although China emits 1/3rd the per capita CO2 of say, the USA, China's emissions per unit of production are 40 PERCENT HIGHER than the WORLD AVERAGE (and even higher than the West's avg). China's soot output (only recently discovered to cause more net atmospheric warming than surface cooling, up to HALF of what had heretofore blamed on CO2) is the highest per capita in the world.

So do you see what this means? It means that the rank & file environmentalist bloc has been snookered into both offshoring & destroying domestic production & jobs AND increasing CO2 emissions!!

Noble endeavor? Kyoto's about ready to be exposed as a big lie, as big as the Children's Crusade.

And when the rank & file pro-environment people figure out how they've been led by the nose by Al Gore the same way the wicked witch of PETA leads her cult of fools, all around the world Gore be hung in effigy by his former followers, the labor bloc will register their votes from the rooftops.

/leebert


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rcc on 2/28/2008 5:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, that would require them to admit that the Emperer has no clothes. Not going to happen, they'll segue it into something else first.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By davemay135 on 2/28/2008 10:30:41 AM , Rating: 3
I just want to know one thing: when a cooling trend does establish itself (this may or may not be the start of one, but one will occur) does that mean we need to pump more pollution into the atmosphere in order to keep the Earth's temp right?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rcc on 2/28/2008 5:41:20 PM , Rating: 5
No, it means we leave the frikkin' thing alone and adapt. : )


By eye smite on 3/1/2008 7:35:48 AM , Rating: 3
Actuallly it's the height of man's hubirous to think he can predict the weather on a global scale. In the early 70s scientists were saying global cooling and as a kid I distincly remember making a snowman in Pasadena Texas where it never snows. The short and long of it is, looking historically, you'll find that scientists take a pinch of data, paint a big picture and hold their hands out for more grants and funds to continue research. If you really dig you'll find that repeatedly. Let me ask this though, how often does your local weatherman actually make an accurate prediction on the weather? Based on whatever answer you give for that, then try and ask that same question about these experts trumpeting the global warming trend.


By flutedude2005 on 3/10/2008 12:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
well said sir.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By ArcliteHawaii on 2/29/2008 3:04:44 PM , Rating: 5
I am truly amazed at the level of ignorance here.

quote:
The earth warmed up 1900-1940, when hardly anyone was driving cars.

No, but we had been burning coal for hundreds of years already. Coal produces twice the CO2 per unit of energy.

quote:
And now that CO2 is twice as high, the whole planet is cooling! Somehow I don't think CO2 is the devil-gas you people claim it is.

A single data point does not a trend make. Did you even look at the graph above? The winters in '93 and '94 were colder than the current cold temps. The trend for warming has been going on for over 150 years. Some points will be above the trend and some below. There will be outliers. That's statistics. If we'd had these cold winters for a decade, you'd have some standing. As it is, you're just showing your lack of understanding.

If reduced solar activity is cooling the planet, then all we've been granted is a reprieve. That's not at all proof that CO2 doesn't cause the earth to retain heat. We should take advantage of that to reduce CO2, methane, and NO2 levels in the atmosphere, so when there is a period of increased solar activity, we don't all fry.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By tsdogg on 2/29/2008 3:43:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, but we had been burning coal for hundreds of years already. Coal produces twice the CO2 per unit of energy.


Actually CO2 emmitting hydrocarbon usage has had a six-fold increase since 1940. During that time global temporature decreased from 1940 to 1970 and been on a slight upward trend since 1970. The majority of the warming in the twentieth century took place before 1940 and before a large amount of Hyrdorcarbon use.

quote:
The trend for warming has been going on for over 150 years.


Correct. Ever since we emerged from the little ice age around 1850. Studies have shown an extremely high correlation between solar activity and temperature, where as C02 lags temperature and is more of an effect than a cause.

quote:
That's not at all proof that CO2 doesn't cause the earth to retain heat. We should take advantage of that to reduce CO2, methane, and NO2 levels in the atmosphere, so when there is a period of increased solar activity, we don't all fry.


Actually there is no proof that it does and everything to suggest that it does not. Drasticly reducing C02 would be costly and reduce the stadard of living for most and doom people in less developed counties to continue a life of poverty.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
yes, coal burning was occurring, but at what volume were we burning coal?

I do agree with you in response to the second quote. One year, is not enough to make a trend, and as a greenhouse, CO2 must have some sort of warming affect (though exact figures differ too much to be exactly sure how much). However, if past trends in solar cycles have *note the 'IF' because further research must occur before any exact conclusions can be made* a coorelation with weather along with the La Niña and El Niño events then to say that they only offset what heating the CO2 levels now will cause seems like you mean that CO2 outweighs these others, but that has not been conclusively evaluated with actual scientific research for all those fields.
(if i interpreted your comment incorrectly, i apologize, however there is my two cents)


By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
darn, mine was in response to ArcliteHawaii's post on 2/29/2008 3:04:44 PM
sorry for confussion


By jimbojimbo on 3/3/2008 3:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone forgets that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and much more plentiful than CO2. Let's wait for the call from environmentalists to destroy all H20 on earth!


By eye smite on 3/1/2008 7:42:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We should take advantage of that to reduce CO2, methane, and NO2 levels in the atmosphere, so when there is a period of increased solar activity, we don't all fry.

That's the real dramatization in all this isn't it, that we're going to fry? It's the height of man's hubirous to think can predict the weather on a local level much less a global level. I've lived long enough o hear scientists say we're in a global cooling period to global warming and now back to a global cooling trend. Pssst, they just want more funding and they scare you with words like we're frying because of all this. Try digging deeper in your research say at least 50 yrs back.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By ChronoReverse on 2/26/2008 2:44:48 PM , Rating: 5
Wait, there's a normal temperature now for Earth?


By T4RTER S4UCE on 2/26/2008 4:28:37 PM , Rating: 4
It doesn't matter what temperature it is, it's always room temperature.


By Hawkido on 2/27/2008 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wait, there's a normal temperature now for Earth?


Of Course there is!

The Global Normal temperature of the Earth is a complex mathmatical formula... I'll fill you in.

Current temp - 1 = Normal temperature

Now apply what I have told you and see if it works out according to the GNN (Gore News Network)

"A hundres years ago the global Normal temperature was 1 degree cooler than it is now!"

See, it works perfectly!


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By spikeitnow on 2/27/2008 7:52:05 PM , Rating: 5
No, there's no 'normal' temp.

Everybody is misinterpreting the chart. Zero on the chart isn't 'zero degrees above normal,' it's 'zero degrees C,' i.e. the freezing point of water. The chart shows that over the last 21 years, the global average temperature has fluctuated between .1 degree below freezing, and .75 degrees above freezing, Celsius.

That's right, as a whole, the planet's surface is less than one degree above freezing. I'm not a climatologist, but I suspect that when it drops much below zero, glaciers tend to spread out from the poles, and when it's much above zero, they tend to recede.

The chart shows that this January, we're .037 degrees above freezing, on average. Not a margin I particularly like.


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 8:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, too bad I have posted already, I would have rated you up! Hope you get a 5 for that :-D


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By JustTom on 2/27/2008 9:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The chart shows that this January, we're .037 degrees above freezing, on average. Not a margin I particularly like.


If that is what the chart says, and I do not agreethat it is, then the chart is wrong. The world mean minimum daily temp for January is around 12C (see http://tinyurl.com/2llc4n ). What I think the chart is depicting is the change in temp from a baseline year. Also from Masher's intro:

quote:
The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees


Thinking the chart is expressing temp in absolute terms rather than changes from a baseline year is just weird. The chart then would depict the mean world temp never rising above 1 degree C.


By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
You may want to check these references to complete you research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense_verse


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By plowak on 3/14/2008 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Cooling does not cause glaciers, warming does. You have to evaporate lots of water to create lots of snow to pack into lots of ice which takes lots of heat. Somebody pointed that out a long time ago...Lord kelvin? Erny Centigrade?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/26/2008 4:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Chrono beat me to it... but please, we're waiting. What is the "normal" temperature of the earth? (Climatologists get your pencils ready.)


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
'Normal' means average over a given period of time considered representative of a stable state. It is commonly used in meteorology, probably a bit more tricky to define in climato where you deal with scale where stability in rare. However the notion is not especially shocking and is the basis for an anomaly analysis.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rykerabel on 2/26/2008 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
They stopped using "normal" without qualifiers about 20 years ago. now they always include "more" and "closer to" and similar inexact terminology.

no meteorologist will ever make a claim to a specific value for any weather related phenomenon.

(LOL, I didn't trust myself, I had to look up "inexact", and yes it is an acceptible word)


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:55:00 PM , Rating: 1
Considering the 'normal' has a quantitative definition, the anomaly can be quantified (that's the all point) and later qualified with whatever word you'd like.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 3:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you use the term "normal" that implies that an "abnormal" temperature is possible. When change is continuous, the terms "normal" and "abnormal" become less meaningful outside of historical data confined to an arbitrarily contrived time period. The terminology becomes much less useful for the purpose of categorizing present or future temperatures.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 4:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Except that "abnormal" would be referred as anomaly, yes the terminology is meaningful, nobody ever said it was not arbitrary, and it is not only useful but used on a regular basis and you obviously have no clue of what you're talking about (I don't even understand what the fact that a change is 'continuous' or not (sic!) has to do with the definition of a normal ...)


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 4:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "nobody ever said it was not arbitrary"

On the contrary, when one attempts to rebut an argument with "but we're still above normal!", they're implying the baseline standard is not arbitrary, and has meaning in itself.


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 5:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
Again, arbitrary does not mean 'meaningless'.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dlong500 on 2/26/2008 6:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell is "normal" temperature? You need to get better terminology. There is no such thing is a "normal", or correct, temperature for the Earth. This is the kind of misguided thinking that causes all the problems in the first place.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:15:27 PM , Rating: 3
Again, you don't understand the context for ' normal 'here, it has nothing to do with 'correct', 'right', 'good' or any other moral statement.

A few general definitions:
quote:
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.


quote:
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.


As for the point of concern here:
quote:
Climatologists define normal temperature as the 1961-1990 average temperature for a given area.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s570.htm

Note however that slight differences exist in this definition among various climate centers.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By grenableu on 2/26/2008 7:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that 1961-1990 period was unusually cool. So when you say we're half a degree above "normal", it sounds like we're heating up when really we're just returning to a normal state.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 8:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
1/ I am not saying anything ;-) I just state what's the way many climatologists define as the 'normal' (that, again, as no moral meaning, it's just a reference point).
2/ When you say 'unusually cool' for the period 1961-1990, are you referring to the cooling period post 1950 in particular? Is that what you meant by returning to a normal state, or else, what would constitute a 'normal state' to you?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 3:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly the point. The term "normal" is fairly useless in this context without a well defined reference point... which was lacking when originally stated.


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Again, the reference point is well defined to whom knows even a little bit about the subject:

quote:
Climatologists define normal temperature as the 1961-1990 average temperature for a given area.


The difference is that he knows what he's talking about and you obviously have no clue ...

The author of the article on which Masher's article is based states himself:

quote:
January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling. January 2007 started out well above normal.

Note he also reports the numbers above normal (the anomaly) in black.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By MadMaster on 2/26/2008 11:50:25 PM , Rating: 1
When I was referring to normal, I was referring to the graph. It says a temperature anomaly of .037 degrees. So hey, it's cold, but it's still not colder than the average. Btw, the normal is the average from 1850 to 2008. Here is another graph that shows the temperatures of the last 150 years...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Inst...

Oh and between 1961 and 1990 (actually it's more like 1940-1970), there was not a cooling. There was a halt of global warming. There is evidence that this was caused by aerosols. However, it is difficult to prove with any certainty.

More info here on aerosols...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/cate...

Oh and btw, a month is FAR to short to statistically plot any climatic trend.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By Topweasel on 2/27/2008 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 5
What is wrong with taking anything that only goes back as far as 1850 is a.) 1850 is still considered to be part of the Little Ice age that started in 1200. B.) It coincides with the start of an upward trend in temperature that eventually triggered the end of the Little Ice Age. C.) Temperature in 2004-2005 only just exceeded the highest temperature at its highest just prior to the Little Ice Age. D.) That 1000 year high has already decreased over the last 2 years and if January and February are any signs that we will see at least as significant of a drop in 08 as the increase in 04. E.)That due to increased car usage in China the most that best case in CO2 generated by cars is level with the 04 numbers but most likely has increased.

I am really fearful of this quick fix philosophy that we as a world, and most definitely the US environmentalist groups in the US have. The world has always seemed to be able to deal with gradual changes better then we think whether is through changing the coverage area and density of the Ozone or increased or decreased plant life. It seems to me the earth is has always been a pendulum, always a second late on its changes but finding balance in chaos. Our quick fix attitude seems to me that again we find ourselves more important then we are (like we could actually cause the planet to self destruct)when actually us changing to rapidly to fix one problem could cause the world the pendulum to swing faster till everything spirals out of control.

In the end taking the average of a constantly rising temperature of a world coming off an Ice Age isn't exactly the best way to judge what the perfect temperature is. How about we wait 800 years (after the Ice Age for the length of the ice age) and then maybe we could find the "normal" temp.

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


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By MadMaster on 2/27/08, Rating: 0
By Topweasel on 2/28/2008 9:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
The 0 point on the graph isn't the normal temperature, and honestly it was probably taken to prove that 2004 was this super high number and it was only gotten worse. My point was we had one year that spiked above the medieval high in 1200 that immediately started what is referred to as the mini ice age and since that spike we have progressively in 05 and 06 have been seeing a drop in temperature and if Jan and Feb are any sign then this year might bring us below what any increase we have seen over the last 100 years.

What I was saying about the temp part was 1850 was at a low point that started an increase in temperature that signaled the end of something we refer to as an ice age.


By TDurden on 2/28/2008 7:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Inst...

Oh, what IPCC-licking collection of data-twisters did THAT come from? It looks exactly like the IPCC's infamously WRONG "hockeystick".

(For those of you with no clue "infamously wrong"=="outright lying").

Here's a graph of 50-state record highs for the last 110 years:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/R5yRPjfAIQI/AA...

That's the number of record high temps in each state, broken into years in which they occurred, for a period of over 110 years, and a running 10-yr average

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-wa...

That reveals:
a) a 70 year cycle is suggested from 1895-1975 -- note the similarity between 1975-2005 and 1895-1925 (this also suggest another possible peak in a decade, then another long decline for the next 30 years).
b) That your "hockey stick" is a load of rubbish.

I'll leave the worldwide data to all the other sources listed here. You're either ignorant or a fool, and probably both.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By clovell on 2/27/2008 2:31:19 PM , Rating: 3
The flip side of the coin is that when you introduce ENZO into your argument against global cooling, global warming proponents also lose the argument that AGW affects the level of Hurricane activity.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Dumb question... what is ENZO?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
"ENSO"...aka the El Nino Southern Oscillation.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By clovell on 2/28/2008 2:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for catching that, Michael, I spelled it completely wrong. They make us use IE 6.0 at work - no FF allowed on the validated systems.


By JonnyDough on 3/9/2008 1:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox wouldn't help you to catch it anyway, since ENSO is highlighted as a misspelled word due to it being an abbreviation. Furthermore, ENZO is the name of a model made by Ferrari, although it too is flagged as a misspelling.

Therefore, if you didn't know it spell check wouldn't have helped you to realize the miss-abbreviation. It doesn't much matter though, as I suspect the majority reading this have likely never even heard of the Ferrari.


By GoldBoar on 3/1/2008 12:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
is still .037 degrees above normal...


The problem is that he who defines "normal" determines whether the current temperature is higher or lower now than it was at some particular period of the Earth's 4 billion or so years. No one argues that since the last ice age it has been both much colder and much warmer than it is today. Even the El Nino peak of 1998 was much colder than the temperature during the Holocene optimum.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By noodles2 on 2/27/2008 3:45:56 PM , Rating: 3
This has been a fascinating series of posts, but I really just need to understand, if global cooling is the result of decreased solar activity, then how in the world will someone be able to blame USA automobile drivers?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
The "how" is easy. Our freedoms allow anyone to say anything. However, the more important question is "why?" It seems that those enjoying the freedom to blame, do so in an attempt to sacrifice everyone else's freedoms through government control. It seems to be a means to an end.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rcc on 2/28/2008 5:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hah, that's an easy one. Our facination with driving keeps us from concentrating on warming the sun.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
I knew without even opening the story that the author would be masher. My apologies to the author, as I know he is intelligent and has vast stores of technical knowledge, but I think dailytech's credibility as a news source has been going down since the time they started allowing his blogs to appear as news articles. He likes to argue fringe topics and I wouldn't exactly call it news.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I didn't mention... There are two issues besides the silly debate... I have read Al Gore's book, and I looked at the numbers in it and I think that the whole global warming debate isn't exactly getting the point. Climate change is normal. Rapid temperature fluctuations are not. I think we face a far greater danger from massive temperature fluctuations and the resulting weather disasters and the consequences of that. These are my own conclusions. I'm not repeating anything I've read. The other problem is... who wants to breath dirty air all the time? It's not healthy. Have you considered the consequences of your all out assault here, masher2?


By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
edit: The greater danger is in the near term while the earth's climate has to constantly correct itself. Maybe we're not doing permanent damage to the earth, but we're certainly gonna get our butts kicked by Mother Nature, so to speak, if we just ignore it.

Also, another thing to consider. It's a proven fact that polar ice caps are melting. The freezing and melting points of water are finite. If they melt, no "average cooling temperature" or localizing trend is going to magically make them reappear. Do you have any science showing how they formed in the first place? I hope anyone that would be so arrogant to claim that we won't lose them forever can furnish this kind of science before making any claims.


By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think you should leave the science to the scientists, masher2. You're comparing apples to oranges. There aren't any studies that I know of that can provide the kind of logical leaps that you're making in your conclusions. Gore's main points in his book have to do with rising CO2 levels. Data that has been recorded for at least 60 years real time. Now, 20 years of data doesn't trump 60. Also, why was that chart even made? Where's the context and what were they studying? If they were studying temperature fluctuations, how do you know that it had anything to do with global warming. You're comparing a specific observation with a theory. The comparison isn't valid. And the range of values until the last spike down that your whole rant is about is not even significant in regards to the totality of the data. If anything it does more to prove warming. If the earth is indeed warming, then, at some point, equilibrium would say that the rebound will be ever more pronounced.

Think about it.


By Golferdude7238 on 3/7/2008 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
The year without a summer in the Carolinas....

The year 1816 was famous as "the year without a summer." That year started out, in Stanley as well as other regions of the south, so mild for the months of January and February that many folks let their fires go out and burned wood only for cooking; however, March was very cold and windy. Showers started the Month of April but ended with snow and ice. In May the temperature was like that of winter. The young buds that began forming in April were stiff and frozen. Ice, one half inch thick formed on ponds and rivers in North and South Carolina. Corn was killed and after being planted again and again nothing was reaped from the cornfields. June was cold, the coldest month ever experienced in this latitude. Almost all green things as well as fruits were killed. There was ice, frost, and some snow flurries in July. August proved to be the worst month of all not only here but even in Europe. September started out with two weeks of pleasant weather and the rest of the month was cold. October and November were extremely cold and then December was mild. This extraordinary weather condition in 1816 had been caused by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Temboro in the Dutch East Indies, blowing 50 cubic miles of dust into the air and killing some 66,000 people. The volcanic dust clouded the skies all over the earth causing doom and gloom and the "year without a summer."

What do you think, could humans do this much damage to planet Earth's weather in a lifetime???????

I think not. Volcanoes put more CFC's into the atmosphere every day than all of mankind has already done.

Global Warming ALGORE style is a FARCE


Global warming or climate change?
By maven81 on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Global warming or climate change?
By nbachman on 2/26/2008 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 3
Reduced solar activity perhaps.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By 16nm on 2/26/2008 3:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. That's exactly what I keep reading about...


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By ConfrontingReality on 2/27/2008 2:08:08 AM , Rating: 1
11 of the last 12 years have been the hottest 11 years on record since 1850. One year of declining temperatures should hardly be called a trend or the start of an ice age.

An alternative to the solar irradiation theory might be all the new SO2 and particulate matter coming from all the new dirty coal plants in China and India.

Both SO2 and particulate matter have the effect of reducing global warming. There is a correlation between increased global warming and when we began scrubbing our coal plants here in the USA.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By James Holden on 2/27/2008 3:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ooops. This was disproven after it was discovered that GISS, the institute cited whenever someone mentions the words global warming, flubbed the data:

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+...


By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:45:25 AM , Rating: 1
You're wrong. That barely changed the data.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Staples on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Global warming or climate change?
By porkpie on 2/26/2008 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it does not mean that the world will get hotter.
Err, yes it does. Greenhouse gases trap heat, the planet gets hotter, the icecaps melt and we all drown or die from massive heat waves. Haven't you been listening to the rhetoric of the past 20 years?

Ever since the world started cooling off in 1998, enviros have been hedging their bets by referring to it as 'climate change'. But man-made CO2 doesn't cause the whole planet to cool off. It can't.

Climate Change is what's happening right now. The sun changes a little, and the earth gets colder. Global warming is what's not happening. SUVs are not causing the end of civilization as we know it.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Esanity on 2/26/2008 2:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for speaking truth to power. Golbal warming isn't a science or based on one. It is a political movement to end the use of fossil fuels. If climate change does not mean warming, then why do we care if we add greenhouse gasses. And if the ice isn't going to melt, what are we worried about?


By cheetah2k on 2/26/2008 9:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Did Tom Cruise and Scientology have anything to do with starting the Global Warming rumors???


By StevoLincolnite on 2/26/2008 10:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is a Science, To much green house gases WILL cause the heat to get trapped, and thus the planet get warmer, To little green house gases will allow the heat to escape the planet and thus cool the planet down, thus we must have a "Balance" in between the "Too little and to much" areas.

What happens after this cooling period will end? And we have a crap-load of green house gases stuck in the atmosphere? It may just get hot rather quickly. (Maybe!)


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By zethy on 2/27/2008 12:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
You know what, you are right, i mean measuring CO2 levels is no science, looking at climatic changes and their trends is in no way a science, it just meteorology and atmospheric studies.

you are right again, ice wont melt if it is heated and THEN cooled, it will stay totally solid.
And i mean extreem snowy winters and drought filled summers just mean that countries all around the world will be forced to face flooding and drought in the summer and blizzards in the winter, and what grows in these conditions?
not crops but mosquitos and other disease carrying insects.

you're right global warming is all just a big hoax
and if you werent keen enough to note my sarcasam, well i huess you couldnt notice the problems at hand.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Ferny on 3/6/2008 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
Allow me to shed some light on the problem of letting politicos manipulate environmental science:

DDT has been banned for decades because of the harmful effects it has on species like birds. We now know that bad science was involved in the determination that it was harmful. It actually has been found to be acceptable for use now. Unfortunately, since a ban was placed on it, it is nearly impossible to raise the ban and begin production of it. In Africa alone, tens of thousands of real people of all ages die because DDT can't be used to kill off the insects you mention and eliminate the diseases they spread.

Like something closer to home? How's this:

Remember the big worry that "everyone" had before Climate Change/Global Warming? The hole in the ozone layer? Remember how we eliminated highly efficient refrigerants in order to slow the growth of the ozone hole? We now all use more energy in everything from our homes to our cars to keep things and ourselves cool. Oh yeah... there is no hole in the ozone layer after all.


By PlasmaBomb on 3/13/2008 9:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh yeah... there is no hole in the ozone layer after all.


You got a link to support that?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 4:21:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Greenhouse gases trap heat, the planet gets hotter, the icecaps melt and we all drown or die from massive heat waves. Haven't you been listening to the rhetoric of the past 20 years?


Greenhouse gases trapping heat is only a component of the system, as important if not more are the feedbacks. The net feedback happen to be globally positive, that's why it gets globally warmer.

quote:
But man-made CO2 doesn't cause the whole planet to cool off. It can't.


Depends on the feedback, the highly improbable scenario of a disruption of global oceanic currents could prove your assumption wrong, at least for a while.

But to come to the point, clearly a long term decreasing global temperature is not what is predicted for climate change, at least under constant solar output. But it remains to be seen if these two conditions are verified; is it a long term trend and is it not related to change in solar output.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 5:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "the highly improbable scenario of a disruption of global oceanic currents could prove your assumption wrong, at least for a while."

No, not quite. In theory warming can cause circulatory changes that would cause some regions to cool. However, heat can't be destroyed -- a shutdown of circulation means some other region must warm even more to compensate. Greenhouse gases therefore can't cause cooling on a global scale. The heat has to go *somewhere*.

BTW, the second link in the story above contains statements from two prominent climate modelers, who explain how the theory of Thermohaline Circulation Shutdown was debunked. We no longer believe GW can cause cooling in Northern Europe.


By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In theory warming can cause circulatory changes that would cause some regions to cool. However, heat can't be destroyed -- a shutdown of circulation means some other region must warm even more to compensate. Greenhouse gases therefore can't cause cooling on a global scale. The heat has to go *somewhere*.


You're right, the heat is not destroyed. And it does go somewhere, indeed. But you seem to think that the system is frozen (sic!), and think in terms of all other things being equal. But the heat is constantly added and removed to/from the system, and the net balance depends on the state of the system. If you assume one second that a major disruption occurs to the current redistributing the heat, leading to a regional cooling of large part of high and mid-latitudes (that would globally be overcome by a larger warming trend in low latitudes in the first phase, as you rightly point out), and that this cooling is enough to cover large regions with snow & ice after a while, then you have changed your forcings, more energy is reflected to space, and you may have triggered a feedback that will for a while or the long run compensate or invert the effect of increased GHG.

Now I am not saying that this is necessarily a credible scenario, and you pointed out this alternative has been dismissed as very unlikely (and the TH circulation impact would probably not change the global outcome). It is just illustrative of the fact that the direct effect of CO2 is far from being enough to understand the warming, and that feedbacks from the system are the most important and complex part of the climate response to understand.

But the bottom line is that feedbacks as they are known now would not explain a long term global cooling.


By Bill In DC on 2/26/2008 2:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the concept of facing 'Climate Change' is deceptive as the climate is ALWAYS changing, therefore we are always 'facing Climate Change'. Humans cannot stop climate change. Even if we could the first question that would necessarily be asked is 'What is the optimal climate to change to?'. We don't know the answer to that question and most likely never will.

What this is beginning to show, I think, is that the human contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the primary driver of temperature change for the planet. If this is true then the draconian measures to reduce it will be pointless.

Holding up signs that implore politicians to 'Stop Climate Change' are nonsensical.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By jasonalwaysready on 2/26/2008 2:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
it went from global warming to climate change, so that no matter what event happened anywhere on the planet, it can be attributed to anthropogenic GH gas emissions. you people want to believe that humans are destroying the planet so badly, that when slapped in the face with scientific evidence from your own sources, you change the goal posts.

whats causing it? did you even read the article? forces more powerful than the .003% of the atmosphere youre all obsessed with. the sun. it has a lower output. temperatures go down...


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Bill In DC on 2/26/2008 3:00:42 PM , Rating: 3
Not quite. Changes in radiance of the sun does not explain the changes in temps. Take a look at the work of Dr. Svensmark, Danish Climate Scientist. A good book on his theory is "The Chilling Stars".

The driver is the increased cloud cover caused by more GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays) allowed into earth's atmosphere by low magnetic activity in the sun. The sun's magnetic activity can shield earth from GCRs. GCRs provide the 'specks' needed to start cloud formation, more GCRs, more clouds, less CGRs, fewer clouds. Estimates are that a change of 2-4% in global cloud cover can foster a 1-3 deg F change in temp. The suns magnetic activity can be tracked by observing the number of sunspots, more sunspots, higher magnetic activity. Prior to 2006 the sun has been VERY active magnetically. Since 2006 (the end of Solar Cycle 23) there have been virtually no sunspots and Solar Cycle 24 is a year overdue. The result is more clouds, lower temps.

This, of course, is a gross simplification of the process. I'd encourage any to explore this theory further.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By rykerabel on 2/26/2008 6:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
um, more clouds = warmer temps overall (heat passes through clouds better from the sun than it dissipates through the clouds out into space)

No clouds in Sahara desert may seem warmer, but remember how cold it gets there at night from the lack of clouds.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on altitude and type of clouds, they don't have the same forcing and they all suffer from significant uncertainty anyway.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 6:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is correct. Our current understanding is that high clouds (aka cirrus) exert a net warming effect, whereas low clouds favor cooling.


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 1:13:31 AM , Rating: 1
The change is difficult to pin down... (There is a large degree of uncertainty associated with clouds).

These two articles might offer some better understanding...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110


By jasonalwaysready on 2/27/2008 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
i think you have it backwards. high clouds are made of ice, and reflect sunlight, then cooling. lower fluffier clouds are water vapor, and absorb/warm.

clouds also seem to have an effect much like the pupil in the eye. less light and the pupil dilates, letting in more light. warmer temperatures seem to create more high altitude clouds, cooling the planet.


By JethroXP on 2/27/2008 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
That's a great book, I finished reading it about 4 months ago. It reads a bit like a college textbook, so if you are looking for a more approachable book on the subject, I also recommend:

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
by Patrick J. Michaels

and

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,Updated and Expanded Edition
by S. Fred Singer

"Meltdown" goes into far more scientific detail than it's title would suggest. It does a great job of presenting the science and the data juxtaposed to how it's actually reported in the press. What it really showed me how to do is to look at these GW stories with a much more critical eye, to look not only at what is being said or shown, but also at how it's presented and what ought to be shown or said but isn't.

For example, why is it that a NY Times story about increasing temperatures in the 20th century includes a graph that only shows temperatures since 1978? Is it because from the 1940's to the 1970's temperatures were actually going down, and so if you start your graph at a known low point then obviously everything after that looks like a more dramatic increase?

And remember those famous graphs from Al Gore's movie showing the high degree of correlation between temperature and CO2 over the past 600,000 years? Ever wonder why he only showed them as two separate graphs so that you had to "eyeball" the correlation? Why didn't he simply superimpose one onto the other so that the relationship would be obvious? Because if he did you'd see that the relationship is the opposite of what he claims, that temperature is actually leading CO2, not the other way around.

What I really liked about "Unstoppable Global Warming" is that every chapter ends with *several* pages of citations so you don't have to take the author's word for anything, you can look up everything on your own. Compare that with the GW Alarmists who want you to accept everything they say at face value, and who also insist that the debate is over and the science is settled. Who sounds more credible, the guy who encourages you to check his work, or the guy who wants to you accept what he has to say and discourages any questions or debate?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Misty Dingos on 2/26/2008 2:45:17 PM , Rating: 1
Alright I will correct you. You are wrong. You don’t get to disown the Global Warming crown of thorns. It is yours and Al Gores forever. You should all be made to wear signs that say “I am one of the reactionary dumb asses that believed in Global Warming”.

Every speck of reporting that supports Global Warming (now PC’ed to Climate Change) refers to a dangerous human caused warming trend. If you choose to fantasize differently that is your business. But there are those of us that will remind you of Kyoto and An Inconvenient Truth.

No you crybaby the sky is not falling.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By maven81 on 2/26/2008 3:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Hold it... where did I say that I believed in global warming, climate change or that nothing is happening for that matter? All I said was that if the crisis of the day is labeled as "climate change" then citing examples of climate change is not proof one way or another.

I think we've barely been able to scratch the surface on something so complex as our climate. But I also think that dismissing various fears out of hand is probably not a good idea.
And for those of you who think it means you're free to drive those SUVs as someone put it, I'm not sure that's a good idea either, since it leads to much more tangible effects, like pollution.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By dlong500 on 2/26/2008 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are digging a hole that you'll never get out of. Just because some people want to start calling global warming "climate change" doesn't mean it changes any of their beliefs. The whole point of the global warming crowd was to say WE are to blame for temperature rises. Just because they have started to substitute climate change for warming doesn't mean they have changed any of their science or presuppositions. The basics of greenhouse gases NEVER mean cooling on a global scale, so to claim that WE have something to do with cooling because of carbon emissions is utter nonsense. Some others have already pointed this out but you didn't bother to notice that.

You can't disqualify an article that is just listing facts and science showing a particular trend. A "label" as you call it doesn't mean anything. It is the science and hard facts that mean everything. The global warming crowd never could get their science straight and now they are just trying to mince words to confuse people. The sad thing is that people like you show that it is still working. They say "climate change", and so you think any climate change is not "proof one way or another". Don't be an idiot. This article CLEARLY presents facts and science that don't align with anthropogenic global warming (or climate change for that matter).


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
It actually should be called climate destabilization.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By NikFromNYC on 2/27/2008 5:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
"It actually should be called climate destabilization."

You may have single-handedly just triggered the end of civilization. In the beginning was the word. If the media gets a hold of this phrase, suddenly this whole field becomes owned by the statisticians, and their political movement would be much harder to contain than showing children direct graphs of sun spots vs. the temperature of the Arctic which show that the sun tracks the temperature exactly whereas CO2 tracks it not at all:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16905282@N05/22963936...


By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 4:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
Go learn something about orbital and axial forcings before you spout that Sunday school nonsense that "It's just the sun."

Not to mention, the solar trend has been opposite of what's needed to explain 20th Century warming. And it's bottoming out, and delay in increasing is why all the deniers are now screaming "the Ice Age is coming," just because January was cold.
In the meantime, in the eastern US, we've got early migrations causing bottlenose dolphin and harbor porpoise to cross paths they normally wouldn't - causing the deaths of harbor porpoises. Amphibians and reptiles are courting at least a month ahead of schedule ... but okay January was cold.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By datashark on 2/26/2008 2:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Will Al give his nobel prize back now?
I said this day would come to all the local Global idiots in my area.


By dave4555 on 2/26/2008 8:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Al will return his Prize about the same time Arafat does.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Thomas007 on 2/26/2008 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
For a telling tale look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/fig... . Note, that the top graph is expanded out. If you examine this you will see global cooling and warming of the past. Also, if you look carefully you will notice a fairly regular pattern. In addition, you will notice that in geologic terms we are nearing the end of a warming cycle but , also note some warming trends were interrupted. Then, go to here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo... and look at that graph, as you can see we are in the warming stage. In addition, by now you should have noticed it was much warmer in the past, and cooler. More, then likely it has to do with solar activity. So how does one explain all those peaks before we were emitting CO2 into the atmosphere?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By treehugger on 2/26/2008 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
I switched over to those cute, squiggly little fluorescent bulbs just about a year ago...coincidence?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Misty Dingos on 2/26/2008 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
You alone have saved the planet. You are to be congratulated. We thank you for your service to the planet.

Would some one please notify Al Gore and the UN please!

I am afraid though that you will have to be arrested for increasing our dependence on mercury. Mercury which is a known carcinogen and environmental pollutant. Just ask the salmon, they are not happy. And neither are the grizzly bears, which eat the salmon tainted with your mercury.

Do not be surprised when a seven foot tall grizzly bear knocks on your door and smacks you in the head with a dead fish.


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 1:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
But wait, there's more!

Eh, I'm too lazy to explain...coal is fulla mercury...

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


By DrJDoom on 2/27/2008 10:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Mercury is worse than that, it causes drain bamage. I'm stocking up on tungsten filament builbs before the government tells me they are illegal.

I have known for some time this "arguement" is total BS. Anyone who has ever applied for a government science grant understands what is going on. The probelm starts with science becoming "sexy" and our wonderful media outlets insisting on doom and gloom scenarios.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Pooch on 2/26/2008 7:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the debate over the past few years shifted from "we're facing global warming" to "we're facing climate change"?


Okay. You are wrong.

How about you actually turn on a TV or read a newspaper or magazine? Most of the liberal sheep still refer to this phenomenon as 'global warming.'

If anything, the idiots have just tossed the term 'man-made' in front of 'global warming.'


By Gladshiem on 2/26/2008 7:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come on! Global Warming was nothing more than a concept to market goods and to influence political change. It has been very effective and generated a lot of money for the businesses that sell those types of goods. Now real data is being collected that casts doubt on this well executed concept.

Now the concept has changed from GW to Climate Change (CC). The real facts on this new concept relies on casting more fear than GW by using any natual disaster that occurs. I'm all for having a cleaner environment and conserving energy but having it forced on me for no other REAL reason than to put money into the pockets of some "environment friendly" industry that realing could care less about mother earth is wrong.

I'd like to caution all the politicians out there... Remember we invaded Iraq because we THOUGHT Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When we didn't find any WMD there was a huge backlash. What do you think the backlash will be when we get smart enough to realize that all the GW and CC is hogwash. Think about it! Your ignorance and best intentions will not save you.

Climate change! Ha. The climate is always changing. The earth is alive in a way we may never fully understand. Let's do our best to keep her clean and utilize her gifts to their full worth. Stop marketing products and forcing political changed based on fear tactics.


By hobbes7869 on 2/26/2008 8:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand all the hubbub regarding global warming and climate change, either warmer or cooler. It has been occuring for the past 4 plus billion years, and will continue to do so. Humans have no impact, neither do cattle, hummers nor anything else human made. ( i know cattle arent man made, but we do raise them in a manner that some hippies claim is not natural, whatever, they tast good, but i digress)
Much larger events are causing it, and it really isnt anything to get our undies in a bunch over


By arazok on 2/26/2008 8:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering what the eco nuts would say once their BS was shown to be nothing but.

Now I know.

In 6 months some jerk off is going to create a computer model that shows CO2 can cause both warming AND cooling, and tell us that we need 6 trillion in carbon taxes to prevent 'climate oscillation'.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By rrstubbs on 2/26/2008 11:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Milankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milankovic. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000 year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit changes from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.

The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000 year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy.

Milankovitch-like theories were advanced by Joseph Adhemar, James Croll, Milutin Milankovic and others, but verification was difficult due to the absence of reliably dated evidence and doubts as to exactly which periods were important. Not until the advent of deep-ocean cores and the seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton "Variations in the earths orbit: pacemaker of the ice ages" in Science, 1976, did the theory attain its present state.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Neal Asher on 2/27/2008 9:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
Creationism was changed to Intelligent Design and so, in the new religion Global Warming became Climate Change. And all done for the same reason: to rebrand doctrine and try to find another route to shove it down out throats.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By janmatch on 2/27/2008 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Creationism was changed to Intelligent Design and so, in the new religion Global Warming became Climate Change. And all done for the same reason: to rebrand doctrine and try to find another route to shove it down out throats.


True. And as you no doubt know, many scientists (including some Christians who are scientists) have labeled the "young-earth-creationists" (YECs) and the "ID-Movement" leadership as "liars for Jesus".

That's like the pot calling the kettle black:

The “Reverend” Sir John Houghton , former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC , said this:

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”

“.. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.” ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003

Some would call that "lying for Jesus", too -- with malice aforethought. No Kidding. (See "Court case" in my next post)

*

NY Times Friday 11 March 2005:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.c...

“.. Mr. Cizik said he had a “conversion” on climate change so profound in Oxford that he likened it to an “altar call,” when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior. Mr. Cizik recently bought a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle. “ Richard Cizik is the Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals

Oct. 2006:

“..Cizik dates his “conversion” to 2002, when evangelical left activist Jim Ball of the “What Would Jesus Drive” anti-SUV campaign “dragged” him to Oxford, England, for a global warming summit featuring scientist and Christian thinker John Houghton. “I had, as John Wesley would say, a ‘warming of my heart,’ Cizik recalls. “A conversion to a cause which I believe every Christian should be committed to.”

After his Oxford conversion, Cizik returned home, sold his gas guzzler, bought a Prius, and renewed his interest in recycling. He notes that evangelicals comprise 40-50 percent of the “Republican base” and Republican politicians, who “have stymied action on climate change, will “have to listen” if evangelicals become as passionate as Cizik is about climate change.

Promoters of The Great Warming are hoping that other evangelicals will have dramatic conversions to the global warming cause like Cizik. No doubt, many of these new enthusiasts for the planet are full of passionate sincerity. But some seem to see acceptance of disastrous scenarios of global warming, fueled exclusively by human activity, as almost an article of faith, transcending need for logical argument. For them, it has become intrinsically a struggle between noble friends of the earth and wicked allies of the fossil fuels industry. They have adopted climate activism as a new crusade.

Evangelicals are more famous, or notorious, for preaching about the impending End Times. At least that old kind of preaching pointed listeners towards repentance...and God. This new mode of climate revivalism points evangelicals towards a very differently kind of imagined apocalypse, in which the solution is not divine intervention but increased government regulation, reduced standards of living, diminished national sovereignty, and enhanced powers for international bureaucracies. That Old Time Religion now looks more appealing, because it involves God.

http://vacoalblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/boo-just-in... Frontpagemag.com.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By janmatch on 2/27/2008 11:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
Court Case:

*

The court case that was brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor . The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal.

The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue , and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.

The judge found , among other things, that in Al Gore's movie , AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/228...
Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON

Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant

-vs-

Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant

[Judge] Burton:

Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...

I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.

Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:

(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …

(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.

(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.

(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."

... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."

In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:

"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."

After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:

"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."

The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:

"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."

...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ... [See "Partisan" in my next post]


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By janmatch on 2/27/2008 11:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
Partisan

... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes , in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:

"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.

(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.

(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.

(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

This is clearly a useful analysis.

".... What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination" . If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.

[...]

The Film

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) "... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."

The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]

The Guidance

"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....

... it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."

"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:

"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:

"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points

* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)

* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;

* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...

* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.

"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film , and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."


By janmatch on 2/27/2008 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sunday, July 02, 2006

"If Only Mustachiod Homophobic Terrorists Drove Gas-Guzzling SUVs into Buildings In San Francisco, The Left Would See the Threat." - Gagdad Bob
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/search?q=gaia

Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob], Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics.


By buster1 on 2/27/2008 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a NASA graph depicting solar activity over the past 400 years. Note the high levels of sunspot activity over the past 60 years. Also note the almost non-existent levels of solar activity between about 1650 and 1710. This period is known as the "Little Ice Age":

Yearly Averaged Sunspot Numbers for past 400 years:

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/ssn_y...

From BBC News - 2004:

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

From NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory's "Not So Frequently Asked Questions" section:

Q-Does the number of sunspots have any effect on the climate here on Earth?

A-Sunspots are slightly cooler areas on the surface of the Sun, due to the intense magnetic fields, so they radiate a little less energy than the surroundings. However, there are usually nearby areas associated with the sunspots that are a little hotter (called falculae), and they more than compensate. The result is that there is a little bit more radiation coming from the Sun when it has more sunspots, but the effect is so small that it has very little impact on the weather and climate on Earth.

However, there are more important indirect effects: sunspots are associated with what we call "active regions", with large magnetic structures containing very hot material (being held in place by the magnetism). This causes more ultraviolet (or UV) radiation (the rays that give you a suntan or sunburn), and extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV). These types of radiation have an impact on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (e.g. producing ozone). Since some of these products act as greenhouse gases, the number of sunspots (through association with active regions) may influence the climate in this way.

Many active regions produce giant outflows of material that are called Coronal Mass Ejections.

These ejections drag with them some of the more intense magnetic fields that are found in the active regions. The magnetic fields act as a shield for high-energy particles coming from various sources in our galaxy (outside the solar system). These "cosmic rays" (CRs) cause ionization of molecules in the atmosphere, and thereby can cause clouds to form (because the ionized molecules or dust particle can act as "seeds" for drop formation).

If clouds are formed very high in the atmosphere, the net result is a heating of the Earth - it acts as a "blanket" that keeps warmth in.

If clouds are formed lower down in the atmosphere, they reflect sunlight better than they keep heat inside, so the net result is cooling.

Which processes are dominant is still a matter of research.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/explore/other.html#...

[note: the idea is that increased solar activity keeps away galactic cosmic rays from Earth's atmosphere. GCRs are believed to contribute to the formation of low-level cumulus clouds. These thick low-lying cumulus clouds BLOCK sunlight and act to COOL the planet. So when solar activity is highest, LESS GCRs get through to form the sunlight-blocking clouds, more direct sunlight reaches the Earth's surface AND the planet warms...naturally.-LC]

From The American Geophysical Union (AGU):

"'A systematic change in global cloud cover will change the atmospheric heating profile,'...'In other words, the cosmic ray-induced global cloud changes could be the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and climate variability.' ..."

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0226a.html

Dr Svensmark has written a plain-language book on the same theme, jointly with the British science writer Nigel Calder. Entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, it is published in the UK this week by Icon Books:

www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7


AGW is a HOAX
By reismc1 on 2/26/2008 6:18:19 PM , Rating: 4
AGW is a complete HOAX predicated on the global redistribution of wealth.
1) The data in the IPCC is useless. This is a policy statement prepared by politicians. They add enough "science" by "scientists" to make it appear credible. These "scientists" were paid by these politicians to produce this policy statement. It you don't see an inherent problem with this, don't bother reading any further.
2) The IPCC report had to be "amended" over and over again. The hockey stick graph has been eliminated, owing to the fact that it was discredited about as soon as it came out. In the beginning there was a statement in the IPCC that there was NO evidence that man was impacting climate change. This was removed as it did not fit their agenda. Several scientists left the panel when they saw the inaccuracies and exaggerations in the report. At least one scientist sued to have his name removed.
3) There are several petitions signed by more than 400 scientists, and thousands of people, that do not agree with the IPCC. There were about 52 "scientists" with the IPCC. There is NO consensus! If you were to poll scientists "anonymously" the vast majority would not agree with the IPCC. It must be anonymous so they won't lose their funding.
4) The models they used do not take in to consideration such things as solar activity, precipitation and cloud cover. The models themselves are not worthy of any consideration with out those three elements. Think about it, the three elements that OBVIOUSLY influence the temperature the most aren't even addressed.
5) Thus, this report is so fundamentally flawed that any true (non government funded) scientist would disregard it. This report is based loosely on "correlation" only. Correlation does not mean causation! There was just an article published that owing to the fact that there are fewer pirates there is global warming, same correlation.
6) AGW doesn’t even pass the most basic “smell test”. CO2 makes up .004% of the atmosphere, there in NO way this extremely small percentage, even if doubled, could impact the temperature as they are inclined to say it “does”.
7) There is NO scientific proof of AGW. There is, however, proof that the increase in CO2 occurs after the warming. This would make much more sense. As the majority of the CO2 on earth is maintained in the oceans, as they warm they release more CO2. If the CO2 caused the warming it would trigger an unstoppable (regardless of what man did) release of CO2 from the oceans in a never ending cycle. As the earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, we know that this cannot be true.
8) The earth was cooling up until the 70s, right during the midst of historical CO2 production that should not have happened. The earth has not warmed since 1998, right when China and India have come on-line with massive amounts of CO2, this too, should be impossible. 2007 was no warmer. We are having record cold in 2008, record cold last year in the southern hemisphere. AGW doesn't even pass the most basic "smell test". Last years temperatures just wiped out the .7 degree increase.
9) Its called WEATHER. It gets warmer and cooler; the poles have even been known to switch with each other. There have been ice ages, warm periods, and it will continue to be that way. This is the most inane crap that man has ever contrived!
I agree that we all need to be better stewards of the environment, but this is not the way to do it. I was around in the 70s when the next ice age was coming, as I am a climber I couldn't wait...oh well. Maybe now I can get my wish, better get back in shape.




RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: AGW is a HOAX
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 8:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "The next two, CO2 and CH4 are .06 of the remaining .07 and are responsible for 99.9 percent of radiative forcing."

Just to correct one of the misconceptions in the above post, water vapor -- not CO2 -- is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Most of the total "greenhouse effect" is caused by water vapor, due not only to its much higher volume in the troposphere, but to its stronger IR absorption spectrum.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 8:46:26 PM , Rating: 1
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By ed34222 on 2/27/2008 8:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
C02 increases in the last 100 years account for less than 18 millionths of a degree of AGW (much less when you take convection into account), so what about the other 99.99 percent of it?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not according to any of the NASA/GISS/other data I've seen. Even denialist Roger Pielke Sr. attributes 26% of 20th Century warming to CO2.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
You can stop with your Nazi references.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 5:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about Nazis, I surely didn't.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 8:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
The word "denier" is a direct explicit reference to being a "Holocaust denier." Everyone dealing with this topic is well aware of this reference. So leave off the Nazi references, thanks.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
Hogwash.
I'm not going to throw away a perfectly good English word to describe a position just because some PC Nazi doesn't like that the word has had other uses.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/28/2008 3:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
I recognize that "denier" is a perfectly legitimate word, with a clear definition. However, the connotation is also been made clear in this context. Using the term is just a lazy person's way of distracting from reasoned and clear arguments by reverting to moronic name calling (kind of like I just did). How's that for PC?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Other people's "connotations" are their problem, not mine. If someone says AGW is a hoax etc, they deny it exists so they are deniers, not skeptics.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Neal Asher on 3/3/2008 2:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
Aw ... let the watermelon use 'denier'.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 10:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Waving your hands around and bowing to the altar of Al Gore, blindly claiming that AGW exists in the face of tons of contradictory evidence is very much like religion. I dub thee a fanatic. That has some pretty bad connotations too. How do you like those connotations? I'm about as anti-PC as they come, but given the abundant explicit Nazi references with the word "denier," it's about the same as idiots talking about lynching in reference to Tiger Woods. What a bunch of morons. Anyway, if you've been in the debate long enough you'll know what the word explicitly means. If not, then you are apparently ignorant. Which might be true anyway.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By ed34222 on 2/27/2008 9:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
Many of the Scientists whos' data were cited in the IPCC reports have said that it doesn't point to AGW.

The IPCC is primarily political in nature.

It's summaries seem to ignore data thats inconvenient.

And, Yes I have read them: lots of nice charts, graphs, and authoritative rhetoric.

I have also looked into the data myself.
Google searching turns up a lot.
Experiments intended to show CO2 as a GW gas: they took concentrated CO2, and compared it to the same quantity of air; and, aimed a light at them ... the CO2 got 20% warmer than the air.
Measurements of CO2 in the troposphere: numbers varied depending on the source ... the #1 source use by most was at an active Hawaiian volcano (when looking for natural CO2 sources I found that volcanos where way up there - we are talking mass quantities, trees dying because of too much CO2 being produced by the volcano, for example, that would be like a person dying from too much oxygen).
One of the claims is that in the past hundred years CO2 has gone up by 180ppm and that because mankind has produced so much CO2 in the last hundred years it must be our fault.
Fact is most of the CO2 we produce gets consumed by trees and plants.
Must of our highways are lined with trees and/or plants. In the case of sea side factories, the green living things in the water will consume most of the CO2 produced.
CO2 is heavy and tends to sink.
As for the 180ppm of CO2: Even if we go with that; and, the CO2 as an AGW gas guess what we get ...
If the net temp increase was .5 degrees, 20% of .5 is .01 times 180 parts/per 1,000,000 - take a way some zeros 18/100,000, 1.8/10,000, .18/1000, .018/100, .0018/10, .00018 - now finish the multiplication - .01 * .00018 = .0000018 degrees difference accounted for by CO2 (assuming no wind to reduce its surface temp); or, in other words, with CO2 at 200ppm the effect would have been 20 millionths of a degree, and now we would be 38 millionths of a degree.
Also found out that O2 has nearly the same absorption spectra as CO2.
Thats right, based on Absorption spectra, O2 (Oxygen) is a Green House Gas.
Ok, lets do some more math (sorry if your head hurts): O2 21% of air * 20% (same spectra probably same AGW effect) = 4% (rounded down for you) * .5 degrees=.02 degrees impact. So thats .02 degrees of impact for O2 and .0000038 degrees impact for current levels of CO2.
If your not worried about the small number for O2, then why would you be worried about the multiple orders of magnitude smaller number for CO2?

Conclusion: if hundreds of scientists (listed as members of the IPCC) are not complete idiots; then the IPCC is not speaking for them.

By the way, as early as the beginning of the 15th Cen they were finding new ways to prove the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was the center of the universe ... Ah Ha that means we are the center of the universe ... Who needs facts?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps my complete ignorance is in play here, but please explain further your reply to #7.

Given that...
a) historically, rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, and drops in CO2 follow drops in temperature (meaning that temperatures had decreased for 600-800 year spans while CO2 levels continued rise, before following the temperature back down)
b) temperature and CO2 levels have both fluctuated considerably throughout history

How is runaway CO2 induced warming possible?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Historically, drops in CO2 most often preceded drops in temp.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl...


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 8:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you are going to quote a study that goes clearly against the body of evidence, you might want to at least look at the chart and see if it supports your assertion. Look at the incredibly high CO2 concentrations from the Cambrian period. At that point CO2 concentrations were over 18 TIMES as high as today. Also note that over the chart's period there is NO CORRELATION of CO2 and temperature. This much is visually obvious and doesn't require any statistical analysis. Just look at the period from ~325 to ~375...basically constant temperature yet a sixfold drop in concentration from 2500ppm to ~400ppm. Thanks for making our point for us. Excellent job.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
What were the aerosol levels in the Cambrian? Orbital forcing in the Cambrian?
I count at least two times CO2 drops before temps (Devonian and Jurassic) and once it increased before temps (Permian).

But, contrary to the deniers, warmers, and even skeptics such as me, accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the qualities that make it a greenhouse gas are the same ones which can cause it to cause temps to increase. We also recognize, contrary to the deniers, that there isn't just a single factor which causes climate variations, that it is indeed a whole lot more than just the sun.

If you want to deny CO2 has warming potential, you're denying basic physics and the fact there's a reason it's called a greenhouse gas.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/28/2008 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow, over and over, you miss the point entirely. I haven't heard anyone stating that CO2 has no "warming potential." I think the major concern with most, is the social deception surrounding a gas that occurs in much higher quantities through nature than through human outputs. And the way that special interest groups employ psuedo-science to strong-arm the public by fostering government regulation.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
You need to examine the concept of isotopes and atmospheric CO2.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 10:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Okay since you apparently are impervious to logical arguments, here's a short summary of your plot which you claim supports the effect of CO2 on global temperature on a geologic timescale:

In the Cambrian period CO2 varied by a factor of two with no effect on temperature.
In the end of the Ordovician period the temperature dropped by a giant margin and then millions of years later went right back up, with no appreciable change in CO2.
In the Silurian period the CO2 dropped by a factor of two, then went up by nearly a factor of two, with no effect on CO2.
At the end of the Devonian period, the CO2 dropped from 4000 to about 200 (similar to current levels) and yet the temperature remained nearly the same for nearly 100 MILLION years before entering another low area, and CO2 was essentially constant for at least 25 MILLION years before the temperatures plummeted.
In the sole era where you could say CO2 and temperature might be related, the end of the Permian age indicates temperature started rising probably well before CO2.
In the Jurassic era CO2 goes from 1000 to nearly 3000 and the temp is unchanged.
Then thru the Cretacious and Teriary eras the CO2 drops from nearly 3000 to about 300 and the temperature remains constant for about 100 MILLION years.

So we have 7 eras where it is obvious that temperature and CO2 are NOT related, and one where they might be. Excluding your other factors (aerosols and Orbital forcing (sorry but that's on much, much smaller timeframes)) it's pretty evident that there is no direct correlation.

You want to call the Devonian drop CO2 before temperature. Fine. So the timescale for correlation of a drop in CO2 from 4000 to 300 is in the range of 100 million years. So the corresponding increase from 300 to 4000 should take another 100 million years. I'll stop buying carbon credits now.

Anyway, the above that you linked to is not a good plot to hang your hat on. Sorry if this was overly complicated, I know that might be difficult to follow.


What, more lies from the deniers?
By NonHomogenized on 2/26/2008 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Say, I just went to check the data, since the source for the claims is a global warming denier, and well, I decided to check GISS first. Guess what I found.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Why is DailyTech uncritically repeating lies?




RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By NonHomogenized on 2/26/2008 5:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
wait, I see, it's only this January that's colder. Not exactly a trend. I get it, 20 years of warming isn't a trend, but 1 month of unusually low temperatures is.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
um, actually that's the annual global mean temperature and it's for the period of Jan07 to Jan08 so it would be a full year. Not a wholly significant time period in itself, but (potentially) with a significant variation in temperature.

I'm never one to jump to conclusions so I'm neither on the "global warming is happening" bandwagon or the "global warming isn't happening" bandwagon. It will be interesting to see more data as it comes in though and if this is a fluke on an upward trend or the beginning of a long downward trend.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By NonHomogenized on 2/27/2008 9:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Did you see what I linked to in my first post? 2007 was the second warmest year on record.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By CaptainPatent on 3/1/2008 6:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
um, yeah I did read that. You basically said the data point was a lie based somehow of of 2007 information.

I still fail to see how information from 2k7 makes a 2k8 data point a like in any way shape or form.


By jbartabas on 3/2/2008 1:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You basically said the data point was a lie based somehow of of 2007 information.


He's not saying that Jan 2008 data is a lie. On the contrary, he's saying that suggesting that there is a trend based on jan 08 data only is a lie. He is wrong when he's saying that Jan 08 only is colder than the previous year. But his underlying point is correct, roughly half (depending on data) of 2007 was warmer than 2006 (hence the reference to 2007 average). The fact remains that statements like
quote:
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

quote:
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time.

are incorrect. Not even mentioning the now erased statement about " eras[ing] nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years ".

Apparently M. Asher failed to realize that the zero on the graph is not the level 100 years ago, but the average over a reference period post WWII (that varies with climate centers, but in no way goes back to 1900 or 1908 for what matters).

The delta in T from the last 100 years (based on the month of Jan only, so comparing Jan 1908 to Jan 2008)is +0.53degC (GISS) or 0.516 degC (Hadley).

The delta in T from averaged over 1908 and 2007 (excluding Jan 2008 only, but accounting for the decrease in the previous months) is 0.91 degC (GISS & Hadley).

Now to stick to Masher's word, delta T over the last 12 months (Feb 2007-> Jan 08) and corresponding 12 months 100 years ago (Feb 1907 -> Jan 1908) is +0.86degC (Hadley).

Now for full disclosure, it is true that 1908 was in a particularly cold period, but if you take a look at the temperatures anomaly before WWII, they were most of the time less than -0.2 degC (average is -0.34 degC until 1939, STD is 0.19 degC).


By ChronoReverse on 2/26/2008 6:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you read the graphs correctly. The time scales on the graphs in that link are completely different from the ones in the article.

If they're not presenting the same data, it's not going to look the same.

In any case, assuming they really had accurate records from 1880, and IGNORING the issues with the sensors in the recent decades (like having the sensor on a parking lot), the temperature rise over a hundred years is 1 degree according to those graphs.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 6:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
The graphic you see on GISS's entry portal is from Hansen, et al. 2007 and is months out of date. The current source data for the Land Ocean Temperature Index is at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
It still doesn't seem to fit the plot, or I don't get it ... :-(


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
Picking data. Interestingly, the links provided don't go back to the actual hadcrut data. Instead, it goes to this website...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ja...

Which links data on it's own site...

Here is where you get the actual data sets...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

That image still has more red than green...

Again, it's just one month. Not nearly long enough to put any trend up...


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
Er, I meant blue.


By porkpie on 2/27/2008 10:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's a year, not a month, which you can clearly see from the graph. Stop trying to spread disinformation simply because you don't agree with the results.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 5:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That image still has more red than green...


It is, if you look at the global T for Jan 2008, it is indeed much less than previous years ... actually so much less that I doubt it's a trend ... but we'll see with next numbers pretty soon.

However, when you plot 2006 & 2007 data (Hadley and GISS, haven't looked at the others), you'll see that only roughly the second half of 2007 is cooler than 2006, and actually only the last few months significantly cooler. That's why the annual mean for 2007 is still larger than the one for 2006(GISS).

Anyway, 2008 is anyway predicted to be cooler than previous years, though above normal (I must have triggered a few heart attack again!).


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 6:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Check out this article, talks from less of a subjective 'liberals are evil environmentalists' voice to a more objective scientific voice...

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


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 5:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
The annual mean for 2007 in the anomaly data is reported as 0.57oC. The same as in the graph reported by NonHomogenized as far as I can tell.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 2:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
And if I'm not mistaken, your data does not include any 2008 information for some reason.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 3:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
And the data in the current article report January only for 2008, imagine that!


By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 3:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it reports a good chunk of pertinent data and specifically points out the Jan08 data point... little bit of a difference.

I don't know if you read the parent, but he was stating that this article was "uncritically repeating lies" when in fact this is data reported from 4 different climate-based organizations. He then used the GIS 2007 report to "debunk" this particular data point altogether, but as I pointed out, the GIS data does not have any pertinent data to come to that conclusion.

If you want to debate that this is a short time period and could be a fluke I fully respect that. However this is a huge jump in a short period of time. Something that probably shouldn't happen if global climate change was attributed only to human activity (as CO2 levels have been very comparable in the past decade - slight upward trend)

It will be interesting to see where the data points go from here.


By RightBrainGenius on 2/27/2008 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't January the warmest month of the year in the Southern Hemisphere?


Duh.
By mhj0101 on 2/26/2008 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is not rocket science people. Melt an ice cube in warm water and the temperature of the water drops dramatically. The ice caps melted and so the planet is enjoying a temporary drop in mean temperature. It won't be permanent and when the planet stabilizes it will cook without it's natural air conditioners the cool it.




RE: Duh.
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 5:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think that effect is supposed to be limited to polar regions though. Not sure it could explain a global trend. Any reference on that?


RE: Duh.
By werepossum on 2/26/2008 5:56:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is not rocket science people. Melt an ice cube in warm water and the temperature of the water drops dramatically. The ice caps melted and so the planet is enjoying a temporary drop in mean temperature. It won't be permanent and when the planet stabilizes it will cook without it's natural air conditioners the cool it.


Obviously. Honestly DT, it's like you don't understand basic science anymore. If it's getting warmer, it's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to manmade CO2. If it's getting cooler, it's climate change due to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to manmade CO2. If it's getting cooler quickly, it's climate change due to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to manmade CO2, and we're about to enter a new ice age in which the polar ice caps melt, cover the whole earth, and then refreeze. And if heaven forbid the temperature stays the same, RUN!

And remember, in an emergency Al Gore can be used as a floatation device.
[/sarcasm]


RE: Duh.
By Jughead131 on 2/26/2008 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is not rocket science people. Melt an ice cube in warm water and the temperature of the water drops dramatically. The ice caps melted and so the planet is enjoying a temporary drop in mean temperature. It won't be permanent and when the planet stabilizes it will cook without it's natural air conditioners the cool it.

Yeah but does water level rise in that glass once the ice is melted?? That is the million dollar question that Al Gore wont answer. Answer is NO. Same result if the entire north polar ice cap melted. Oceans rise 0.0mm.

On to a more logical disection of your argument, which is made by all global warming zealots. They think the earth's climate is a closed system that follows the laws of thermodynamics, but only in a chaos-theory sorta way. "If you fart in Quangzhou a waterspout forms off of Key Largo." If the ice caps melt, we cool off temporarily. Come on... The thermohaline cycle of the oceans move at a snails-pace. Plus, last I checked, cold water sinks due to higher density. So it would cool the bottom of the oceans from 34.4 degrees to, say, 34.4 degrees.

To disagree with you on a final point, this IS JUST AS COMPLEX as Rocket Science and to dimish it to something less is just an emotional plea. You cannot boil your half-witted, Algorian canon into an ice cube in water argument and expect us to agree that the sky is falling.


RE: Duh.
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that you missed the point of sea level rise by GW in general and the component induced by ice melt.


RE: Duh.
By hcahwk19 on 2/26/2008 9:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
If the polar ice caps melting (though they are now re-freezing to levels higher than before) results in a rise in sea level, then why is Venice, Italy, showing record low water levels?
Try a simple experiment. Take a glass. Fill it with ice cubes and then add water up to the brim of the glass. Allow the ice to melt (hell, even cover the glass if you would like to in order to limit evaporation). What will happen?? The water will not overflow the glass. Ever. In fact the water level will lower slightly. Why? Because water expands when it freezes and the ice displaces water. When the ice melts, the displacement eventually stops and the water level lowers slightly.


RE: Duh.
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 9:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not all polar ice is floating in the ocean. A majority of it is on land.


RE: Duh.
By hcahwk19 on 2/27/2008 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, can you please provide some evidence of that?


RE: Duh.
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 10:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
The majority of such ice is indeed in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Unlocking all the water in those sheets would have a catastrophic effect on world sea levels.

However, sea-level is rising only 2-3mm/year (~25cm/century), the same rate its been rising for thousands of years, ever since we exited the last Ice Age. Southern Hemisphere ice appears to be growing at present, and Greenland ice shrinking very slowly.


RE: Duh.
By Spivonious on 2/27/2008 10:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
The pole that has the melting ice (North) is entirely over water. The North Pole has zero land underneath it.


RE: Duh.
By EODetroit on 2/27/2008 3:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, they aren't counting artic sea ice when they are measure glacier melt. They're counting ice (glaciers) primarily on the continent of Antartica and on Greenland.

Personally I think the sun spots are late in coming, causing the sun to be dimmer than usual, as the cause. Someone should see if the other planets are cooling as well.


RE: Duh.
By Neal Asher on 3/3/2008 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
Right, so the ice melts causing the mean temperature of this theoretical glass of water to drop ... enough for it to freeze again? Quite right: Duh.


Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By judgelog on 2/26/2008 2:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
As a species, we must learn to adapt to climate change. Trying to stop climate change is not only futile, but will result in bankrupting our economy. Only rich, successful societies will be able to adapt. Therefore it is illogical to spend our resources trying to prevent the inevitable, and much better to spend them doing the things we need to survive as a species.

One of the biggest challenges will be to manage and move large quantities of water. We will need to learn to desalinate cost-efficiently, and to be able transport water to areas that need it.




RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By Tacoloft on 2/26/2008 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed- the climate is cyclic, deal with it- don't try to play mother nature because you will lose to… mother nature.
Let’s address more pressing problems like Genocide- dependency on foreign energies, and help countries and people become self sufficient. I have no problem exploring new sources of energy and cleaner fuel- but don’t feed me any “it will help global warming” garbage, because then a person comes across as uniformed and going with the crowd of fear mongers.


By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 5:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
We dont understand what is completely happening other than that the climate is getting hotter and we are contributing to it.

To suggest we can adapt to a problem without understanding the problem is myopic.

Global Warming will result in larger changes than simply water shortages, so having Perrier delivered to your door wont handle other issues. How will the plants and animals adapt to the change? What will this do to our food source? Does Global Warming contribute to more often and greater intensity storms and water damage? How will we resolve this.

Will microorganisms thrive with the Global Warming changes? Is there an increased danger to a massive epademic with the stresses to the plant and animal life to the changing climate?


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Questions are good. Just don't try to use the only entity that can legally carry out it's objectives with lethal force (the goverment) to restrict my freedom based on your "questions."


By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 5:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
We know enough to start taking some actions. It actually makes sense to conserve energy and research alternate cleaner fuels from an economic standpoint rather than continue to feed into the monopoly that is the oil companies.

The government has the responsibility to defend and maintain order, even a Libertarian will buy into this. So it is the job of the government to research and take action to preserve our safety and well being.

Case in point - scientific studies found that aerosol was contributing to the ozone layer depletion. Many years followed of people saying it was junk science. Finally things got so bad that is was quite evident that the ozone layer was being damaged and the evidence strongly pointed to aerosol. So governments around the world started to ban aerosol. The US finally saw the light and stepped in line. We can now see that the layer is repairing itself many years after the ban. It will take some time for it to fully repair itself.

And Galileo was once excommunicated for saying the earth revolved around the sun. How little things have changed.


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 9:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Outstanding revisionist history, well done! Maybe the fact that the US was one of the FIRST countries to start banning aerosols, one of the original 28 signers of the Vienna Convention, etc. all missed your attention. The effect was first hypothesized in 1973 and confirmed in 1976, followed by a series of studies to determine it's actual atmospheric effect (including studies on determining how it could reach the upper atmosphere to have an effect). It took about 5 years for the data sets to be collected and clear, and another 3 years until the Vienna Convention. But don't let little things like facts get in the way of your obviously well-informed opinions.


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 11:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
If you're suggesting that the 'ozone layer depletion' did not have its opponents in the scientific community, you obviously are the revisionist, or at least have severe memory issues.

As for the time scale and actions, it's slightly longer and more chaotic that what you suggest:

quote:
On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.


By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 11:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
I made no such suggestion. All I said was that there was a lot of conflicting evidence. In fact, the first such evidence of a Antartic ozone hole was automatically thrown OUT because the numbers were sooo far away from anything expected, they were assumed to be a measurement error. In fact it took roughly three years to conclude that the data was real and the hole existed. During this giant 10 year period from confirmation of discovery thru banning, there was a lot of healthy arguments in the scientific community...something that is still lacking in today's AGW dispute.

The original poster blamed the US for blocking the ban, but looking at the facts, the US was in the lead in all of the original and most of the subsequent research and was a cosigner of the first and then all of the subsequent deals, over the objections of giant corporations like DuPont, etc. Blaming the US for CFCs is revisionist history, period.


By Tacoloft on 2/27/2008 10:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific studies are also not self funded. So who funds these studies? Perhaps corporations, governments, and people with an agenda are desperately feigning to keep money flowing into the study of global warming as their livelihoods (paychecks) depend on the lies around the THEORY of human influence on global warming. This is more of the reality that surrounds us presently...sadly.


By dever on 2/28/2008 3:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: Oil companies (notice the plural) are not monopolies. Government is.


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By Tacoloft on 2/27/2008 10:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
"We don’t understand what is completely happening other than that the climate is getting hotter and we are contributing to it."

Nice try- but no I will not accept that statement. You state that "we don't understand" but then you reverse that with "other than that the climate is getting hotter and we are contributing to it." Devious…very devious-- Fascist tactics with wording to get me to agree with your AGENDA.

It is my personal BELIEF that humans are NOT contributing to global warming based on facts. Some of which are shown in "The Global Warming Swindle". Bet you never saw it. Perhaps heard of it and panned it…

Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90&feature...
This links to Part 1 of 8 clips- watch them they interview scientists and one of the founders of Greenpeace that all say global warming is not being influenced by the human factor showing facts that dispute otherwise. You might just get some insight from some honest scientists for once- not those out to obtain a federal grant under the lie of CO2 global warming.


By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 12:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Contrary to what you seem to think, you are clearly the one missing a big piece of information. You may want to check that link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm...

or that one:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel...

or these excerpts (but you have the references to the whole texts in case you're afraid I misrepresent them):

quote:
In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.
Carl Wunsch

quote:
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.
Eigil Friis-Christensen


Fun with CO2
By Salieri on 2/26/2008 6:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Human activity creates about 7 billion tons of CO2 annually. CO2 deriving from natural causes (plant decay,volanoes, etc.)amounts to 200 billion tons annually.
Source: Bryson,A Short History of the World, p.268.
These are inconvenient FACTS, folks. The implications are obvious.




RE: Fun with CO2
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 7:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
And what about the natural sinks? Don't forget half of the fact on the road please ... ;-)


RE: Fun with CO2
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well that's a bad source...

Because it contradicts this...

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

this...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a...

this...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

this...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/in...

So what are you going to say next? We didn't land on the moon? I could find a source telling you that... doesn't make it fact.


RE: Fun with CO2
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 10:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "Because it contradicts this..."

No it doesn't. You have incorrectly read your own sources. Natural production of CO2 is estimated at approximately 120 PgC/year. Current anthropogenic sources total about 6.5 PgC/year, or about 5% of that. (Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report, the Scientific Basis)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

Other estimates in the scientific literature have put the anthropogenic component as low as 2.5%.


RE: Fun with CO2
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 7:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774 ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use
change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4
concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Methane growth rates have declined since
the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant
during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a...

So your saying that it's coincidence that we start burning fuels and CO2 concentrations went up at the exact same time?

So what are you going to do next? Shoot me and say the gun just 'happened' to fail at the exact time you had it pointed at my head? It was just 'coincidence'.

Hmmm...I wonder if that defense has ever worked in court...


RE: Fun with CO2
By Plasmoid on 2/27/2008 9:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Your reasoning is a little dangerous. I hold this rock in my hand, and there are no bears around. Surely thats no coincidence, that i just happened to start holding this rock, and no bears.

Taking the big picture, machines aside, plants produce oxygen and animals produce CO2.

The Human population has exploded in the last 200 years. Ok, so all those humans don't produce that significant and ammount of CO2... but humans now eat a lot more Meat. Cows produce massive ammounts of CO2 by eating Carbon based plants. We then use fertilizers to speed up the growth of plants and use them as quickly as possible.

So, take much more extensive use of land, much more of us and a heck of a lot more animals that are known to produce CO2 and you got more CO2 without CO2 burning coming into the matter at all.

That said, i do believe in Global Warming from human activities. I also believe in Global dimming from sulphur and other particles being released into the atmosphere. And yet Global dimming is supposed to be decreasing.

This data does make me think again about Global Warming, but at the end of the day pumping out CO2 day in day out isnt a good thing. Recycling, use of renewable energy and alternatives to oil are all good things even without impending death due to climate change. As long as we dont go nuts and start mass culls of humans and a go mad on nuclear power there is no harm in sticking with the whole global warming is happening mantra.


RE: Fun with CO2
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 9:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were also about 20 times higher than today...millions of years ago. I guess all those dinosaur SUVs were at fault. Since we have no real idea why levels were so much higher in the past, it's more than a bit risky to attribute changing levels today specifically to us. A wise man once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Given that the geologic record shows no correlation of global temperature with CO2, and the planet has withstood dramatic nearly 50 fold changes in levels without being affected, it's disturbing that so many people blindly buy into it.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/...


RE: Fun with CO2
By MadMaster on 2/28/2008 1:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I looked at your link, and the basis of their argument is "the planet had more carbon millions of years ago, so it will be fine."

They are correct, the planet will be perfectly fine with 50000 ppm CO2, the problem is we will not. Our societies are built around climate patterns that have not changed much in the last 10k years (except for small events like major volcanic eruptions which caused small fluctuations and other small events). Climate change (or global warming, whichever term you prefer) effects us.

Oh and that wise man didn't understand statistics. Statistics is a tool, and just like all tools, it has to be respected. It is easy to make mistakes with statistics. Some people take advantage of these pitfalls to further their viewpoint, but in the science world, making 'statistical' mistakes is career suicide... (most people with PH'ds know statistics front to back...)


RE: Fun with CO2
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 1:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were also about 20 times higher than today...millions of years ago.


Actually it is hundreds of millions of years ago.

quote:
Since we have no real idea why levels were so much higher in the past, it's more than a bit risky to attribute changing levels today specifically to us.


You're kidding, right? You can't really ignore what caused the large decrease of CO2 from when its concentration was 20 times higher than today, can you??


RE: Fun with CO2
By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 11:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're kidding, right? You can't really ignore what caused the large decrease of CO2 from when its concentration was 20 times higher than today, can you??


This statement makes no sense. My point was that we don't know what caused the drop. We do know that it wasn't the sudden banning of SUVs 550 million years ago. And that the global temperature didn't seem to care, at least on a scale of millions of years. See my post about 2 pages above for a 10 minute graphical analysis if you really want to know what I think about that graph. ;-D Suffice to say there are numerous places where temperature is steady and CO2 changes dramatically, and vice versa.

To MadMaster's point, the main issue with the graph is that not only are CO2 and temperature clearly NOT related, but also that the most dominant average temperature is nearly 10 degrees C above today's temp. You claim that "we will not" be happy with 50,000ppm. Yet there is no geologic evidence that 50,000ppm would cause a giant rise in global temperature. So what evidence do you have that it will? Please don't quote the hockey stick. You do know that we are still in the lower end of the temperature scale in geologic terms. The actual global average temperature in 2001 was 14.52 degrees C. There's another 7.5C before we reach the geologic norm.


RE: Fun with CO2
By wildlifer on 3/4/2008 6:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
What other factors were present when CO2 was allegedly higher?

What were the aerosol levels? In 1991 a series of volcanic eruptions masked GHG forcings for ~3 years.


RE: Fun with CO2
By jbartabas on 3/4/2008 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that we don't know what caused the drop.


Then your point should have been: " I don't know what caused the drop."
You may want to take a look at an history of the atmosphere, and particularly focus on the times when photosynthesis massively occurred first in the seas and later on land ...

quote:
To MadMaster's point, the main issue with the graph is that not only are CO2 and temperature clearly NOT related, but also that the most dominant average temperature is nearly 10 degrees C above today's temp.


Temperature and CO2 ARE related, even if the correlation at some period of the Earth evolution is poor because of the importance of other factors. It is now accepted even by AGW skeptics (those with a degree higher than high-school) that there is a feedback in the climate system between both. Now some disagree with the importance of the feedback. But the bottom line is that anybody with an education in climatology knows that CO2 is not the only parameter to account for (yeah, surprise! even AGW proponents account for things like the Sun and orbital parameters, water vapor, clouds, the climate circulation patterns, ... imagine that!).

quote:
You claim that "we will not" be happy with 50,000ppm. Yet there is no geologic evidence that 50,000ppm would cause a giant rise in global temperature. So what evidence do you have that it will?


Even without mentioning the temperature, you may want to check the toxicity thresholds for CO2 ... So no, we wouldn't be happy with 50,000 ppm (even if this level is not really relevant to the discussion).

As for geologic evidence:
* when was the last time atmosphere contain CO2 at 50,000 ppm?
* what do you define as geologic evidence, and in particular, are models geologic evidences?
* According to that definition, is there geologic evidence of CO2 at 50,000 ppm?
* What was the solar irradiance last time 50,000 ppm was reached?


not true
By bonerici on 2/26/2008 11:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
go to the link tht michael asher uses,

There has been no erasure. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.

If you go to the NASA site, you'll see this:


The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.


As far as I can tell Michael Asher is a propagandist with an agenda who cherry picks data to prove whatever he wants. Politicized science. It's not real.




RE: not true
By ed34222 on 2/26/2008 11:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Whats not true?
100 million plus years of the earths temperature going up and down?

CO2 being a trailing indicator?

Experiments showing that 100% concentration of CO2 has less than 1/5th the radiant forcing of a matching quantity of air?

The fact that average global CO2 levels are about or below 300PPM?

That 300/5=60, or in other words that out of the supposed .5 degree of global warming, less than 30 millionths of a degree of that can be attributed to CO2? (I say less; because, convection can be expected to reduce the number considerably.)

Or that the official global temperature has gone down by a noteworthy amount?

If the last one, then please explain why; and, also, why we should care what fraction of a degree the global temp changes by in even any 5,10,20,100,or 1000 year timespan.


RE: not true
By bonerici on 2/27/2008 9:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
by not true i meant mostly that the world is not cooling, that's cherry picked data, it's a lie. as for co2 being a trailing indicator, of course it is . . . when the cause of global warming is mostly plate tectonics, so you have something like the antarctica dropping over the south pole which has caused our current series of ice ages, then when it gets colder, or warmer, the co2 drop follows geology. when the cause is biological, the opposite happens like when the karoo ice age ended, when termites learned how to eat wood and release co2 into the atomsosphere.

I don't think global warming is the most important ecological problem on earth, deforestation, making the ocean a desert, these are more critical right now, global warming is a long term thing, also, is it so bad if the earth is a bit warmer?

I don't like how republicans all get on the bandwagon that the cause is the sun when anyone with a high school diploma can see that the last hundred years has seen a lot of human caused global warming.


RE: not true
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: "anyone with a public school high school diploma, or less"


RE: not true
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 1:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
> "It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything"

Anthony Watts is a meteorologist, and he prefers exact language. In precise terms, no amount of cooling, whatever the cause or degree can "erase" the historical temperature record. To that end, he suggested the phrasing be that the cooling was "nearly equal in magnitude to the global warming signal". As the average layman doesn't tend to understand verbiage like this, I demurred and simply removed the quote entirely.

However, the data in the article is correct. If you're trying to suggest otherwise, you're far afield. The graphs themselves with the magnitude of the cooling, were annotated by Anthony himself, and taken directly from the four sites in question.


RE: not true
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 3:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anthony Watts is a meteorologist

He's a former television meteorologist ...


RE: not true
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 9:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
He is the current chief meteorologist for station KPAY, and his weather graphics company supports over 100 other stations.

Please, stop with the ad hominem attacks. You want to attack the message, do so. Not the messengers.


RE: not true
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
What's his contribution been to climatology? What original research has he published on climate, as opposed to weather/meteorology?


RE: not true
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
From someone using regularly the argument of authority for his 'sources', that's pretty funny.

And I know you don't care about important details and deliberately omit facts on a regular basis, but you should not consider my complement of information as a personal attack to Mr Watts. I find the term meteorologist ambiguous and in need of clarifications.

As for the message, you obviously didn't get it right so you should focus a little bit more on it yourself ...


RE: not true
By masher2 on 2/28/2008 12:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
The sources in this article are the Hadley Center, NASA, UAH, and RSS. Anthony merely created the graphics.

> "I find the term meteorologist ambiguous and in need of clarifications"

Don't be disingenuous. You didn't request clarification. You provided wrong information, hoping to discredit what you believed to be a source.


RE: not true
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 12:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Go back to the first post of this thread, you'll realize that your "source" was identified as Mr Watts, even if you have changed the text since then in view of the embarrassment you have created for Mr Watts. You could have also realized that my statement was concerning your sources in general ...

And no, your sources here are not the Hadley Center, NASA, UAH, and RSS; from the graph you posted to your (mistaken) interpretation of them, everything comes from Mr. Watts' blog, whose doing a much better job at putting things into perspectives than you do btw.

As for the sources you quote, they definitely hold the original data used by Mr Watts and are Mr Watts' sources, not yours. These sources have graph and text which show 2007 being still warmer than 2006 ... big deal for a "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming". So clearly, these centers are not your sources, I even doubt that you've bothered to get the data to plot them, just for a check ...


RE: not true
By masher2 on 2/28/2008 1:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Time to put this silliness to bed. As stated in the original article, the sources are the four major global temperature tracking outlets. The tabular data for each source is below.

Hadley HadCRUT dataset:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/g...
RSS Satellite Data 3.1:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_mon...
UAH Lower Troposhere Data LT5.2:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglh...
NASA GISS GISTEMP:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

Anthony Watts is not the "source" of this data; he merely produced the graphics, a service he's provided for some 20 years now. Veiled ad hominem attacks against him are out of place.


More than climate change
By jrinncs on 2/26/2008 3:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Global pollution is the issue and climate change is the by-product.
Do you really want to breathe toxic air for the rest of your life? People with heart disease and asthma are profoundly affected by all kinds of particulate
in the atmosphere.Do you want to have finite fossil fuels as your only source of energy?




RE: More than climate change
By dever on 2/26/2008 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Free individuals to make choices regarding consumption and you will have the best and broadest possible spectrum of choices (energy or otherwise) in the market.


RE: More than climate change
By halfabrain on 2/26/2008 6:27:36 PM , Rating: 4
I absolutely agree that pollution is an important issue. I hate particulates and toxic chemicals in the air, and I'd love to have a wide variety of cleaner and cheaper energy sources to choose from. However, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, particulate, or toxic chemical! We are doing ourselves a huge disservice focusing on such a benign gas! CO2 doesn't do a lick of harm to asthma sufferers or those with heart disease or lung disorders... Its clean and clear! Trees love it! If we're going to be using algae biofuels soon, we're going to need some of that CO2.

When people are protesting a biofuel powered jet because the biofuel releases CO2, we've got some priorities out of whack.

Everyone needs to take a good hard second look at this climate change issue, and take a breather from CO2 bashing while the real experts sort things out... We could be needlessly wasting time and resources trying to be carbon neutral, when we really need to be getting our focus back on CLEAN air and CLEAN water.

We all need to stop and look around at all the pain and suffering around us caused by the real human-initiated global disasters: poverty, sickness, violence, genocide, greed, actual pollution, terrorism, drug abuse, etc., etc. Getting on each others case about our "carbon footprints" is such an absurd waste of time in light of those tragedies.


RE: More than climate change
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:23:46 AM , Rating: 1
Halfabrain makes some really good points...

We have made tremendous strides with technology and real pollution (one of the reasons I am very thankful there is that EPA agency).

However, you missed some points. CO2 does not DIRECTLY harm humans. Infact, we all breath it out. However, it indirectly harms a lot of people.

The interesting thing about global warming (it's the same thing as climate change, except for the letters) is that the first people that feel the effects are the third world countries. The reason is a lot of them are based on traditional agriculture without irrigation and are much more exposed to the weather. In developed countries, you just turn up the AC...

It can even be argued that global warming has already caused a lot of the problems in Africa (lake Chad dried up because of a prolonged drought, and it being dry might be the new 'norm' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chad ). Again, I can't pin this exactly on global warming, but it is predicted that a good portion of Africa will get dryer. This will cause more difficulties for the people that live there...

Btw, the experts have sorted things out. The truth is, driving a gasoline car causes global warming which causes bad things to happen.


RE: More than climate change
By porkpie on 2/27/2008 10:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
OMG, not the old "Lake Chad" myth again. The lake is shrinking because people in the area are drawing too much water from it.
quote:
The lake's decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/04...


RE: More than climate change
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you were joking... but sadly your not.

You're right to say that global warming hurts the third world countries the most. But you're completely wrong about why.

The reason global warming hurts the poor, is because of do-gooders who wish to prevent them from obtaining all of the advancements that we in the advanced countries enjoy for some mythical "save the planet" reasoning.


RE: More than climate change
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 6:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason global warming hurts the poor, is because of do-gooders who wish to prevent them from obtaining all of the advancements that we in the advanced countries enjoy for some mythical "save the planet" reasoning.


Man you need to get outside your head. Last I checked, Kyoto doesn't include developing countries (not that it really makes a difference for developed countries either... but that is a set of good-hearted-bad policies for another day...).

Where is the basis of your argument? Or is it just your opinion?


RE: More than climate change
By leebert on 2/28/2008 1:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
You're correct that Kyoto exempts developing nations from emissions requirements.

Unfortunately the UN authority that oversees protocol conformance is also promoting & funding low-CO2 low-yield energy projects in developing nations in Africa and elsewhere, even though solar panels & windmills are both expensive & aren't up to snuff to meet the needs of their booming populations and in terms of general economic development.


RE: More than climate change
By dever on 2/28/2008 3:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not leave out the fact that by confining developed countries to producing only more expensive "green" products, this chokes the supply for developing nations.


RE: More than climate change
By bmdowney on 3/1/2008 2:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's just ridiculous that we have made such strides to limit developing nations to using and developing the "green" energy sources when we ourselves hardly implement them at all!

sniff... sniff..... Yah, i smell hypocrisy.


Gross Misrepresentation
By ConfrontingReality on 2/29/2008 12:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
This article is a gross misrepresentation of the underlying data, which you can find here.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

We are not about to enter an ice age. Any implication that we are is just plain false. 2007 was in fact the 2nd hottest year on record after 2005. The 8 hottest years on record since 1880 occurred in the last 10 years.

The data used in this report is comparing the difference in temperature each month from the global average baseline temperature between 1951 and 1980. So if the data shows a temperature of 0, that would mean the temperature that month was exactly the average of the baseline temperature. If the number is negative, then the temperature is lower than average, etc..

Back to the article - What the article is actually reporting is that the temperature in the month of January 2008 was lower than the temperature in the month of January 2007 when using this delta tracking method. This is supported by the underlying data. What the story leaves out is the fact that January 2007 was the hottest month on record. The data from NASA goes back to 1880.

On top of that, January 2007 wasn’t just a little hotter than any other month, it was a lot hotter. It was twice as hot as January 2006, for example.

The headline also implies that we’ve had twelve months of cooling, when in fact 2007 was the second hottest year on record (after 2005). Check the data if you want.

The primary reason the reporter can say that January 2008 is much lower than January 2007 is that January 2007 was so hot. So we’ve hardly wiped out a century of warming in 2007.

I’m guessing Michael Asher didn’t run an article last year saying that we’ve had the biggest gain in world temperature ever, much worse than the last 50 years of global warming. Because he could have, using the same standards applied in this article.

The story goes on to claim that solar variances have a greater impact than man made changes to the climate. This is not correct either. The facts on the solar variance impact can be found in this document from NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The facts are that solar variances from sunspot activity results in a variance of 0.3 Watts per meter squared. That means at the peak of the solar sunspot activity there is 0.3 more Watts per meter squared than at the minimum point.

Man made CO2 warming adds 0.3 Watts per meter squared every decade.

The sunspot activity goes up and down on a very regular sine wave like oscillation of about 11 years. We are now at a minimum in the sunspot activity cycle. The first sunspot of the new cycle was spotted in January.

So we are at a low point in the solar sunspot activity and last year we had the 2nd hottest year on record. That leaves you wondering what is going to happen over the next 5 years as we add 0.3 Watts/m2 from sunspot activity and another 0.15 Watts/m2 from human activity.

The most likely outcome of continuing business as usual is that the trend over the next few years will be to continue the warming trend.

If you look at the historical data, this type of temperature noise spike followed by a steep decline in temperature has occurred before.

The January 1987 temp was 0.25 above average, the January 1988 temp was 0.52 above average (or about double), the January 1989 temp was 0.03 above average. We’d never seen a hotter month before (January 88) and then twelve months later we’d never seen a drop like that before, either. But after that, we were back to increasing temperature. It was just a bit of noise in the inexorable climb of world temperature.

Global warming is real. It isn’t going to go away by itself. We’re not about to enter an ice age.




RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 1:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
granted yes, saying that we are about to enter another ice-age is a bit over the top (however, I believe most of the statements like that are used in a sort of sarcastic way, like a surprise sucker punch compared to how things were projected, by the models, to occur) and I don't believe anyone here has denied that the earth has experienced, in truth, a modest warming trend, however, and yes, this cold spike could very well just be exactly that, an abrupt spike. That's not to say, however, that it could not be a trend of things to come. That's the problem with this darn debate and the major reason why nothing intelligent has been done concerning it; no one is taking the time to just step back and approach this with a calm scientific analysis of data from EVERY side, without jumping to one conclusion or another.

I would like to say though, that history shows that other global warming trends have indeed "gone away" so to speak by themselves through the natural patterns of the earth and universe upon which we rely for life.


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By ConfrontingReality on 2/29/2008 2:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
The real spike that folks should be looking at is the fact that January 2007 was by far and away the hottest month on record.

To report that we had a month in January 2008 where the temperature was lower than the hottest month ever on record is not particularily newsworthy, nor is it a sign of a long term trend.

We are entering a period in the solar sunspot activity cycle where the energy from the sun will be increasing each year over the next 5 years. This natural forcing factor will be combined with the human produced CO2 emmissions to create another dramatic increase in warming after the warmest decade on record.

The other trend you should be looking at are the spikes in insurance claim payments due to weather related claims.

http://insurance.lbl.gov/MEDIA/SciAm2Aug07.pdf

"Weather-related insurance losses rose to $50 billion in 2005 from less than $10 billion a decade earlier."

"Over the past year alone, insurance companies have dramatically raised homeowners' annual premiums in parts of Texas, Louisiana, the Carolinas, Massachusetts and New York State. In the Florida Keys, for instance, windstorm insurance rates for a 1,900-square-foot home in Monroe County soared from $3,000 in 2004 to nearly $16,000 in 2007. In South Carolina private companies have stopped insuring homes valued at less than $500,000. In Rhode Island some agencies have refused to cover any coastal properties. Allstate, one of the largest residential property insurers on the east coast, elected not to renew 30,000 policies covering coastal properties in New York City, Long Island, Westchester County and Connecticut, and is considering reducing coastal area coverage in Massachusetts and along the Gulf."

The trend in the industry is that the insurance companies are recognizing that climate change is real and they are actively seeking to reduce their risk from global warming.

The insurance companies make their business decisions on hard data. What do they know that you don't?


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 2:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
to say that all businesses, whether u mean just insurance or not, is a lie, there have been plenty of companies that do things to get a good buck, All-state was just called out for it for misusing figures to raise rates in Florida, (and Enron didn't get very far on it's hard data, did it?). But yes i'm sure they have taken into account that the sea levels have risen ver slightly every year, and that the possibility that the warm water temperatures might attribute to more hurricanes, etc. but i would doubt very highly that they have taken their information in concern with other forms of climate change, such as wind patterns, solar influences, etc. Again we come to the same problem, just because someone or a group does something (especially when it is a company interested in its finacial well being, which i don't think of as a bad idea) in coorolation to a particular finding doesn't mean it's cause to rule out the other factors, which scientists are currently attempting to analyze and which could support the hypothesis that there could be more cold weather to come, it's still without a bout up in the air. Time will tell better than we.


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By masher2 on 2/29/2008 2:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "the fact that January 2007 was by far and away the hottest month on record."

Not according to the Hadley Center, UAH, or RSS. For instance, the HadCRUT reference data places the hottest month in 1998:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/g...

Only GISS -- with the 'noisiest' data source (along with the most politically-motivated direct) -- makes this claim.

> "What do [insurance companies] know that you don't? "

They know that, in the 40 years since the previous peaks in the natural hurricane cycle, Americans have built massively in coastal areas. That raises insurance losses.

A large amount of recent research has shown no indication of a link between GW and hurricane strength. This probably accounts for the extremely mild seasons we had in 2006 and 2007.

> "the energy from the sun will be increasing each year over the next 5 years."

Weren't you recently arguing that solar insolation changes weren't enough to affect climate?


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Masher, where did u find that quote on the solar activity, I would like to read the article it's from (seriously would, am so bored, no class today so i thought i'd do more research for my paper on current and historical changes in solar activity)


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By masher2 on 2/29/2008 3:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, which quote?

BTW, whenever an article gets over 100 comments, the chance of my actually seeing any particular one is rather law. As an alternative, you may want to use the DT contact form to reach me.


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
my bad,
This one:

"the energy from the sun will be increasing each year over the next 5 years."


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By masher2 on 2/29/2008 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, that came from the previous poster. However, it's (reasonably) correct -- our current understanding is that, once Solar Cycle 24 begins, solar activity will increase up to the midpoint of the cycle.

The uncertainty is whether we're approaching another Dalton-type minimum, which might depress global temperatures for an extended period.


RE: Gross Misrepresentation
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
oh i see, thank you for clarifying that.

yes, the fact that the sun is still really "quiet" is not very comforting.... minimum = cold and, being a Texas boys, i don't do cold, haha.

But if the solar data correlation is correct (still not fully proven) then there should be an increase in global cloud cover, and likely more precipitation as a result. I have already looked a little into this and I personally found it convincing enough to place a couple bets, so I'm eagerly monitoring such events.... man i hope i'm right... could use a lil more cash.... kinda strapped at the moment : / college life is interesting


That brainless term
By GS Allen on 2/26/2008 7:23:58 PM , Rating: 4
The essence of climate is change, evolution, cyclicality. It's idiotic to speak of "climate change" as if it is the advent of some newly discovered phenomenon. So let's just call it weather. Obviously from climate records, weather changes within even 50 year periods are often simply a natural cycling of oceanic and atmospheric tendencies. BFD. Anyone looking at the mid-troposphere temperature charts brought to us by satellite (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.... will note the record & gigantic EL Nino of '97-98. How surprising that ocean and global land temps elevated thereafter (at least in the northern hemisphere), and are now coming down as evinced by the 2007-2008 decline in that record of approximately 0.60°C. The raised-temp anomaly is petering out. BFD. All the hysteria induced by over-caffeinated environmentalists and wishful media drones was, yet again, misplaced emotionalism and childish fatalism that arises in cycles as prevalent as temporarily-enduring changes in the weather, oceans and mid atmosphere. 9/11 has warped an unprecedented number of personal psychologies, especially in those most exposed to its tragic images (the media ilk), and those most guilt-ridden about living in the highly consumptive and highly productive USA (the socialists, greenies and sundry malcontents who would denigrate Paradise for its pleasantly immutable continuum). With the sun going into timid mode, CO2 is deflating as the socio-economic bane exceeded only by Jack the Ripper or HIV. While fatal heat waves have been common throughout history, record cold and record snow in the last few years are really the anomalies of significance. Such are known to precede ice ages, precipitation for which is induced by a period of warming weather that is but a gnat's hair on the astrophysical time scale. So the foolish Cassandras and Tiresiass who ride their bikes with a bag of CFLs should just shut up for a while and cool it. Unusually hot weather occurred for modest periods prior to Henry Ford and Eli Whitney, as did imposingly icy periods that kicked Greenland's arse and dug out all the beautiful lakes in the Midwest. It's just the world; mostly saltwater, wrapped in an atmospheric blanket and bombarded by solar flux - victim of an interplay of natural forces that cycle up and down. Just because a few insects of green hue have learned how to trumpet like discomfited elephants is by no means grounds for mass hysteria; even if half of them are liberal-arts majors pontificating from the media pulpit, espousing "scientific fact" like herbal supplement hawkers in infomercials. We've become unnecessarily overwhelmed by such "information sources" because most of us are too lazy to devote time to research of scientific articles on the web. Unwilling to master new terminology and concepts with our overtaxed noggins, we feast at the trough of pre-canned, sensationalist-media Pablum that any cub reporter can lace with epithets and phrases that leave no room for doubt or debate, ostensibly.
****
Of all that is allegedly unusual today, the most alarming has to be the tendency toward mass hysteria about the "unusual" weather, and even more so the inclination of utterly unscientific politicians to almost immediately generate wrong-headed legislation to outlaw Edison's masterpiece, tax the hell out of everyone in a fantastical attempt to "limit carbon emissions to safe levels," and to impose urban entry fees on drivers efficiently hauling the largest loads. Do-gooder insanity! And a 'good' based on insufficient science still in acrimonious debate (hidden from the public by liberal TV media, but not the Net). But the facts never caused hesitation in politicians when they saw a ripe opportunity. As we are hysterical together, so we will be unfairly taxed together. We had to learn...when a mass movement arose not against a foreign enemy, but against ourselves and way of life. Somehow, the guilt Gorgon, that had for centuries been kept restrained in the church basement, has sneaked into the popular, secular conscience, its cells dividing like evil yeast that clot the synapses across which impulses of reason and skepticism once spryly jumped with relative ease. Oh my GOD! We're doomed for enjoying life and consumerism! CO2 sinning is rampant! Polar bears are drifting on rudderless bergs to their demise! Getting on an airliner is akin to visiting a whorehouse! Clinical self-consciousness IS appropriate each time you throw plastic or food in the trash! Corn is better placed in our fuel tanks than into the mouths of starving millions! SENSE A GREEN THEME HERE? If the 3.4% of our population that is homosexual can introduce hate-crimes laws affecting us all, and elementary-school texts that normalize pathological-gender concepts...don't be surprised when eco-morphs upset national economies and reverse the decline in world starvation as a tolerable sacrifice to the higher, anti-capitalist, anti-industrialism goal. Organized, over-educated yuppies were bound to trump the status-quo, dinosaur politicians at their own game. Computer illiteracy has its price...




RE: That brainless term
By Tacoloft on 2/26/2008 7:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
BEST POST EVER... Thank you GS Allen, you made my day!


RE: That brainless term
By ed34222 on 2/27/2008 12:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
Amen


RE: That brainless term
By Paul in Phx on 2/27/2008 3:16:03 AM , Rating: 1
And your point???


RE: That brainless term
By clovell on 2/27/2008 2:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Right on.


RE: That brainless term
By Wakefield Tolbert on 2/27/2008 4:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
Getting on an airliner is akin to visiting a whorehouse!

(laughing in my hands)

Now THAT is my kind of man. Not the whorehouse bit, though funny. But someone keen enough (at long last, praise God Almightly at LONG LAST!) to see that Yes, Virginia, there REALLY are people with agendas out there other than freedom and capitalism and productivity who DO make moral equivications to things.

Traditional morals said the whoremongering was bad.

The New Left now tells us this is an old, tired restraint to our hedonistic instincts and insists that hamburgers and driving anything that burns fuel is whoring out Mother Earth. Or Spaceship Earth...Or Gaia--or whatever she goes by now...

It's true the Left has changed tactics lately. Used to be Paul Ehrlich asking people if they wanted a gondola ride to the Empire State Building due to global warming. Now eat a hamburger and you've killed Indonesian kids.


RE: That brainless term
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Good stuff GS Allen. Do you have a blog?


By Foundation For Planetary Management on 2/27/2008 5:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
You may want to check out H.A.A.R.P. which is an experimental government project in Alaska which has been documented to effect the course of El Nino.


Warming, Cooling, Change and Morals
By hokkoda on 2/26/2008 2:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
500 years ago in their effort to prove the Earth was at the center of the universe, the Church sponsored numerous Rube Goldberg style machines. The only way to prove their Earth-centric beliefs was to build machines that showed the crazy movement of planets as seen from the Earth. Turns out, it was really just a bunch of things moving in circles around THE SUN. Elegant, simple, easy peasey.

The people who proposed an alternative to dogma? "Revolutionaries", and they were locked up or excommunicated or both.

Flash forward 500 years. Massively complex computer models try to predict what is an elegantly simple natural machine, applying all sorts of rules and machinations to prove man-made climate change. Turns out it's just that pesky sun again. And the people who reject the dogma -- "deniers" -- a link to Nazi Holocaust "deniers", an explicit reference. They're banned from conferences, decried as lunatics or fringe or puppets of Big Oil.

Gosh that sounds familiar.

Then one day the public started remembering their 3rd Grade earth science. You know, the one about how "native" Americans came to North America via the land bridge over the Bering sea caused by glaciation? (new theories also postulate the same thing happended from the European side). Hey, where did all that ice go, and who was policing the ice sheets in ancient Alaska to ensure SUVs were obeying the chain laws?

Fun fun. But nobody every accused Al Gore of being smarter than a 3rd Grader. And nobody has credibly convinced me that the world was better than everything north of Jersey City was once under a mile-thick sheet of ice.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Next month a spring heat wave will hit, and we'll all be back complaining about the global warming hysteria.

Laughing in Colorado.




RE: Warming, Cooling, Change and Morals
By fk49 on 2/26/2008 3:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh Godwin's Law strikes again


RE: Warming, Cooling, Change and Morals
By dever on 2/26/2008 4:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think Godwin's law only applies to referencing Nazis to the other parties beliefs, not your own, as I believe this person did. Maybe this is an example of Niwdog's law.


RE: Warming, Cooling, Change and Morals
By hokkoda on 2/26/2008 7:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
Niwdog is accurate. But I guess the reponse kind of makes my point. When people reach the end of their ability to formulate an argument, they declare things blasphemy, racism, Godwin's Law, whatever. Apparently, pointing out what people actually say and do is just another net Law we can ridicule.

If there's another reason why the term "denier" has emerged the last few years, please oh please tell me what it is. Words have meaning, and when you excuse it, you condone it. I suppose Al Gore referring to center-right netroots as "digital brown shirts" was really a commentary on their laundry habits.


RE: Warming, Cooling, Change and Morals
By onelittleindian on 2/26/2008 11:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember. Gore may not have invented the Internet, but don't hold that against him. He did manage to invent Global Warming!


By Awkins on 2/27/2008 1:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
You can also take it as:

Just remember. Gore may not have invented the Internet, but don't hold that against him. He did damage in inventing Global Warming!


By dever on 2/27/2008 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well stated hokkoda. And, for some reason, I was, until now, unaware of Gore's "brown shirts" comment. His words twist faster than his vacation home electric meter.


By Awkins on 2/27/2008 1:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
The cooling trend may be that the sensors used for taking readings are now placed farther from instrument cooling vents, where heat is released. Just put them back to record the man-made warming.


Huh?
By Murst on 2/26/2008 2:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Michael,

Could you please explain why you believe there is global cooling?

From the graph you provided, it seems pretty clear that, on average, the trend in temperatures is going up , and not down , as your article suggests.

Yes, the latest month has been lower, but it is still in the positive range (as in, no cooling has taken place, it is still warmer than whatever baseline you're comparing to). However, by looking at the graph, it appears as that the temperature has only gone down in the past month or 2 months, and disregards the trend that seems pretty clear over the last decade.

Again, I don't really understand where you're getting the cooling from, so if I'm reading this incorrectly, please let me know.

Also, how can you dismiss a trend that has been happening over decades with data from a single month? Something seems fishy here.




RE: Huh?
By hokkoda on 2/26/2008 2:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
The earth is 4 billion years old. Temperature data from 1988 to present tells us absolutely nothing.


RE: Huh?
By jmgeorgh on 2/26/2008 2:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the graph again. The part highlighting from Jan 07 to Jan 08, an entire year, a majority of which the temperature is dropping shortly. Am I missing something?


RE: Huh?
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "it seems pretty clear that, on average, the trend in temperatures is going up "

Good question. It all depends on scale. From 1998, the trend is downward...but from 1900 onward, there's still a very slight upward trend. But if one looks back further still (say from 500 AD onward), the trend is cooling again. The earth is cooler now than it was then.

Look back a few more thousand years to the last Ice Age, and the earth is on a warming trend. Look all the way back to the Devonian, and we're cooling again.

So which of these is the "right" period to examine? Depends on what you're trying to prove of course.

> "...with data from a single month?"

Actually, the cooling trend dates back a full year (according to GISS), or back as far as 1998, according to sources like Hadley.


RE: Huh?
By Murst on 2/26/2008 3:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So which of these is the "right" period to examine? Depends on what you're trying to prove of course.


I see...

I guess I'm done with these articles on DT. I always thought that you truly believed that global warming was not really taking place. Instead, it is pretty clear that you do agree that it could be taking place, but you're simply selecting specific data just to argue otherwise.


RE: Huh?
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've always maintained that global warming is occurring, just that the anthropogenic (human-induced) portion is significantly smaller than claimed, and that the data doesn't indicate any reason to be alarmed (i.e. that the anticipated degree of warming is likely to be only a moderate annoyance in most regions, and even a minor benefit to some).


RE: Huh?
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 8:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Masher says--Dammit! You morons should take what I spoon feed you and not think for yourselves!

Hehehe I love amusing myself...


Michael Asher
By Cybesq on 2/27/2008 8:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone wonder why Daily Tech does not post anything about Michael Asher other than "(blog)"? I have seen dozens of articles that reference, "Michael Asher at Daily Tech". Why can't any bio material be found about Michael Asher on the internet? If he is going to publish "articles" and expect anyone to take him seriously, then he really needs to come out of the closet and describe his credentials. Is Michael Asher a scientist or a former Chevron executive?




RE: Michael Asher
By schmandel on 2/27/2008 9:39:32 PM , Rating: 1
A Google search reveals little else that would suggest that Asher is something other than a one-issue hack, probably somebody's wh0re who can find no better way of life ;-)


RE: Michael Asher
By clovell on 2/28/2008 2:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
The catch with those pesky google searches is that you have to click on the links and read. You must be new around here, or maybe you're a one issue hack yourself who only notices the AGW articles here.

I don't always agree with Michael on everything - there are quite a few issues I'm on the completely opposite side of the spectrum, in fact, and I've taken him to task on them a few times. If you can't figure it out from that - Michael posts a lot of very detailed, intelligent, and insightful comments on a wide array of articles here on DailyTech.


RE: Michael Asher
By schmandel on 2/28/2008 9:34:11 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not unacquainted with being patronized by inferior people. I'll overlook your behavior for the moment.

Please provide an example of Michael Asher's detailed, intelligent, and insightful articles in a subject area other than hysterical reactionary monkey spanking on the climate change issue.

Nothing you have offered so far suggests anything other than that Michael Asher is just another whoring 4th rate web journalist.It's so sad when a person such as him reaches adulthood with no redeeming skills or knowledge, a terrible waste of oxygen on an undeserving lump of meat.


RE: Michael Asher
By KristopherKubicki on 2/29/2008 10:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
Shoot the message not the messenger. Ad hominem attacks here, whether its against Al Gore, Michael Asher or just another guy on the forums, will get you banned. This is your last warning.


RE: Michael Asher
By just4U on 2/29/2008 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoy Michael's articles. I especially enjoy all the feedback that's generated from them. As it usually tends to lead to more information being passed around.

His articles seem to suggest that there is alot of conflicting data out there (or ways of interpreting it all)and he is just presenting us with some of it. He doesn't appear to be asking that we believe but rather that we keep a open mind and try to understand that there's alot more research out there then what we are spoon fed by mainstream media, and political grps or activists.

I really hope he keeps it up! It generates alot of feedback and is a excellent topic of discussion!


RE: Michael Asher
By schmandel on 2/29/2008 11:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my, I'm so intimidated at the prospect of the terrific loss I would incur by being banned. If it reduces your personal sense of impotence, go for it. It's certainly easy enough to get around it.


Doing my part
By HeathSellers on 2/26/2008 6:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a gas guzzling SUV, watch a 50" plasma TV, fly 85,00 miles a year and drive an additional 12,000. I keep my AC on 68 and my heater on 76. I don't recycle, and think I left the oven on this morning. There is only so much one person can do - I need help. I beg anyone reading this to increase their carbon footprint before Al Gore starts screaming of the impending ice age.




RE: Doing my part
By KenThomas03 on 2/26/2008 9:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think we need new cafe' standards. All new vehicles need to get less than 15 mph, and we need to bring back freon.


RE: Doing my part
By KenThomas03 on 2/26/2008 9:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
MPGs, that is.


RE: Doing my part
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
Your money...


RE: Doing my part
By Ringold on 2/27/2008 1:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take one for the human team and vacation in Hawaii, flying from Florida, next winter.

It'll be hard, but... All that CO2 that I'll be distributing across half the planet as I get there and then return.. it'll be worth it, for the good of all!

(Feel free to name schools after me in honor of my noble sacrifice)


Where are the Huricanes?
By WEB63 on 2/27/2008 9:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
What happened to all of the predicted huricanes?
I am in Atlanta, GA, and we are in a severe drought.
We have a 24''+ deficiet of rain fall.
Why???? Because the predicted 17 huricanes never showed up.
Our water table depends on the huircanes and tropical storms coming through the Atlanta, GA area.
We have gone 2 years without anything hitting us.
So if Katrina was because of Global Warming, then that would only be a 1 season prediction.
Why can we not use this winter as a prediction?




RE: Where are the Huricanes?
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hurricane prediction has nothing to do with AGW. Heck, the major hurricane predictions come from a warming denier, Bill Gray in Colo.


RE: Where are the Huricanes?
By joemoedee on 2/27/2008 1:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happened to all of the predicted huricanes?


Our esteemed Governor Perdue has not found it fit to pray for hurricanes, that's why they have not occurred! :)

I feel the majority of the Atlanta water "crisis" is due to uncontrolled immense growth with an infrastructure ill-suited to support it. That's another argument.

Global warming is a sham. The Earth's temperature changes. It has throughout history, with or without Hybrid cars.


By Wakefield Tolbert on 2/27/2008 11:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well--the good Guv'na should pray. I will too. Couldn't hurt, right?

But beyond this it seems that since we Atlantans (native to the area) are growing in leaps and bounds it IS about time to get some other sources of water besides Lake Lanier and in the meantime put a moratorium on building until further notice of solved water issue AND consider some strong rationing. I think all could agree on this.

As to hurricanes, regardless of the New Denial, Al Gore, RFK, and numerous others have made their notion known that Bush is to blame for Katrina and other storms and sinned gravely by not signing Kyoto. That's where the hurricane bruha came up. It is horsemess, of course. Numerous studies have debunked this highly politicized crappola about AGW being the proximate cause of hurrican intensity.

Now we see people denying they ever made that claim! Wow.

In fact, some models of AGW indicate that GW might even be a boon not only to food and human health (the diseases caused by heat as a vector are overshadowed by those caused by cold, like the damned flu season). Not only this, but to hurricanes it seems GW will sheer their tops off!

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/stroll-throu...

Who said what about hurricane frequency AND intensity, giving the lie that no one ever said they were connected:

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/04/remember-hoo...

Some thought they were, including Saint Gore. It is false, but he can't wiggle off the hook just yet....

Hmmm.


RE: Where are the Huricanes?
By clovell on 2/27/2008 2:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
I did some leg work and went straight to some of the sites that the author was claiming were debunking Global Warming. Here is another link...

An article titled "Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' "
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_...

and another...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

Now of course, you could claim that NASA was lying to us, but at the very least the blog you cited was not being honest about what those organizations were claiming.




RE: "A sucker is born every minute" - WC Fields
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 4:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, your links are to NASA stories from 2003 and 2006. Hardly surprising they don't correlate to 2008 data. Secondly, no one is claiming that NASA is "debunking" global warming.

The most recent NASA GISS data (along with 3 other sources) indicates a short-term, but steep cooling trend. That trend was sufficient to lower current global temperatures back to very near the baseline 1951-1980 level. That is all.

Draw from that what conclusion what you will. The only conclusion drawn by this story is that current factor cooling the planet are outweighing those warming it.


By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 4:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even glance at the first article at all?


By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 4:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you want 2008 at data from NASA, they link an executive summary on their web site of a presentation from April 1, 2008.

http://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/Lectures/sigma/s-0804...

"The longer you believe in the lie, the more the truth will hurt."


By Kenenniah on 2/28/2008 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want 2008 at data from NASA, they link an executive summary on their web site of a presentation from April 1, 2008.


You do realize that April 1, 2008 has not ocurred yet don't you? Last I checked it was still only Feburary 2008, so would be very interested as to how the summary obtained information "from" a presentation that one would assume is actually ocurring in the future.


A Cold Hard Truth
By drogobumbleroot on 2/27/2008 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 1
The whole premise of 'An Inconvenient Truth' was that global temperatures have never changed at a faster rate than they did in the 20th century and the change was due to man producing CO2. Now global temperatures are changing in the opposite direction at a rate 100 times as fast. So have the CO2 levels gone down?

I also don't know why the comment about the sun and reduced solar activity. Since when did the sun have anything to do with the earth's temperature?




RE: A Cold Hard Truth
By Sandok on 3/1/2008 12:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right, the Sun just makes light, no heat or anything else tempertaure related that helps the Earth...

(I was being quite sarcastic)

Anyways, for all you people who don't care about GW and if it's a hoax or not, isn't using less gas, using less electricity kinder to the wallet? (answer: yes).

Is keeping the air around us more clear and clean better for our lungs? (answer: yes).

Actually, isn't it better to take care of your enviroment? Of course, the answer is yes so just take the few steps needed to a better earth. It's not worth taking the risk to try otherwise.


RE: A Cold Hard Truth
By bmdowney on 3/1/2008 1:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
well, green sources of energy are not cheaper than conventional just yet, so to say that it would be kinder to your wallet is a false.

As for cleaning up the environment and all that, i strongly agree, i think we should all do a little more to keep this world cleaner.

But that isn't the problem with what has happened.

The way that the science behind the anthropogenic global warming scare was twisted and mocked up to look like science was an absolute lie!
The real inconvenient truth is that we know so very little about the weather on this planet and much less all the forces that act upon it, and how those forces influence each other.

And as time reveals more, we are slowly beginning to fit pieces of this huge puzzle together.
There has never been an argument that cleaning up the earth would be bad, that's just silly, the argument is that those who were supposed to do their job found it more convenient and rewarding to mock up something really fast while stuffing more and more cash in their pocket (look at Al Gore and the money he's making off this and the reasons why he refuses to debate anyone with half a brain about this subject) rather than to admit the TRUTH!


RE: A Cold Hard Truth
By Sandok on 3/1/2008 4:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
Some green aspects are more expensive (solar panels come to mind) but what about the SIMPLE green things you can do?

Set the heating on a timer (only during the night for example).

Drive a car with better gas consumption (diesels for example).

Don't leave every computer on 24/7 and not always leave everything on standby (TVs, DVDs, etc...)

All that does save you some good amount of money.

As for the weather, even if we might not know enough (who knows, the theories and hypothesis already out there MIGHT be right), there is no point in playing chicken with this sort of subject.

Imagine the worst case scenario: the scientist that predict global warming will harm the world's ecosystems are right and we have huge political / environmental problems. The question would be why we did nothing to stop it when it was possible.

One scary fact is that Greenland's glaciers and the Himalayas are fast melting. Hell, since the last ten years, snowfall in the Swiss Alps here has dropped to pathetically low levels (I used to ski at least 10-15 times a year... Now I barely get 5).

Even if we aren't the cause, there is no denying that less CO2 (and other harmful gases), if reduced, can ONLY HELP our atmosphere.

I won't disagree that Global Warming is used much more as a political tool than anything else but it is happening slowly (or quickly) and the numbers are out there. Whether it's just a glitch or not is something else but at least on my continent, it's considered fact. The US is something else...

Just for funsies (gotta love that word).
• Most expensive weather caused disasters have all happened in the past 5 years.
• Most wettest / hottest / coldest / driest (in other word extreme) weather has happened in the past 10 years.
• First Hurricane in documented history (so since at least 200-300 years) has hit South America from the southern Atlantic Ocean.
• Arctic Ocean no longer freezing so safe crossing levels since the past 5 to 10 years (for the people living in Greenland for example).
• In 2003 or 2004 (I think, I forgot the exact date), parts of the Amazon forest got so dry (we’re talking about a tropical rainforest here…), it caught on fire.
But let’s say that all this is a fluke and random… One can’t negate the fact that ocean currents are changing. The Great Barrier Reef, a living breathing biosphere off the coast of Australia that has been around for over that is over 6000 to 8000 years old (thus older than HUMAN history) has seen, in the past TWO years destroyed by over 30% all because of changing temperatures in water.

If Global Warming is happening, I hope we don’t wait to see Bangladesh or some other poor, low-lying country get totally flooded (well over 80% if a one meter rise in water) and we have a real humanitarian crisis on our hands.


RE: A Cold Hard Truth
By drogobumbleroot on 3/3/2008 4:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Love the just for funsies. Here's some facts about these just for funsies.

Most expensive weather caused disasters have all happened in the past 5 years. - This has nothing to do with Global Warming or Climate Change. We live in bigger more expensive houses and own more goodies. People are also getting dumber and building more in disaster zones because it is cheaper. Yet the human death toll from extreme wather has dropped by 95% in the last 100 years.

Most wettest / hottest / coldest / driest (in other word extreme) weather has happened in the past 10 years. - Not really, hottest recorded temperatures were in the 1930's. We have only been recording weather for about 150 years out of 4.5 billion so we don't know when the most extreme weather occurred.

First Hurricane in documented history (so since at least 200-300 years) has hit South America from the southern Atlantic Ocean. - Also had a year (2006) with no hurricanes making landfall in North America.

Arctic Ocean no longer freezing so safe crossing levels since the past 5 to 10 years (for the people living in Greenland for example). - This is not a new phenomenon and has been recorded by other explorers of other centuries. Also, why did they name it Greenland? Could it be because it was not covered in ice when they named it?

In 2003 or 2004 (I think, I forgot the exact date), parts of the Amazon forest got so dry (we’re talking about a tropical rainforest here…), it caught on fire - The number one destroyer of rainforest space is being done by farmers so they can grow corn and produce biofuel. Thanks Sheryl Crow and Willie Nelson.


Not in this part of Texas...
By Kougar on 2/26/2008 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas...


Actually, this area of Texas broke a record for the hottest record temperatures for the last couple days, got up around 92F outside.




RE: Not in this part of Texas...
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 6:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
shhhhhhh ... don't confuse them with facts and their two data points equals a trend crap.


RE: Not in this part of Texas...
By grenableu on 2/26/2008 6:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
The graph above is for the whole world, not "two data points". And in MY part of Texas, we had snow last April for the very first time in history!


RE: Not in this part of Texas...
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 8:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
San Antonio, April 1973.


Correlation of Global warming
By SB Greg on 2/27/2008 12:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
After years of spending billions of dollars collecting temp data, the scientific community should be able to produce a correlation coefficient for global warming. This would tell us what the relative cause and effect that the independent variables have on global warming. In this case, global warming would be the dependent variable and the most likely independent variables (from published studies) would be sun spot activity, CO2 conc., methane conc., ocean currents, etc. The scientist should be able to calculate with their vast amounts of data first and second order effects along with any interaction effects among the indpendent variables. From this, they would have a statistically sound cause and effect analysis that would tell us which causes are the most significant with regards to global warming. This would end most of the debate that we see in the press on this issue.
I suspect if they did this simple correlation, they might come up with the fact that CO2 has a very tiny effect on global warming... thus drying up their funding and ruining their socialist political agenda. Otherwise, this analysis would have been done a long time ago by the global warming theorists.




RE: Correlation of Global warming
By bonerici on 2/28/2008 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
scientists have done these models. It shows global warming is caused by human produced greenhouse gases. It's unfortunate that republicans spin this data so hard that their followers don't believe it. It's incredible really. Republicans would rather believe a talk show host or republican blogger than a scientist.

I'm not going to bother with data about sun radiance because it doesn't matter, you're gonna keep on believing what they tell you. I'm not a fan of al gore by the way. He's got his own axe to grind, and makes all kinds of ridiculous mistakes. But if you open your eyes, look at the data, it's easy to see, we are causing global warming. It's not much. a couple degrees F per hundred years. That's it.


RE: Correlation of Global warming
By just4U on 2/29/2008 1:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
On the topic of Scientists, You seem to suggest that they are "ALL" 100% in agreement on this issue. They are NOT and that NEEDS to be taken into consideration.

There seems to be a number of people out there that take it all as 100% factual when even the scientific comunity does not agree on reasons/causes behind it all. Odd that ..


RE: Correlation of Global warming
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 2:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
yah, that does seem to be a rather large misconception... see my other post (have we learned nothing from history... near the bottom) it just can't makes sense that an issue like this could have a unanimous vote, but i believe that now there is less confusion than say 2 years ago during the hot 2004-2005 time frame, but still more awareness needs to be spread, not on the consensus, but the fact that we honestly can't finite why everything is happening... it is always fun to find a scape goat and just beat the ever-living crap outta him for things he may or may not have done :)


wait, it's coming!
By Richlet on 2/27/2008 12:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still waiting for masher to open with the headline "Pollution is a myth! Air Quality Indexes are meaningless!" ;)




RE: wait, it's coming!
By KristopherKubicki on 2/27/2008 1:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thousands of people die every year in the U.S. from emissions related to coal power plants. Noxious fumes from other industrial facilities kill thousands more across the world.

But what does air quality have to do with global warming? Not as much as political blogs would have you think. Cleaning up the environment is an important topic and it has nothing to do with what Al Gore tells you, or what this blog my Michael Asher details.


RE: wait, it's coming!
By Richlet on 2/27/2008 11:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I agree 100%, they're not the same issue whatsoever. I was just trying to provide a little comic relief ;)

I worry a lot less about "climate change" than I do about what supposedly causes it-- gagging on a hot smoggy day while I walk home from work just ain't fun.


RE: wait, it's coming!
By Sandok on 3/1/2008 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
They are linked... Coal plants exist to provide power, right? Now if people were a bit more smart about their household power usage (eco light bulbs, less useless electrical usage, etc) this would reduce the amount of power required, especially if everyone would start doing it.

Okay, so less coal is now needed and thus, CO2 is directly lowered (given that coal powerplants are one of the worst offenders ever).

This in turn would help the air pollution and the cycle goes around. Global Warming is much more than buying hybrids or some other stupid political plot. It's about making the Earth in general a cleaner place to live.


Old post for a great news report...
By Forlourned on 2/27/2008 2:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
All those links from so many people trying desperately to distract. I left a message moons ago and will post it Link Free! Edited a bit. But first, I also like to point out the TRUE weather changer that doesn't require any long trips to see! Everybody ready?

See that big old ball of light in the sky? You know, the one that explodes ever second like all the nukes ever made plus a few million more on an area the size of EARTH! How DARE- DARE any of you discount that ENERGY that blasts into the Earth constantly as a casual nuisances!

The true Gaia killer is...

Guess what..hold on to your punctured pants...Reveal!! The True "green House effect" is(wait for it..) MOTHER Gaia!!! See, the biggest contributor to this "~House effect" is WATER VAPOR that holds 90% of the blame!

So to all you Left of sanity Tree Huggers now march! To Purchase vast quantities of $3+ designer water bottles and drink up to stop the Terrible devil Di-Hydrogen Oxide & sew up your bladders to stop the FLOW!!!

Wow! Let's step back hundreds of years ago, when some people came to this mysterious land. Found it fertile and set up home. As time would pass, the people decided to give their land a name... lets see..WARM climate, fertile fields of crop- AHA!! Lets call it GREENLAND!(translated of course from some Euro lingo)... Dang shame the place got hammered by an ICE AGE and has never yet recovered from that. so there may be a CYCLE in the weather that may yet bring it back. Rubba up a tree, Left of sanity folks, if you make it to age, oh..let'ce, 254. That "might" happen.




RE: Old post for a great news report...
By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 5:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
hate to correct you but...

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

quote:
"The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%."


Water vapor is still a significant portion, but not the 90% you claim.


RE: Old post for a great news report...
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 10:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Please use something other than wikipedia for real information. At least RealClimate is run and commented on by actual scientists:

"The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%."

You had it partially right, but of course clouds are made up of water vapor...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...


By onelittleindian on 2/27/2008 11:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
Realclimate is a propaganda site run by fanatical GW loons, who ban anyone who dares to disagree with them. That's not science, thats advocacy.


Query for GW true believers
By javapoppa on 3/1/2008 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just a few simple questions for those who believe that anthropogenic global warming is the real deal. CO2 appears in our atmosphere in a concentration of 380 parts per million by volume which is .038%. Of this amount only a tiny fraction is caused by our emissions. Given this:
1. What is the mechanism by which this gas, in this concentration, drives the climate of our planet?
2. What is the ideal concentration of atmospheric CO2 that would give us the perfect climate? (And, what constitutes a perfect climate?)
3. How do we achieve this ideal and maintain it on a permanent basis?




By bmdowney on 3/1/2008 1:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
isn't it some odd 1-3 percent of that is ours?


RE: Query for GW true believers
By jbartabas on 3/1/2008 4:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
First, get your facts right.

quote:
Of this amount only a tiny fraction is caused by our emissions.


Considering that CO2 has been fluctuating during the last 500,000+ years between 180 and 300 ppm, I am not sure how you can derive such a conclusion. In addition, NOAA states:

quote:
human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

1. You may want to look at that:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
2. You're right in what you state implicitly: there is no 'ideal' concentration and no 'perfect' climate. I am not sure anybody a little bit serious has defended such a position, or a serious clarification of the definition of 'ideal' and 'perfect' should be provided. On the other hand, there are definitely bad concentrations, but we're far from them. However, there is definitely a climate (weather patterns, water resources, sea level) under which most major infrastructures of current civilization have developed (major ports, major cities, location and types of crops ...). Reshuffling these patterns is likely to cost a lot in an adaptation process (whether it's money or lives for some).
3. There is no ideal to reach, but an impact to minimize.


By javapoppa on 3/2/2008 2:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
We could exchange citations with regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their cause over past 500,000 years all day long but unless and until you answer my first question the discussion is moot. I want to know what is the mechanism whereby changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to drastic changes in our climate. In addition, just stating that some concentrations are bad without somehow quantifying your argument is deliciously vague but not too helpful to the discussion. If we know that change in CO2 concentration causes climate change there must be some optimum range for this gas that we would find acceptable;if so, how do we attain and maintain this range? It also follows that if there is an upper limit that is acceptable there must also exist a lower limit that would yield adverse results in the other direction. If we do not know any of these things what are we doing banning and/or regulating everything from cow flatulence to incandescent bulbs. We are blindly flailing about looking for solutions when we really don't have enought knowledge to intelligently define the problem. Ready, Fire, Aim.


Environmental hysteria
By Reader11722 on 2/26/2008 5:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Global cooling, Global warming and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Prevent our loss of rights then handle the environment.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp...




RE: Environmental hysteria
By meteor on 2/26/2008 5:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Environmental hysteria
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot one... seizure and redistribution of income through excessive taxation


Al Goire
By lobster on 2/27/2008 9:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
Wonder what he will win next time...Nobel Peace Prize for the biggest idiot in the world??




RE: Al Goire
By lobster on 2/27/2008 9:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
almost as numb as he is when I cannot spell his name right


RE: Al Goire
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping some encounter with a mercury lined compact fluorescent or a polar bear will earn him the Darwin award.


Global what?
By laskos12 on 2/29/2008 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
First of all i would like to apologize in advance for any mistakes i make and ask for your understanding and patience since i am greek and english is not my native language (and most of it comes from the Simpsons and married with children)
Now over here in small greece like everywhere else in the western world we have been bombarded by both views of the matter of handling natural resources and adapting to our planets climate like every other creature throughout all those millions of years life existed on it.
No wait actually that has never happened what has happened is that people who think eating a burger and smoking makes you worse than stalin or hitler and people who think pollution is a lie and that the international communist conspiracy seeks to sap our precious bodily fluids have been screaming and yelling their biased opinions based on
pseudoscience sensationalism or twisting facts and researches or even constructing facts to support them.

There is no conclusive evidence on either side. We may or may not affect the climate. From what i've read and heard and watched its 50-50. But THAT is not important. What is important is that climate is not or has ever been normal like so many other have said before. That is a fact. which means that the climate will change whether we affect it or not. Which in turn means that trying to "fix" it will not help in the long term. What must be done is study it with un-biased cold logic and from what i've seen that is not happening.
On one side the tree-hugers value their nature above man as if man and his works are unnatural. Which of course is impossible since man is a natural being bound by the laws of nature even the ones unknown to him like everything else in the universe and so anything he does cannot be unnatural by logic. Only beneficial or damaging to him and things around him. Humans live in nature and off it not outside of it and for it.
The conservatives on the other hand, people who think that the right to health care is dependent on how much money you make so people with 1000000 $ a year is only fair to receive better health care than people with 25000$ a year and that compassion and humanity equals the rise of stalin and pol-pot think that no matter what we do has no effect what so ever and that conservation, research in non-finite power sources and feeling sick to your stomach when right wing redneck pigs like the you know who go hunting wingless birds for fun is gay.
Both sides stop us from doing what is really essential for our survival
Adapt our selves and our economies through technology to a world where the fact that everything constantly changes (ARISTOTLE) so we must follow OR PERISH becomes dogma
Global warming or cooling, naturally occurring ice ages and temperature variations that threaten our way of life have been around since the beginning of the earth long before man. None of that should have anything to do with i.e. reducing pollution. We should reduce pollution because it degrades our quality of life. We should move away from finite power sources to renewables because finite powers sources well THEY RUN OUT! counties SHOULD PROTECT THEIR ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THEIR CITIZENS LIVE IN IT NOT BECAUSE AL GORE OR A VERY VERY SAD PANDA COME TO GREECE TO BATHE US IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM! They should move away from oil because nobody in their right mind wants to be Dependant of people like putin or shavez for their daily survival.
Greece is a good example of that. We produce electricity from domestic coal and import oil ready made electricity and natural gas to sustain our needs. Now if greece exploits its alternative resources (according to greek state university studies we can produce almost 40% of our
needs from alternates) it so happens that greece will be able to produce ALL the power we need from DOMESTIC SOURCES instead of being constantly blackmailed but the Russians or the dogs that regulate oil prices or Iran and OPEK or whoever. Yes we will still import oil for other uses but as a greek i say that it is better to reduce foreign dependency anyway we can even if the price is high and the power bill doubles. I am certain that oil will go at 150 and eventually 200$ and i refuse to submit to such extortion when there is a way to reduce its effects and if we have to bite the bullet of higher billing so be it.
I think Americans should see things the same way and stop being so extremist in their views.
Many of the posts i've read here come from people who apparently belong in the category of people with a brain in their head instead of compost or nuclear waste like tree-huggers and neo-cons but unfortunately opinions like that are never given the credit they deserve from both liberal and conservative media not just in the US but here in Greece as well. Shame




RE: Global what?
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
I like you Laskos, even though there was a little translation barrier, u make sense. Yes more attention needs to be given to people who can keep a cool head in trying times (good quality for a leader) than to those who begin to wring necks at the very mention of other possible factors (good quality for a fanatic).

I wish i knew more on the subject of "green" energy sources, but unfortunately, i don't to my limited understanding i have heard that they are not yet currently competitive with other forms of energy (which makes sense) and are therefore more expensive. Could someone please give me more information on this topic?

Also if my understanding of overpricing is correct, why are we trying to pass legislature that would require the implication of these sources in developing nations, in turn limiting their possible electrical resources even more?

(again, if my understanding is correct, if not, please inform me)Should we be able to push these forms of more expensive (and at the moment less) forms of energy to some of the poorest nations in the world, onto a people who were not as fortunate as we (i am speaking as an American and from America which is what i mean by "we") and for a large part live in highly undeveloped and uneducated regions?


RE: Global what?
By masher2 on 2/29/2008 3:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with using "climate change" as a proxy to push "oil independence" is the two issues so often conflict. Most GHG emissions are *not* due to oil (the entire transportation sector accounts for only some 17% of total emissions, according to the UN). For the US, utilizing more domestic natural gas would reduce oil imports, but raise emissions. Which is the proper course to take?

Weaning excessive dependency on foreign oil is an excellent idea for any nation. But attacking that problem directly is much more fruitful than plans such as trading carbon credits.


Graph seems to show increase in temps
By Andy35W on 2/29/2008 2:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Taking away the top temp gradient from 1998 and the lowest temp gradient from 2007 the general trend seems to be going upwards.

Which fits in nicely with global warming figures for this time period.

What are you trying to show here, that there is some fluctuation year on year ? I agree, but it's not relevant. Only the trend is relevant.That seems to be going upwards.

Meanwhile

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7261171.stm

Volcano or warm ocean? Whatever, it will raise sea levels it seems and so will show us some effects of what global sea level increases can do to human life. Nice bit of journalism that, did not go one way or another on trying to put a spin on what is causing it.




By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
good lord, just when i was losing hope, there comes an article which is, surprisingly unbiased! it is an excellent article that explains DIFFERENT hypothesis for the cause of the glacial decomposition. and surprise, the scientists working on it understand that there is more than on driving force working there, so much for the arm-chair politician waving his little arms screaming that it is only one thing and one thing only.... mmmmhhhhh, i feel better now that a logical standing point has been established in the media :)

it does present more creditable suggestions that if the glacier keeps moving into the sea, then there would be a relatively ~(I'm using this term only because the time frame quote from the scientists in the article is "decades or a century" and decades, say just two is a relatively short period, though it is longer than the length of my life thus far, which seemed like forever haha)~ quick increase in global sea levels by 25 cm, there is doubt would cause damage to coastal cities and estuaries ecosystems. However, this has happened to the world before, and plants and animals have sprung back from such events. Does anyone have information pertaining to the periods of earlier glacial melting, and how it may have affected civilizations in the past?

and if i'm wrong on anything in this please let me know :)


By sld on 3/8/2008 12:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, there is indeed a warming trend from 1998 to 2007.

However, this trend has nothing to do with CO2 levels and is postulated (by truly scientific people) to be closely mirroring the solar activity cycle.

Hence the current global warming hysteria is a sham.


By katieb on 2/26/2008 3:58:42 PM , Rating: 5
I'd be happy to sell anyone who feels guilty about contributing nasty emissions from their cars, bodies, pets, whatever, some Carbon Credits. I have some beautiful vacant land in Tennessee, and I am willing to part with some of the clean air it produces, to counter your nasty output. This will work in both warming and cooling trends, so you're covered either way!! It can't get any better than that.. and if you decide to upgrade to a large SUV, your sins can be absolved by just sending me more money so I can designate more of my neutralizing air to compensate...Cash only please!!




Climate Change
By bmedley on 2/26/2008 4:23:37 PM , Rating: 1
Its time we put all these climate change deniers behind bars, just like they used to put all those flat earth deniers behind bars.




RE: Climate Change
By NikFromNYC on 2/27/2008 2:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a little late to the party, so I have not read the last few dozen comments, but did read the first hundred....

"Could you please explain why you believe there is global cooling?"

The phrase "*global* cooling" is a straw man as is "Global Warming Denier", since the "global" part of it is junk science statistics or just wishful thinking by some scientist lucky enough to find a tiny spot on the glue planet called Gaia (originally coined as being a self-REGULATING organism with Mankind becoming it's evolved brain).

The South Pole is getting colder. So is Greenland. Same with all rural parts of Austalia. In all of those places, temperature is going DOWN. I'm sorry, but arctic circle warming is not "global" warming, and trying to use cute but rather evil white bears as your symbol of anti-capitalist justice is just rude, given that it's open hunting season on Polar Bears, since 13 of 14 regional populations of them are INCREASING, and they follow their noses to the arctic equivalent of Suburbia, and they eat children.

Temperature charts:
South Pole: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif
Greenland: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/egdesmnd.gif
Australia: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/wilsons.gif

Dude, they are all COOLING.

Let's look at the North Pole then:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/franz-js.gif

It *was* going up from the 60's to the 80's and now it's going DOWN.

Now look at every temperature station next to the pinheaded university towns, where local heat island effects dominate. I'll pick one, from memory. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. From my bith in the 60s to now, it has gone from a tiny town to a big place, and where once was empty farmland, they installed temperature stations, but then due to CAR CULTURE, turned most of the empty areas, first into dirt (unpaved) parking lots for students, then black-topped the lots. I swear on my mother's grave that I have never seen this chart before, and hope it exists.

Ugh, can't find it. Google search....

Blast. No results. Uh...USA, some through for me here...

O.K. Boulder, Colorado is another college town which definitely grew up in our century from nothing to a college town with some tourism due to skiiing etc.

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/boulder.gif

Uh oh. Going DOWN since 1930.

Must I go on?

Australia!!! Massive drought there, blamed on "man-made global warming" so a Gore-like president just wont election and signed up for Kyoto. Oh, I already posted that graph, above.

Tell me Global Warmists, *where* else do I look? Siberia? O.K.!!!

Siberia it is....

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/ajan.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/olenek.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/korf.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/vize.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/siberia.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/salehard.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/sejmchan.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/turuhans.gif (actually shows some warming, until 1940, then cooling)

What about Alaska?

I only looked for the one that went back far enough, this time to 1909:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/yakutat.gif

The f*cking temperature is going D-O-W-N, not only in Yakutat, Alaksa, but everywhere I look.

Wait, I found one. It's also in Alaska. It goes UP, alas only till 1977, so for the 20 more years in the graph is starts to FALL like crazy:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/nome.gif

I want to believe. But the graphs wont let me. Curse me for "cherry picking" data, but the tree is bear.

The majority of temperature stations that show increases seem to be due to local urbanization "heat island" effects, stone-throw's difference between Central Park and up-the-Hudson at West Point since the 1800s:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/WestPoint-NY.gif

***

"People with heart disease and asthma are profoundly affected by all kinds of particulate in the atmosphere."

Utterly agreed. Now ask what is the effect of the Global Warming scare on helping to fix that bad situation? It makes people hate Environmentalism in general, so real issue like this, in which there is *no* "debate" as *not* addressed. And instead of real endangered species, we get what? Polar Bears!!! I cannot believe we are living through a new Dark Ages, in which science is lead by the nose by a new church of Gaia.


RE: Climate Change
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 8:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
According to some guy who posts graphs.

What about govn agencies...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monit...

How about wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

How about IPCC (link to the actual report at the bottom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessmen...

You seem to be a little out of the loop...


Global Cooling
By rreiher on 2/26/2008 10:26:40 PM , Rating: 3
Does this mean Al Gore has to give back his Nobel Prize???




RE: Global Cooling
By Tacoloft on 2/27/2008 11:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore getting the Nobel is like Jethro Tull getting the "Heavy Metal" Grammy over Metallica's "Justice for All" album. (Best album in their catalog IMO)
Tull plays a flute for hells sakes! You know it isn’t right.. it just goes to show that the Nobel committee is just as out of touch as Hollywood.

“Eye of the Beholder” from Justice for All is en excellent song that highlights our current state of affairs well:

Do You See What I See?
Truth Is an Offense
You Silence for Your Confidence
Do You Hear What I Hear?
Doors Are Slamming Shut
Limit Your Imagination, Keep You Where They must
Do You Feel What I Feel?
Bittering Distress
Who Decides What You Express
Do You Take What I Take?
Endurance Is the Word
Moving Back Instead of Forward Seems to Me Absurd

Doesn't Matter What You See
Or into it What You Read
You Can Do it Your Own Way
If It's Done Just How I Say

Independence Limited
Freedom of Choice
Choice Is Made for You My Friend
Freedom of Speech
Speech Is Words That They Will Bend
Freedom with Their Exception

Do You Fear What I Fear?
Living Properly
Truths to You Are Lies to Me
Do You Choose What I Choose?
More Alternatives
Energy Derives from Both the plus and Negative
Do You Need What I Need?
Boundaries Overthrown
Look Inside to Each His Own
Do You Trust What I Trust?
Me, Myself and I
Penetrate the Smoke Screen I See Through the Selfish Lie

Doesn't Matter What You See
Or into it What You Read
You Can Do it Your Own Way
If It's Done Just How I Say

Independence Limited
Freedom of Choice
Choice Is Made for You My Friend
Freedom of Speech
Speech Is Words That They Will Bend
Freedom with Their Exception

Do You Know What I Know?
Your Money And Your Wealth
Your Silence Just to Hear Your Self
Do You Want What I Want?
Desire Not a Thing
I Hunger after Independence Lengthen Freedom's Ring

Doesn't Matter What You See
Or into it What You Read
You Can Do it Your Own Way
If It's Done Just How I Say

Independence Limited
Freedom of Choice
Choice Is Made for You My Friend
Freedom of Speech
Speech Is Words That They Will Bend
Freedom no longer frees you

Doesn't Matter What You See
Or into it What You Read
You Can Do it Your Own Way
If It's Done Just How I Say


Self Regulation.
By Lastfreethinker on 2/26/2008 2:56:48 PM , Rating: 1
The Earth is a self regulating system. If temperature increases more ice melts, meaning more water into the system. Which in turns is evaporated and creates more clouds. More clouds means less sun and more rain.

Also please note that one of the major points people made about global warming was not that it was increasing the temperature of the earth, but the fact that all the CO2 we are putting into the air is being absorbed by the biggest carbon sink we have, the ocean. The levels of carbon in the ocean are so extreme right now that is already affecting the feeder species (lowest part of the food chain) Also please do not forget the amount of damage we are already doing by hunting further down the food chain, as we kill of predator fish.




RE: Self Regulation.
By porkpie on 2/26/2008 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The levels of carbon in the ocean are so extreme right now that is already affecting the feeder species
So how did all those fish survive back when CO2 levels were ten times higher than they are now? This scare-mongering sounds kind of "fishy" if you ask me.


The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Beavereater on 2/26/2008 3:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore, did all of the mastodon bar-b-que's melt of that thing called the ice age? What a dork.




By nbachman on 2/26/2008 6:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
He was being super serial. Excelsior!


typo
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 4:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
End of third paragraph:
quote:
For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded [...]


every => ever?




RE: typo
By KristopherKubicki on 2/26/2008 4:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed. Thanks.


RE: Global warming or climate change
By fangoski on 2/26/2008 4:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
I recently dumped my Lincoln Navigator for a Smart car.
Maybe there is some truth to this co2 stuff that Gore
keeps talking about. Don't blame me if the world gets
too cold.




By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
There is some truth to it....

But hey, even if you don't care about all that environmental stuff, it isn't costing you $100 to fill up your car...


Do we need to turn on the heat?
By trahtz on 2/26/2008 6:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
We need Al Gore!!

Now Al can tell us how to warm up the earth.

If man can overcome nature to cool the planet, can't we overcome nature? Maybe Al can tell us how to give the planet "A fever" and warm it up to counter the effects of the sun?

We also need more bio diverse fuels as they produce more green house gases than gasoline.

Maybe we should drill in Alsaka and off the coast before they freeze. We need to burn more hyro carbons and off set the sun's cooling.

I'm buying property in Mexico to avoid the coming ice fields in California.




By Blue Raider on 2/27/2008 12:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore is a dork.


Urgency
By eagle35 on 2/26/2008 8:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
The global warming crowd is preaching urgency so they can say they saved the planet from destruction. They keep saying we must act "immediately" so we don't all die. This way they can justify their existence and state they saved the planet. They are failing with the man made global warming hype and the truth is coming to fast for them to sound credible.




RE: Urgency
By just4U on 2/29/2008 1:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
So what your saying, is this could be a inconvienent truth for them?

:D


Thank you Al Gore!
By KenThomas03 on 2/26/2008 8:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it great, Al Gore came along in time to save us from global warming. And to think, he was already to throw in the towel. He said it was too late to do anything about it but, obviously his efforts worked. He will certainly go down in history with the likes of Edison. He created the internet and saved the world. What a real hero he truly is. I guess now that the world is cooling off we can go back to driving 8-mile per gallon gas hogs. I am hoping to get a club cab with a hemi. Thanks Al!




RE: Thank you Al Gore!
By rugsucker on 2/26/2008 9:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
oh trap its getting colder. cold winters cold summers (no more bikinis) we got to do something quick. we need to change the to heat lamps


"MANHATTAN TYPE PROJECT" MIGHT BE MORE ACCURATE
By sanjosemike on 2/27/2008 1:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
A fully funded "Manhattan type" project might be able to predict if the Industrial Revolution created global warming, or if in fact it is even happening. In the mean time, the complexity of weather patterns HAS been amenable to "political" whims.

While countries like Germany spend billions to eliminate fossil fuels, any "result" they have could NEVER have an impact of global warming, even if it was caused by the Industrial Revolution.

There may be many excellent reasons to decrease the use of fossil fuels, including the "possibility" that this might reduce global warming...if it was caused by the Industrial Revolution. However, that is by no means certain...on either part of the equation.

The truth is that planet Earth has undergone millions of climate changes, some caused by vulcanic actitivity, space debris, changes in the polarity of the Earth itself, and of course changes in the Sun's level of energy production.

My point: before we spend hundreds of billions, cause 3rd World populations to starve, dislocate entire economies, etc. we need to know more. And we need to know if any of our paltry "resolution" policies will make any statistical difference before we charge ahead.

The earth is infinitely more complex than we are willing to admit.

sanjosemike




By TyreTiger on 2/27/2008 2:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
It is obvious to me that global warming is a direct result of global cooling and as we approach 6 1/2 billion on this earth we need to stop all the flatulence of humans and the cattle and others we feed on. Oil at $100 plus a barrel is more of a concern to me than all the flatulence here. Time to get the well drillers going up there in Alaska and off the California coast and Florida coast and leave the Saudis and other such with nothing to sell.


The Data are out there!
By Funksterz on 2/27/2008 7:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, after reading the umpteen posts on this, I felt I had to weigh in. I've got some background in this, several months of research back in school, before anyone flames me. Rationally, I think most people can agree that Global Warming/Cimate change is a complex issue. There really is no right and wrong, the warmers being all right or the coolers being all right. From my research of the IPCC site (scoff at their nobel prize all you want) and the the GISS site http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ it appears that this new data is simply a variation. We may simply be in a "trough" of the variation, lets look at next year before we make any sweeping conclusions.

My main beef with many who say their opinions are the end all be all is that this issue is way too complex for anyone to say "oh well this is all politically motivated bs". When we look at the warming side of the matter, CO2, methane, and a handful of other gases are known "climate forcing" agents, wiki it. They trap sunlight. Heat the earth. However water vapor is the main "greenhouse gas" More of it in the air, the more heat earth can absorb. Ahh, but the catch is that water vapor also contributes to cloud formation, which reflects sunlight and thus "forces" a global cooling effect, ref: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ab... from the american meteorological society. Another link summarizing http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCateg...
I also have to agree that the suns radiative output reaching earth has to do alot with our temps, however is jury is still how the sun works, so scientists need more time. One last thing I want to mention is about the oceans, outgassing of CO2 and methane hydrates, you know the nifty ice like substance thats supposed to replace oil?, well outgassing of that is bad and that happens when the oceans warm, which they have been, and all this WILL cause + temp climate forcing, no doubt. Can cloud cover counteract that force? We, meaning scientists, concerned citizens, will not know until computer models get better. Finally, this is not liberal hippy junk, read it all, read the links, the data. My opinion does not color what I just wrote, its the facts. Point of fact, dumping tons upon tons of carbon into the atmosphere HAS an effect, fact, and clear cutting forests, natural carbon sinks, also HAS an effect, now will someone venture to guess what those effects are?




RE: The Data are out there!
By NikFromNYC on 2/27/2008 4:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
"clear cutting forests, natural carbon sinks, also HAS an effect, now will someone venture to guess what those effects are?"

Carbon sequestration? Where does the wood go, now that we no longer burn it for fuel? It goes into furniture, houses, recyclable paper and cardboard. Little of it is landfilled, and the high quality furniture even from Ikea (compared to their original crappy designs) is hardly ever thrown away. At best it's sold at a garage sale or handed out to children when the parents grow rich enough to buy a step-up in quality.

Then new trees are planted, very fast growing breeds, which are again clearcut, and tons and tons of carbon dioxide are removed from the air.

Your comments are great, one of the few that are balanced, but it also says science needs more time (and money) all the while politicians and lobby groups are SCREAMING WITH PANIC to force upon us the largest economic shut down in history besides the fall of the Roman Empire. And as their scientific "consensus" is being debunked as we speak, they are becoming more and more shrill and, well crazy, developing blindspots as they are blindsided by real science and are causing a massive backlash not only against climate science, but against all of it, now beginning to include the equally politicized from pseudo-science of nutrition research and the old or new "fool pyramid" which by odd coincidence exactly coincided with a massive obesity epidemic in modern societies.

At least nutrition myths like "fat makes you fat" do not amount to an end-of-the-world doomsday religion. Note that literal biblical Creationism is *still* a major force in the USA, all because Genesis got a few details dead wrong.


"Normal" earth temperature
By DougBaran on 2/27/2008 5:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
I read most of the posts and was surprised that no one was discussing the "normal" earth temperatures standard deviation. Any time an average of values is calculated, there is a standard deviation that goes with it. What is the standard deviation for the earths "normal" temperature and where does the latest data stand in regards to it?




RE: "Normal" earth temperature
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 6:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
As computed from the monthly average data of GISS, it should be 0.14oC. Although they use a different reference period than other centers.


chart that explains it
By bonerici on 2/27/2008 6:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
RE: chart that explains it
By bonerici on 2/28/2008 10:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
here's the link, i guess this forum doesn't let you post direct images

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Clim...


People argue over definitions of words
By reverend rat on 2/28/2008 4:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
The entire atmosphere is undergoing a chemical reaction. New, unpredictable weather patterns are emerging. Ice storms over a third of China, wind storms shutting down Tokyo and Paris. People flash-frozen into their cars in Colombia. The Arctic, Antarctic, a majority of the world's glaciers melting at an ever-increasing pace. Millions displaced from unparalleled flooding. The first known typhoon-to-hurricane hemisphere cross. The San Diego fires, the Greece fires.

Cooling? Warming? It's changing - and faster than we can measure or react to.




By Realist62 on 3/3/2008 11:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
Its amazing how many americans are so devoid of reason/logic or even common sense. Maybe they should take a class in statitics so they can see they can sort and recognize data that has real significance. Wether it's anyalzing stocks, bonds or global economic trends, the lines on the graphs are to be taken very seriously. However there are still some people out there (mostly the non college grads)that don't beleive that we are indeed headed for a period of great cooling. These warming/cooling patterns have been repeated themselves many times in the past. I believe it will not be more than 5 years before we shall see Europe being plunged into a Siberian like winters, our own american cities being almost frozen by polar like weather. Tempertures of 10 to 20 degreees below zero during the winter months will be the norm in many cities in the northern tier of the United States.If the current trend continues uninterrupted we will
enter a glaciation period very soon.


a little dirt don't hurt, or does it?
By pauluskc on 2/28/2008 2:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if these 900 million tons of sediment have anything to do with raising sea levels? It sure seems like a lot of dirt....

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/tei...




By KristopherKubicki on 2/29/2008 10:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
Not even a drop in the bucket.


cause and effect
By walrus123 on 2/29/2008 8:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
Let us all remember that we are talking about two mechanism here.

One is the source of energy impacting the global temperature - solar activity, orbit tilt and wobble, and a number of other external variables.

The other is the response of our atmosphere to this energy. This is impacted by greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and a host of others that are generally both natural and anthropogenic, although some of the bad ones are only anthropogenic), particulate, aerosols, etc.

Just because solar engeergy causes a decrease in temperature does not invalidate the impact of greenhouse gases.

The entire process is amazingly complex which is why the various models are needed to study the process.




RE: cause and effect
By bmdowney on 3/1/2008 1:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, one force acting on our weather, does not rule out the other

However, i would like to make a comment that there are definitely more that just 2 mechanisms here, you are out ruling:

1.) The El Niño and La Niña effects
2.) Wind patterns (which have an affect on clouds, their position and location, which have an affect on temp)
3.) gravitational force of other planets in this solar system, which do have an affect on the orbit and tilt of Earth
4.) ocean current (which moves waters of different temperatures around)
5.) other geological forces which all have a profound affect on our planet (ex. plate tectonics, geothermal activities like volcanoes eruptions or the flowing liquid rock not too far beneath our feet)

All of these have the potential to cause variations in temp. The only thing we really have to do is look into these forces and how they all influence weather and each other.


Big Al Gore
By Ldavid on 2/29/2008 9:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
I am tired of the alarmists who are nothing more than greedy little( in Al's case not so little) entrepreneurs. Mr. Gore got his Oscar, his money from "green corporations", and flew away in his carbon belching private jet. I have not heard much from him since the predictions he and his cronies made about this winter could not have been more wrong.
I don't think this article proves anything either. The temperature has been fluctuating on this planet for billions of years and Al Gore is going to tell me, he knows why. His carbon footprint is larger in one day than most of ours is in a lifetime.

If this article is correct maybe we should keep plastic bags, mow down the rain forest, drill for oil in all protected places, switch back to leaded gas, stop smog checks, run your air at home all day long, let Mexico and China keep doing what their doing, put back incandescent bulbs in your house and roast Big Al over an open pit with an apple in his mouth. We gotta warm this place up before we all Freeze!!!!

Maybe.. Just Maybe,the Freeking Sun has a small part in our temperature fluctuations.

Al Gores # 1 fan




RE: Big Al Gore
By bmdowney on 3/1/2008 2:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
See, that's what I never got about Al Gore. He can give 100 lectures in 10 different cities about reducing emissions and scare people with false projections of what the world will be like in 20 years if we don't, yet all the while he is going from city to city, not in an environmentally sound hybrid car, but in a private jet, and like Ldavid said, leaving behind a larger carbon footprint that any average American does in their entire life.

I really have to hand it to the man though. He single handedly created an entire "cult," if you will, in the time span of about a year and despite the fact that he has since been proven wrong , ignorant, and a hypocrite, still has a huge group of followers that all but worship him.

Just to put things into perspective of how this man views himself, or just how he has taught these people to think (again gotta give him some credit; he knows how to shill some serious BS). I found his support website, which gives you every bit of information on his life history, everything he has ever done, and why he should be crowned king (exaggeration). Also on this site is a contact page which asked that when mailing a letter to Al Gore, one must address it "Honorable Al Gore." Good Lord!


added greenhouse gasses and their effect
By keelhauler on 3/3/2008 10:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
lots of dire warnings and the sky is falling-
Just do the math- the earth experiences 15 pounds of atmosphere on every square inch of its surface. Its diameter is prox 8000 miles. the formula for the surface of a sphere is 4 times pi (3.1416) times r squared (1/2 of 8000= 4000) and comes to 2201062400 square miles, times 27878400 (5280 squared) comes to 5605298012160000 square feet, times 144 (square inches per sq foot) and comes to 807162913751040000 square inches, times 15 (pounds per square inch), that comes to 12107443706265600000 pounds of atmosphere (air) weiging down on the surface of the planet. The global out put of greenhouse gasses is 25000000000 metric tons times 2205 pounds per ton=55125000000000 pounds.
round both numbers and we get:
Air= 12000000000000000000
greenhouse =55000000000000
remove an equal number of zeros from each and we get
120000000 divided by 55 = 2181818.1818, or 1 part per 2.18 million.
That is prox .48 ppm (LESS THAN 2 parts per million per year) that we (ALL of mankind's industry) added (in 2000). This guy is hollaring about 383 parts per million of greenhouse gasses now in the air- we are causing less than one half ppm (part per million).

http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalg...

here is an exerpt (from the link below the excerpt):

The new data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also suggest that the rate of increase of the gas may have accelerated in the last two years. Carbon dioxide emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are thought to be a principle cause of global warming.

Recordings from a volcano-top observatory, NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawaii, showed carbon dioxide levels had risen to an average of about 376 parts per million (ppm) for 2003.
When the US team started recording atmospheric carbon dioxide in the late 1950s, levels were around 315 ppm and have risen ever since.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4802

in 1950 we were emitting 1/5 of what we are today. If we add one quarter ppm (we added much less)over the last 50 years average, then we added 12.5 ppm (much more than we have added and not counting the normal gas recycling of the planets ecosystem)in the last 50 years.

Since the forests have been depleted, the normal recycling amount has decreased, and the difference between 1950 and 2000 is 61 ppm (376-315), then deforesatation or normal fluctuation has to account for much more than 48.5 ppm (61ppm-12.5ppm).

Al Gore was sitting next to a medical doctor in an upscale D.C. bar, and he was telling the doc about his findings. How the human race is responsible for all the increase in greenhouse gas. The doc sez, in reply, "you could use an upper colonic". Gore sez "you think I am in poor health doc?" the doc replies "no, you are full of s**t".




By wildlifer on 3/3/2008 11:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
They are not Gore's findings, but he is an easy boogie man for the reality-challenged to attack.


All the Facts..
By temetnoche on 3/3/2008 6:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
I figured I would step in with a new thread. My atempt is not to defend nor take 'sides' on this issue. I agree with the Facts that yes, pollution is bad. Yes CO2 is one of the causes of 'climate change' or what ever they are calling it at this point. Yes the 'powers that be' make comercial use of it, sell their religion, policts, or products based on the fear it drives.

Fact is that it is obvious (personally talking to those who grow crops from around the world) not just the media hype. That 'Things are happening'. Truth is we (or most of us) have no idea really what is going on. We blame 'natural, super-natural, consuming, destroying forests, etc) Yes I am sure maybe all these are true.

But what bothers me is that 1st. We as a developed country, and those that are racing to be like us, are like rats. Comsume, polute, and do more damage because "we have a right to" and pass off the personal responsibility leaving it up to the 'others' to fix it so we can drive our SUV to pick up our latte. (figure of speach folks). Then we poke in the dark at what what we know little about. Yes we have ice cores, some fossel records that show some things. But yet the media never seems to release 'other' data because it does not serve thier purpose. Case in point (we have to blame CO2 if we want to Tax it). I believe we should all be green, but do not believe it will help what is happening. Like putting a sumppump next the levy in the south. But will can still be better humans.

Holding back information from the public is also to blame as is dis-information. Such as was anyone aware that not only is our atmosphere changing, so are the 'other' planets within our solar system? Interesting eh? This is verified by NASA from what I had read on thier website. Something about atmospheric density and at least one other..forgive my details (you can go look foryourself), has changes it's pole. We are creatures that get too comfortable and fat, my friends...time is a changing and it should be interesting. As much as we think we can 'fix' everything, we are still at the mercy of the ever changing enviorment and idiots if we think we can change it without causing other problems..we still have alot to learn. Do your research, and do not follow the main stream media as law..(remember it's purpose is to draw you attention, to sell ad space...but that is a topic for somewhere else).




RE: All the Facts..
By Golferdude7238 on 3/7/2008 11:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
The year without a summer.....

The year 1816 was famous as "the year without a summer." That year started out, in Stanley as well as other regions of the south, so mild for the months of January and February that many folks let their fires go out and burned wood only for cooking; however, March was very cold and windy. Showers started the Month of April but ended with snow and ice. In May the temperature was like that of winter. The young buds that began forming in April were stiff and frozen. Ice, one half inch thick formed on ponds and rivers in North and South Carolina. Corn was killed and after being planted again and again nothing was reaped from the cornfields. June was cold, the coldest month ever experienced in this latitude. Almost all green things as well as fruits were killed. There was ice, frost, and some snow flurries in July. August proved to be the worst month of all not only here but even in Europe. September started out with two weeks of pleasant weather and the rest of the month was cold. October and November were extremely cold and then December was mild. This extraordinary weather condition in 1816 had been caused by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Temboro in the Dutch East Indies, blowing 50 cubic miles of dust into the air and killing some 66,000 people. The volcanic dust clouded the skies all over the earth causing doom and gloom and the "year without a summer."

What do you think, could humans do this much damage to planet Earth's weather in a lifetime???????

I think not. Volcanoes put more CFC's into the atmosphere every day than all of mankind has already done.

Global Warming ALGORE style is a FARCE


By Tacoloft on 2/26/2008 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah he's a douche...
Yeah I said it.
Follow the money= many companies (GE, governments-federal and local) and People (Gore) stand to benefit ($) from the fear of Global Warming (I mean climate change). There is a big difference between trying not to pollute and attributing global warming to humans as the culprit. If you watched Al's little show but you haven't watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" then I highly - highly recommend you watch it for perspective.
People preying on the fears of others for gain- attributing the cause of global warming on humans and to ask them to pay up (carbon footprints) is the same as a religion asking you to pay money to have your sins forgiven. It is the great global warming religion preaching fear to the masses and Al Gore is their Prophet (profit)...plain and simple.




Scandinavian?????
By sst1000 on 2/26/2008 2:41:27 PM , Rating: 3
A Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) tree-ring width chronology from Jämtland, in the central Scandinavian Mountains, built from living and sub-fossil wood, covering the period 1632 BC to AD 2002, with a minor gap during AD 887–907, is presented. This is the first multi-millennial tree-ring chronology from the central parts of Fennoscandia. Pine growth in this tree line environment is mainly limited by summer temperatures, and hence the record can be viewed as a temperature proxy. Using the regional curve standardization (RCS) technique, pine-growth variability on short and long time scales was retained and subsequently summer (June–August) temperatures were reconstructed yielding information on temperature variability during the last 3600 years. Several periods with anomalously warm or cold summers were found: 450–550 BC (warm), AD 300–400 (cold), AD 900–1000 (the Medieval Warm Period, warm) and AD 1550–1900 (Little Ice Age, cold). The coldest period was encountered in the fourth century AD and the warmest period 450 to 550 BC. However, the magnitude of these anomalies is uncertain since the replication of trees in the Jämtland record is low during those periods. The twentieth century warming does not stand out as an anomalous feature in the last 3600 years. Two multi-millennial tree-ring chronologies from Swedish and Finnish Lapland, which have previously been used as summer temperature proxies, agree well with the Jämtland record, indicating that the latter is a good proxy of local, but also regional, summer temperature variability.
This article is cited by:




Anyone seen Al lately?
By Dntbelvhype on 2/26/2008 4:27:08 PM , Rating: 3
Climate change IS hedge-betting. Whatever happens, see we told you so. Well isn't that convenient?

Greenies were breathless in 2005 when hurricanes were evidence of warming; where are they now? Isn't snowfall and cold and ice evidence of the opposite? What do you mean one year doesn't make a trend? It did when it served their argument.

Reminds me of an oldie but a goodie: Haven't heard much about the Ozone Hole lately... is there still a hole or has it been filled in? Doesn't anybody in the media remember that?




0.37 DEGREES
By halfabrain on 2/26/2008 6:51:07 PM , Rating: 3
Can anyone physically feel a temperature change of 0.37 degrees?

No?

Then please stop with the anecdotal local weather stories. I don't care if there's been a heat wave or a particularly snowy winter this year near you. Its not a sign of a 0.37 degree global change. Its a sign of weather.

Has anyone ever heard anyone say "Hmm, the weather this year has been unusually normal"

Local newscasters are the worst offenders.

If there were global cooling of a similar scale, it would be similarly imperceptable. Lets not start blaming snow storms on global cooling now.




We need CO2, don't we?
By glenj on 2/26/2008 7:02:13 PM , Rating: 1
Excuse me, but I thought our earth's population was increasing. We need plants to feed this population, and plants need CO2 to live. The more plants there are, the more O2 for us is produced, right?

We should be in the middle of a little ice age about the year 2024-2025. The major reason is that the increased salinity from the Mediterranean (and Black and Caspian) Sea is changing the major currents in the Atlantic. If we want to do something constructive, we should dam the Strait of Gibraltar to prevent this.

Just my 2cents.




RE: We need CO2, don't we?
By Tacoloft on 2/26/2008 7:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Do you by chance build dams for a living? ...or sell dam building machines? Or make cement or rebar?

While your proposal sounds good and helpful in theory (pending disaster ect...) it is in fact the same strategy being imposed on the world today. Just tweak the argument to say that we need the ozone as it prevents global warming and instead of building a dam for the solution, tell people to buy all eco friendly products instead. Either argument results in money flowing to those that offer the so-called "solution" while we pay through the nose with our money and freedoms.


By indyglenn on 2/26/2008 9:07:43 PM , Rating: 3
In all of the "sky is falling" rhetoric from the AlGores of the world, why is it that we've never heard them tell us what the optimum temperature for the earth is? We've seen periods in history where cooler temperatures resulted in massive losses of life due to crop failures and disease epidemics. So what's the ideal temperature? One degree, two degrees or more COOLER than we have now, or is a more ideal temperature to sustain human life actually WARMER than it is now? These alarmists love to use anecdotal evidence to point to "man-made global warming", but even if that IS the case, is it possible that it could be a GOOD thing? Just some food for thought . . .




Global Cooling
By John K on 2/27/2008 3:29:17 PM , Rating: 3
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI...
500 scientists refute global warming dangers
'Centuries of human history say warm periods are good for people'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom




global warming lie
By nostudme on 2/27/2008 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps the geniuses could unlock the bathroom door and look out the window.




Global Warming?
By run4jc on 2/27/2008 6:49:24 PM , Rating: 3
I think Al Gore should give his Nobel Peace Prize for global warming back...




From the mouths of babes...
By sunfisher76 on 2/27/2008 8:48:15 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting forum; first time I've stopped in. I thought it timely to share the thoughts of my 16 year old son... the young genious has stumbled upon the ultimate solution for AGW. If all of the AGW believers will simply hold their breath for 24 hours the problem will be solved. Have a nice day.




Another fad bites the dust
By professor1942 on 3/3/2008 12:04:08 PM , Rating: 1
Hey Al Gore: the 90's called, and they want their global warming back!




RE: Another fad bites the dust
By jbartabas on 3/3/2008 5:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, that one was funny ;-)


In other news
By Hare on 2/26/2008 2:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Northern Europe has had an unusually warm winter.

There's hardly any snow in Scandinavia and the temperatures are above zero Celcius. That's something that hasn't happened for ages.

Fluctuations are fluctuations. Wake me up when there's a trend...




Re:
By jmgeorgh on 2/26/2008 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
".037 degrees above normal..."

What exactly is the normal temperature of the earth?




By rpavellas on 2/26/2008 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of nomenclature, can man expect to be able to affect, through government-sponsored or -initiated intervention, the direction of the change, and be sure he is doing the right thing? I think not. Beware the effect of unintended consequences.




Global Cooling I am drooling
By arayhans on 2/26/2008 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
I am still amazed how all the brains seem to have died and bowed at the altar of worshiping "global warming" and now "global cooling." Science has shown that climate has fluctuated in the past. Just because some arrogant people try to jam their opinion (that there is "global warming") down our throats does not make it fact. Science is not politics nor should it be in lock step with the news media and the "green" forces trying to convince us that something exists when it might not in fact be happening.

Frankly this article simply reaffirms that the Nobel organization should be noble and ask Al Gore to return the peace prize and apologize to the hundreds of millions on the planet who have endured record cold, snow, floods, and weather conditions that reflect the nearly normal ebb and flow of climate fluctuations.

If the "green" groups were truly scientific they would be in an on-going discussion about the climate and what minimal impact humans have when compared to the sun.

I suspect they will go further with their persistent demands that all bow and kiss their feet (or other body parts) in worship of their brilliance when it comes to "global warming." I am waiting for one of these self-declared geniuses to claim that "global warming" is actually caused by the population increase in the last few decades. Then they will act like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Phot or Mao and begin eliminating the surplus population (the people who oppose their dictatorial mandates or refuse to think like mind numbed robots).

Then again, if you really have a sense of humor, perhaps this latest bout of cooling has happened because we have reduced our emissions too rapidly or perhaps it cooled down because Al Gore vented and had a Gorbasm.

What will be next? One World Government? One World Money? One World Religion? Oops! That was predicted in another book by someone who is accurate and factual concerning the future.




Global Warming?
By BIGFOOT2008 on 2/26/2008 3:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
The polar caps in the planet MARs is melting too. Dude, don't you think it had something to do with the solar flares in our solar system?
Truthfully, you can't based a trend with less than 200 years of data.




An Inconvenient Spoof
By Wake up dude on 2/26/2008 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Now where shall I start on this one...? The point is that jumping on the alarmist bandwagon before your conclusions are substantiated by sound scientific data will kick you in the backside every time.

The argument used to be that carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses were warming the planet...and that if we didn’t cut those emissions (thereby reduce the global temperature), the ice caps would melt yada yada yada enter Al Gore. Since the data is inconsistent with this theory, they have to change what they call the phenomenon and the entire argument so they don’t lose face for being wrong all these years.

Never mind that planet earth has historically undergone Multiple mass extinctions from both ice-ages and naturally occurring global warming events (think T-Rex) long before we humans swam ashore. Consider that we only thrive within a very narrow balance between too close to the Sun and too far away.

Alarmists of the world, kindly refrain from self-aggrandizing your arguments until they are substantiated by scientific facts...Thank you.




global warming
By carpenter45 on 2/26/2008 4:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
I for one have always believed that the sun is the determining factor way over and above anything us humans could possible do. So, for all those global warming nuts think of this. Lets say we cause 10% of any climate change ( I think it's more along the lines of 2 - 3%) and we make a correction of 5%, somehow. How would that cause anything to change? 5% of 10% of a total of 100% leaves not much of any change. If it's 5% of 2 - 3%, then it's even worse.
There's no way man can make enough of a change to matter.




Man Made Global WHAT!!
By AMORECONVENIENTTRUTH on 2/26/2008 5:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
It was bound to happen. Somebody actually measured the temperatures. It goes UP and it goes DOWN. Read all about it at "amoreconvenienttruth.com"
I am going out to buy woolies. Praise ALGOR




global cooling
By DocinMPLS on 2/26/2008 5:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think algore should start opening his big fat mouth and let out some more of that hot air that he is so good at spewing. This should take care of any global cooling so his propaganda and BS will still influence the simpletons who buy into this garbage.




Global warming
By bwilliams27 on 2/26/2008 6:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the debate over the past few years shifted from "we're facing global warming" to "we're facing climate change"?

What debate? I thought that global warming had been decided and that only a delusional denier would dare blaspheme against this Holy Grail.




Global Warming or Climate Change
By Rakkasan1 on 2/26/2008 6:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
To people like Maven trying to play the "Climate Change" game: Yeah, your comment comes across as lame as it sounded when you wrote it. When you construct an argument that takes in all possibilities as proof of your argument, you are no better than "Psychic" frauds like Miss Cleo. I caught on to the game when the History Channel ran their crappy global warming show that essentially said Global Warming might result in severe winters, with the Hudson River freezing over as it did during the "Little Ice Age." Talk about hedging your bets. Stop it, already.




climate change
By the watcher on 2/26/2008 6:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
The climate changes. That's what it does. Always has. Always will.




ummmmmmmmmm
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 9:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.21 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.01 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 65th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/...




Possible feedback causes
By 1DKBrianBoley on 2/26/2008 10:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
As Professor Gold postulated years ago, the feedback system works like this: The ice cover on the Artic melts, which means substantially more atmospheric moisture flows from the Artic to Canada, Siberia, and Greenland. This atmospheric moisture ends up as snow. The snow cover reflects more heat, cooling the atmosphere, and incidentially growing icepacks. This removes water from the ocean. As the ocean level drops, the flow of warm surface water from the remains of the Gulf Stream into the Artic near Spitzbergen diminishes, cooling the Artic Ocean, which leads to a refreezing of the ice, which reduces the snowfall, which in turn raises sea level.

Now, the whole thing may be initiated by outside forces, such as solar radiation or volcanic belching. But this feedback system moderates any changes.

- Brian Boley
oddparts.com




Politics not Science
By JennyB on 2/26/2008 10:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken

Once they begin demonizing sceptics - it's no longer about science. Politics or religion maybe - but not science.




Global Warming
By Venomneal on 2/26/2008 11:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Global Warming started when Toyota hired Al Gore to fly around the world and try and convence people to buy more Toyotas to help reduce the green house emmisions and save energy. Do we really beleive that Al could afford to fly around in a charter jet and make a stupid documentary film using his own money because he was concerned about Global Warming?




gcc is ok by me
By ed34222 on 2/26/2008 11:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Global Climate Change happens.

There has never been anything mankind has done that has had any real impact on it.

Anyway things would be boring if the weather never changed; so, lets all, just go with the flow and enjoy it.

ps: If your one of the folks who signed a petition to ban di-hydrogen-monoxide, also known as H2O or water, the world probably isn't coming to an end any time soon; so, lighten up, and enjoy life - and maybe study a little more or listen better in class, or reread your high school chemistry book.

pps: nothing that exists as less than 300 parts per million in our atmosphere is ever going to be likely to store and release enough heat to impact global temperature by any measurable amount. CO2 least of all - it has the same radiant forcing as oxygen. Oxygen is tens of thousands of times more abundant. Now maybe you will believe us, when we tell you these facts.




Oh noes!
By marsbound2024 on 2/26/2008 11:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
Quick! Burn as many fossil fuels as you can! Save the Earth!

Now how ironic does that sound?




yeah
By etoof on 2/26/2008 11:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
Did you konw Albert Einstein married his cousin? If you have a picture of him hanging in your office as an icon representing your own genius...think thrice,,,




One remaining concern
By ed34222 on 2/26/2008 11:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Countries around the world have passed or about to pass laws that restrict CO2.

Do we really expect that a little thing like facts will get in the way of these new revenue streams?

Folks are already trying to get the EPA to regulate CO2.
Lets hope it becomes a big issue in the US presidential races.




By brutus1964 on 2/27/2008 12:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
"Everything that supposed to be up is down, and everything that is supposed to be down is up" Algore proclaimed this during his ill-fated presidential campaign. These words can be said about his theory of global warming. What was supposed to be up, ie. global temperature is down, way down. There is now evidence that the Earth is going the opposite direction than the vaunted computer models have predicted. This year we have seen record cold all over the globe. China is in a deep freeze, it has snowed in Baghdad, the first time in recorded history. In Iceland and Greenland icecaps that have been receding and have been used as evidence of global warming are reforming. Scientists do not know why this is happening but they suspect it is a decrease in solar activity. They are now acknowledging that the sun plays a much larger roll in earth's climate and trumps anything humankind is doing.




Global Warming????
By deeskid57 on 2/27/2008 3:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
There is a HUGE differnce between pollution of our planet & global warming..It is a PROVEN fact that solar activity determines the climate of our planet...if not...HOW do you explain them ???...If global warming "climate change" is due to HUMANS....HOW do you explain the climate changes on Mars & the other planets in our solar system????




By Paul in Phx on 2/27/2008 3:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
It was mild in Arizona today with high pollen, because my sinuses are killing me. Should we expect the Salt River that is normally dry in the summer to rise and add more dust? Or do you think we may have more dew on our lillies this year?

I for one am ready to start shaking the due if enough of you agree.

Confused and needing direction in Arizona here.




Natural
By jayburd on 2/27/2008 4:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
As a member of the most highly evolved species on earth I rightly claim my place in "nature" and proclaim all that I do as "natural". And my Tahoe.




Clinton did it !
By Blammo on 2/27/2008 6:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's Clintons fault !
It's quite obvious all of the commentors are from one of the falling empyrez.
You can read the ignorance and arrogance in nearly every comment.
Enjoy your demise and try to stay warm.... LOL




Hey bshanna
By markj2008 on 2/27/2008 8:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
"your" means "a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective: Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea. Compare yours." so what you said makes no sense... I think what you meant to say is "you're" which is a pronunciation key... Contraction of you are. Which whould make sense. You must have gone to college... I love it when people in love with the idea of climate change cannot debate the facts and attack the person relaying them.




The REAL answer
By sirraffles on 2/27/2008 8:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Global Warming (er, pardon--Climate Change) has nothing to do with CO2. Instead, all indications point to the active agent being the rise in pornography. Clearly, one must admit that it fits the time frame more closely and accurately than CO2.

Thus sayeth the Raffles.




By AnnihilatorX on 2/27/2008 9:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080220-unpa...

quote:
Incidentally, those who might have hoped that an unexpected drop in solar activity could bail us out were in for some disappointment. Ammann calculated what would have to happen to the total solar irradience (TSI) to counteract the greenhouse gas forcings. Apparently, the TSI normally varies around 1365W/m2 give or take 1.4 W/m2. To bail us out, it would have to drop to 1330 W/m2—something that can pretty much be guaranteed not to happen.




Water vapor
By petra on 2/27/2008 9:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
Is not water vapor the largest greenhouse gas by weight percent? ---It is, by the way, so why are we not trying to prevent it?




One year does not a trend make
By kbum on 2/27/2008 9:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Just think how cold it would have been this year if it weren't for Global Warming. We are not looking at a single year here, we are looking at a trend...sigh. When you plot these over time, the warming trend does continue. Let's wait to see what next year brings. Also, instead of debating whether or not there is Global Warming...lets get rational about its cause: what can be attributed to standard cycles vs. man induced. I would guess both are to blame...just how much of each should be the topic.




The Year Without a Summer
By Golferdude7238 on 2/27/2008 9:44:06 AM , Rating: 2

The year 1816 was famous as "the year without a summer." That year started out, in Stanley as well as other regions of the south, so mild for the months of January and February that many folks let their fires go out and burned wood only for cooking; however, March was very cold and windy. Showers started the Month of April but ended with snow and ice. In May the temperature was like that of winter. The young buds that began forming in April were stiff and frozen. Ice, one half inch thick formed on ponds and rivers in North and South Carolina. Corn was killed and after being planted again and again nothing was reaped from the cornfields. June was cold, the coldest month ever experienced in this latitude. Almost all green things as well as fruits were killed. There was ice, frost, and some snow flurries in July. August proved to be the worst month of all not only here but even in Europe. September started out with two weeks of pleasant weather and the rest of the month was cold. October and November were extremely cold and then December was mild. This extraordinary weather condition in 1816 had been caused by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Temboro in the Dutch East Indies, blowing 50 cubic miles of dust into the air and killing some 66,000 people. The volcanic dust clouded the skies all over the earth causing doom and gloom and the "year without a summer."

What do you think, could humans do this much damage to planet Earth's weather in a lifetime???????

I think not. Volcanoes put more CFC's into the atmosphere every day than all of mankind has already done.

Global Warming ALGORE style is a FARCE




GW
By bigtex1961 on 2/27/2008 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a question - how can 100's of scientists that believe the earth is billions of years old possibly expect us to believe that we are experiencing cataclysmic warming based on a relative speck of time - a few hundred years of weather records?

If I were taking a science class in the universities where they teach and tried to prove my hypothesis on that fractional amount of evidence, I'd fail!




The Last Word
By Quintus Arius on 2/27/2008 10:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
A comment I posted 'a long time ago in galaxy far away'..

It is time for everyone to take a step back from this counter-productive confrontation. Let us all stipulate a few facts. Over the eons planet earth has experienced significant periods of change. To the extent that man is exacerbating the current period is arguable, but let's say human activity (read economic activity) is having an undeniable effect. Agree? Good. Now let's start over.

One, we know that a better measure of human activity is not climate change, but air quality. Am I making sense so far? Now where in the world is air quality and economic growth been managed and reconciled most efficiently. Are you ready for this? Right here in Southern California. That's right folks. Anyone alive who lived here in the 1950's know that air quality, despite quantum leaps in economic growth is significantly better. Could it be better still? Of course, but Southern California and all of California has led the technological advance and we will remain in the lead. Our governor wants more leadership still. I respectfully submit that what is needed is not more leadership but more followers. Not just here in the United States, but around the world. And especially around the world in rapidly developing countries in this exploding global economy.

I know what I am talking about. And you should too. For example, are not the olympic games being threatened by bad air quality in Bejing, China? Were they threatened in Los Angeles? Yes, but not air, traffic was the worry. We handled that nicely.

Be honest and look around the globe. A California-style attack, a genuine protocol,against bad air will be the best offense over the near term (50 years) to alleviate man-made economic effects. Now if my logic is correct, will this not also address the zealous war against global warming. Of course, but perhaps not for some. Many zealots have a different agenda.

None of what I suggest precludes all the 'green' actions proposed and already underway here in the United States, but recognizes that fossil fuels will be needed over the near term to insure a peaceful expansion of the global economy. An expansion that should raise and maintain the quality of life for all humankind.

For whatever reason, climate change occurs. The seas will ebb and flow. For now, not melting ice, but rising seas need to be managed. Really folks, we actually do need more fresh water anyway. Let's deal with that. We do know how.

(Oh, and BTW, I'm a philosopher, not a scientist, so cut me a little slack. Thanks)




Fallen Angels
By curtt on 2/27/2008 10:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
Glenn Reynolds mentions the Fallen Angels scenario, ya don't need to go to Amazon to check out this book, it's available free online:
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/067172052...




Global Climate Change
By DrJDoom on 2/27/2008 10:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you Neal. I hope the climate changes every year I inhabit the earth.




Normal Climate Conditions
By ronjamin on 2/27/2008 11:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
The scientific fact is that the NORMAL climate conditions are ALWAYS CHANGING. If the climate stopped changing, then it would be abnormal. Thinking man has an effect on the climate is frankly ethnocentric. We are insignificant and irrelevant on the cosmic scale.

The biggest consistent contributor to our ever-changing climate is the Sun (solar activity,flares, sunspots, solar wind) and interstellar cosmic rays from Gamma Ray bursts, Supernovae, and other unknown cosmic phenomena.

The rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, although miniscule relative to other gasses like water vapor, is not the CAUSE of warming, but the EFFECT of warming. To illustrate this it in layman's terms, bring a bottle of Coke close to the point of freezing. Open it. Very little carbon dioxide escapes (its dissolved in the water). Take another bottle and warm it to 150 degrees F. Then open it. You get a jet of water because carbon dioxide is escaping.

Large bodies of water act the same over decades or centuries, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide in a delayed synchronization with changes in global temperature: lakes, oceans, calderas. First the temperature rises, then these bodies of water release the carbon dioxide. When global temperatures drop, carbon dioxide follows and is reabsorbed into water.

Let's not bastardize science with political rhetoric. It obfuscates the objective beauty and truth of science.




Cooling
By AVBrown on 2/27/2008 11:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
If all will note this fact; When an 'agenda' is the
motive, as in global warming, the minds of the believers
become closed. Any and all actual facts presented fall on deaf ears, blind eyes and a wall of no more information
allowed, reigns supreme.
They will freeze with their agenda mantras as their last words!!




could it be oil companies?
By lostLittleBoy on 2/27/2008 12:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
i really am new to the game...but to me the powers that be are the powers that be and they don't toss their capital around willy nilly...

Can't the oil companies benefit from Global Warming fears!? I mean then the government will use taxation to fund those companies' R&D so that they can find new energy methods and then push those methods into the main-stream with more sticking power???

I can't imagine the oil giants enjoy being anchored in the middle east and despise the upstarts like Chavez down in Venezuela.

i am just a dumb man...so i could be wrong. But i do know FEAR is a great motivator.




global cooling
By Blue Raider on 2/27/2008 12:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
I guess Al Gore will have to run around in a parka and mukluks while he's telling us the earth is getting warmer. Or he'll start telling us the next ice age is coming. Maybe he'll hang around with a wooly mamoth, sloth and saber-toothed tiger. Sounds like a video I've seen.




RE: Your all full of BS
By dakota701 on 2/27/2008 12:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
Guys were is your "common" sense. Mother nature always will
take care of herself without mans intervention. Think about
it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that. She will heat up when she wants to and cool down when she wants to with out anybody's help, greenhouse effects or not. Find something else to work on.




Average temperature question
By soya on 2/27/2008 12:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone please explain global average temperature? Is this surface temperature? If so, at what height? Is it an average of all the temperatures measured all over the world? or an average of temperatures from computer models? What about areas where measurements aren't taken? How does that change the average calculations? Are areas without actual measurements somehow estimated for these global averages? Same type of questions would apply if the average includes upper air temperatures.

Thanks for reading and thanks in advance if some provides an answer.




By carbon credits R us on 2/27/2008 12:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, Just as I was about to take advantage of guilt ridden liberals.




By hmoss on 2/27/2008 12:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
As one of the few people left in this world that wholly supports Pres. George W. Bush I am disappointed that he has bought into "global warming." It is totally evident, simply from the discussions on this page, that global warming is something we don't understand yet. There is evidence supporting many different theories. I don't know much about science but I know a lot about politics and the economy. Global warming is having a much less severe influence on our climate system than it is having on the poor people of this world. Most people in this world can't afford energy costs as it is. "Updating" to renewable energy is going to cost a lot of money. Is Al Gore going to make up the difference for that with his carbon credits he sells to himself? No, the poor people of this world that work hard just to pay the bills are going to feel the weight of that political monster. I wish "scientists" who disguise themselves as experts on television would be more interested in those people than whatever agenda they are trying to further. I am not saying that climate change isn't an item of concern, it is. Personally I believe the data that shows CO2 increases following warming (and then the water warms up and more and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere). However, that doesn't matter. Keep studying it! Just don't throw it on the shoulders of the public until we are really needing to.




Thank God!
By billymartin58 on 2/27/2008 1:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean I can begin FARTING again?....I've been holding it all in the past few years and now I cannot wait to get home and share this with my family...ahem...Pshoooooooooooottttttttttt!




and the moral of the story is
By Bamboo2 on 2/27/2008 3:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Sadly, you people just don't get it. Global cooling is caused by global warming. The Earth has a fever, and now it has chills. The debate is over." -- Al Gore




Redistribution of Wealth
By defeese on 2/27/2008 3:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
The United Nations claim they will need $20 trillion of the citizens dollars to attack global warming. Before even considering spending that kind of money, we must demand an national debate.

If the scientific under-pinnings of global warming theory are sound, it's supporters would embrace the dialogue instead of attempting to stifle it.




Whats the point?
By AZBlue on 2/27/2008 3:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
The simple question has to be asked? Who cares? The earth is generally warming...as it has been every 1500 +/- years for the past 15-20 centuries. The real issue here is that's it normal, natural and cyclical and NOT because of man and our use of fossil fuels.

You folks who call us "deniers" are basing your logic on a theory over data studies in the past 10 years. Real science is based upon the collection of data over a long period of time, analyzed and put into models. Greenhousers believe what you believe because of what you've seen in the past 15 years so you what Al Gore tells you. The rest of us rely on slightly less hysterical and emotional reasoning which is based upon data collected from the oceans, snowpacks and glaciers in/around both poles showing data from over 12,000 years that our temperature changes every 1500 years or so based upon solar activity and proximity to the sun (orbit) rather than gas guzzling chariots from the 1st century.

BTW how many miles per gallon DOES Al's Gulfstreem IV get nowadays???




Rush
By creathir on 2/27/2008 3:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it looks like Masher made it on Rush Limbaugh today...

congrats buddy!

- Creathir




Minor cold blips...
By Wakefield Tolbert on 2/27/2008 4:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Some balance that SOMETHING IS happening here due to AGW, we have this, which I think is the best precis on environment to date and a more balanced view that those of the “think tanks” which give us men like Singer and the other naysay experts in verbiage:

http://wsbradio.com/weather/global_climate_change3...

Mellish is pretty good, and answers the myth that “the earth has been through all this before” and that “heat island effect” is what we’re seeing OR that “there was a consensus in the 1970s” that the earth was cooling off.

Mellish points out that whether or not “consensus” on something is valid depends on whom you’re dealing with.

Radicals? Think tanks from libertarian groups? Leftover hippies with an axe to grind? Cocktail waitress chatter?
It is the exception, not the rule, however, that consensus being bucked by a lone wolf in the night means something.

There IS consensus among most meteorologists and climatologists about AGW being the proximate cause of slight warming over the past century. Mellish makes sure we understand that cyclic variations in snow or hurricane intensity and dry or cold spells in and of themselves cannot prove anything one way or another. Al Gore is just as wrong to use hot summers for his concerns in saving Mother Earth to prove something as are kids playing in snow in Madrid. One model of AGW has more water vapor in the air due to even small temps increase, thus possibly bringing about more snow until such time as those areas that are infrequently seen with snowfall (like, well, Madrid) lose snow altogether. Of course this could take a long time. decades. Or not? I distinctly remember one morning in Atlanta Georgia as a youngster in 1981 where the temperature fell to 5 below zero F. Not happened since. And most unlikely anymore.

There was NOT a consensus outside the editorial staff at Newsweek, however, that the planet was heading to an ice age in the 70s. Oopsy. I remember the claim even as I was a little tyke back then. But it was never based on "science."




Be prepared
By SergeantofMarines on 2/27/2008 4:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
How will colder weather affect the ethanol industry?(i.e. Crop failure due to harsh weather and Burning more fuel to heat or houses, etc...)

An even better question than that is, If we are entering a state of global cooling Shouldn’t we be proactive and begin drilling off our continental shelf, the ANWR, and invest more money in shale oil?

I think its selfless to be concerned about the environment for the sake of all living creatures. However it is apparent that politicians have used our emotions to fuel there own personal agenda.





By JHBoat on 2/27/2008 4:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Folks,

This may not be the proper way to send in a comment pertaining to the G.W. discussion, but this is the only way that I could quickly find:

How come some of these fellows with the big telescopes say that they can see that the polar CO2 (Carbon Dioxide, for those of the audience in Rio Linda) "ice"-caps on Mars are receding?

I guess that is due to those two solar-powered Rovers running around up there.

Or, maybe H. G. Wells really did have something.

I think that NO admonition or correction will inspire writers to learn and to correctly use the words "your" and "you're", and "their" and "there", as long as they MUST "Press 1" for the fast-fading English language

Oh, well, as it is said: "It'll get worse before it gets worse."

Yes, I AM a Robot, Model 1934, so there.

Thank you,

James




By rsasp on 2/27/2008 4:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hope, that won't happen.




It's been warm
By 325hhee on 2/27/2008 4:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
For the past 3 years Nov, Dec and Jan has been warm in NYC averaging around 60's. It's scary when I can walk with open jackets all year round. Since when do people sweat from humidity in Dec, it should be snowing.




By Foundation For Planetary Management on 2/27/2008 4:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
The observations shown in this graph are entirely expected. Many learned scientists have stated that short intense winters, and long hot summers, are indicitive of global warming. This does not mean that the pressue is off and we can return to our cavalier attitude of irresponsible stewardship. There should still be a concerted effort to: 1)calculate the optimum planetary heat load, 2)estimate the limits of electrostatic precipitation, & 3)develop legislation to insure global accountability.




No subject
By Bhosterman on 2/27/2008 5:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
People! There is no NORMAL climate condition. It's always either getting hotter or colder and we can't stop it either way. This planet has been undergoing constant change form its beginning and we are a mere footnote in the history of this planet’s evolution. Let’s talk about problems we can solve for a change.




global cooling
By jimbridger on 2/27/2008 5:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
the question we need to answeris whether we are ready to turn our country over to a progressive-facist rule. i'm not. what is the difference if two million people lose their homes on the ocean or whether twenty million lose their lives to the depotic government we are sure to have?




By Ed Wood on 2/27/2008 6:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
Over the past 5 million years the "average" temperature of the planet has cooled approximately 6 to 8 degrees celcius.

The past 3 interglacial period peaks have been successivly colder We have not reached the peak temp of the last interglacial we probably will not.

This interglacial as with the last few interglacials peaks the temperature goes up gradually and so do green house gasses. then it drops relatively fast, fast enough to kill a lot of things that expell CO2.

For some unknown reason CO2 expelling animals tend to thrive when it is warm and tend to die when it is cold. Who knew one could freeze to death under a glacier?

This is what has been happening for thousands and in fact millions of years. The earth is cooling and the 1 thing that has changed is the temperature swing and timing of the swing.

It used to be 41 thousand years and between 2 and 6 degrees celcius. Now it is 125 thousand years and between 4 and 8 degrees celcius.

Maybe the sun is fluctuating because of its internal state maybe it is fluctuating because of some galactic process. maybe 2 black holes merged some 500thousand years ago and it is causing some kind of gravitational disturbance that makes the weigh at times more and at times less. We may discover the actual culprit someday.

It is not Anthropogenic as we self important humans would like to believe it is.

Relatively speaking you are but a speck of dust in the universe and your life is but the twinkle of an eye the entire span of modern human civilization has been around but a mere second and to the rest of the universe is totally irrevelant.




By jimmmerz on 2/27/2008 6:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mercury is worse than that, it causes drain bamage. I'm stocking up on tungsten filament builbs before the government tells me they are illegal.

Not only that, but wait until there are several billion CFL bulbs in service that have failed (or broken). Then the government will set in place a process to 'safely' dispose of said bulbs...for a fee that some corporation will charge for this 'service'.




What exactly is a "denier"?
By reasonsjester on 2/27/2008 6:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
Some of you people that whip the "denier" card out need to realize how much you sound like the Catholic Church trying to excommunicate a "non-believer" from the discussion. When you do this, you betray the fact that the GW discussion is not about science, reasoning, evidence, and deliberation but rather about promoting governmental control, funding for environmentalist programs, vilifying the West and the United States, and conducting guerilla warfare against capitalism. Leftists believe "progress," "modernity," and science led directly to the horrific warfare in the 20th century, when actually it is how many used this technology that was the problem. Irrational fervent nationalism, irrational drives to "unite" people under socialism, fascism, or communism led to the deaths of millions. Science was "hijacked" by these irrational ideologues the way terrorists hijack the Quran to kill "infidels." The point is, leftists don't respect science or reasoning per se, but they cherry-pick it as a means to their own dubious ends. Since leftists don't respect science or rational discussion, there is no reason to respect them when they attempt to commandeer science for their own radical and foolish goals. Just ignore them. It will be so sweet and lovely when these maniacs are completely discredited in a few years. By the way, there are about 100 reasons why the man-made GW craze is a hoax, but if you don't have the brains to figure it out for yourself, I'm not going to convince you here. GW fanatics have their own petty reasons for wanting to believe, and I'm not going to play Bill Nye the Science Guy and hold your hand through a conversation explaining sunspot activity, solar winds, gamma rays, Milankovitch rhythms, how sea levels are affected by melting glaciers (they aren't), or any other basic knowledge you should have learned in "environmental science" in high school. Go back to the DailyKos if you you want to chat about "science." Leave the real discussion about science to the adults.




=p
By 666momo on 2/27/2008 8:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
You people and your bickering is funny. =]] It makes me laugh. Hehe. Truth is the earth is changing everyday, due to a lot of reasons, that we don't know or understand completely, this could just be normal, or could be something happing because of human intervention.




By schmandel on 2/27/2008 8:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
...on whom it will ultimately have dire effects, then there is really no cause for concern as the problem will be self correcting over the long term.

One need only step back for a moment to recognize that Earth without a few billion ill-tempered self-absorbed hairless apes doesn't really sound like such a bad place at all. It could instead be a desirable outcome in giving the process of evolution a chance to do better next time.




Global Cooling
By Guy Montag on 2/27/2008 9:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
The whole Man Made Global Warming philosophy -- if that's what you can call it -- is merely the new home of the Stalinists and the Marxists. It has little to do with real science. Otherwise, proponents like Al Gore would be jumping at the chance to debate these issues, rather than demur with the claim that "the science is in, the issue is settled".

As for the Stalinist/Marxist claim, just look at their solutions: many openly state that they want to tear down the standard of living in the US and other industrialized nations; China, India and other newly industrialized nations are exempt from the Kyoto Protocols; they want strict limits on growth, the kind of car we drive, how large our homes can be, all while they (the leaders of the Global Warmism Movement) live the limosine lifestyle of Al Gore.

Man Made Global Warming is nothing by a lot of hot air!

Read Montag's World on blogspot. www.montagsworld.blogspot.com




By schmandel on 2/27/2008 9:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I should post that one more time ;-)

Sorry.

Using Internet explorer at the office, what a piece of carp.




Some Observations
By oracle2world on 2/27/2008 9:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
No scientific theory is perfect, there are always some loose ends even in the best of them. In fact, a lack of variance is usually the tip off that fraud is involved. If a new drug has no reported side effects, the FDA knows the data are fake. That is also why police question criminal suspects many different times, to check for variance. If the same story is repeated almost word for word, then it was made up.

It is not reasonable to expect that AGW explain every bit of anomalous data, or that every scientist should believe that AGW explains the data better than all others.

In fact, a belief that AGW explained everything and all scientists should believe feverently in the theory, is the tip-off that AGW has gone over the edge.

The reason that global cooling never gained traction in the media is because mankind cannot be blamed for it. But it is scary. Another extensive glaciation would mean the end of civilization as we know it. A rise in avg global temp of a degree or two over hundreds of years is not in the same ballpark. (I've lived where the temperature varies over 100F in the course of a year. In one day 30F.)

Most people like warm weather, not cold. Asking people to lower their standard of living for colder weather, which means they have to pay even more money to stay warm, really doesn't resonate with anyone.

The myriad of predictions and complete WAGs (wild-a** guesses) that tag along with AGW destroy any credibility AGW is trying to achieve. If the predictions of a theory don't match what happens, the theory is wrong, period. If AGW proponents really believed that AGW definitely predicts beyond any doubt whatsoever increased hurricane activity that would hit America, then the year 2006 showed AGW is beyond any doubt whatsoever wrong.

Scientists know there is a lot of uncertainty in AGW. I heard a talk by a UN scientist who interleaved the AGW explanations with acknowledgement of the uncertainties. That was her way of saying that she has to eat, but wants other scientists to know she isn't a complete moron.

If you think the recent UN climate conference in Bali sort of sent the wrong message about environmental stewardship, the "Earth Summit 2002" in Johannesburg, South Africa definitely sent the wrong message on poverty and sustainable development.

"According to the British Sun newspaper, the 60,000 delegates dined on delicacies, including 4,400 pounds of fillet steak, 450 pounds of salmon, more than 1,000 pounds of lobster and shellfish, 1,000 pounds of bacon and sausages, buckets of caviar and piles of pate de foie gras.

"Two miles from the convention center lies one of Johannesburg's poorest slums, Alexandra, where tin shacks line the banks of the polluted Jukski river and children line up for a drink at open standpipes."




THE BIG LIE
By Oliver Manuel on 2/27/2008 10:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hi Michael,

Thank you for your article informing us that the four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have data showing that global temperatures have dropped precipitously over the past year.

I hope you will follow up by identifying the motive for the "Big Lie" - that the Sun is a steady heat source so mankind must have caused global warming. If past experience is any guide, then proponents of AGW (anthropologic global warming) will not be deterred by new data.

It appears that NASA and other federal agencies that allowed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to direct their science were caught off-guard by the public's sudden interest in global warming.

Everyone is interested in the weather, a fact that threatened to expose decades of deceit by NASA about the nearby star that heats planet Earth and serves as a model for all other stars in the cosmos.

The 1969 Apollo Mission provided the first "hard" experimental data that would destroy the illusion that our Sun is a ball of hydrogen, heated by hydrogen fusion. The first hint of an impending calamity for the model of the Sun as a ball of hydrogen was published 1970 [1].

1. "Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and xenon," Nature 227, 1113-1116 (1970); doi:10.1038/2271113a0
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271 113a0.html

A 1972 study [2] showed that the abundances of many other atoms implanted in lunar soils by the solar wind had been altered by mass fractionation.

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

2. "The role of isotopic mass fractionation in the production of noble gas anomalies in lunar fines from the Apollo 15 mission", Proc. 3rd Lunar Science Conference, vol. 2, 1927-1945 (1972).

Instead of addressing the observations, NASA responded to these results by cutting off access to lunar samples and NASA funds.

However, other measurements on lunar soils continued to show that the abundances of all elements in the solar wind had been severely altered by mass fractionation; by 1983 we knew that the average mass separation looked like this [3]:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

3. "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983).
www.omatumr.com/archive/SolarAbundances.pdf

Many, many other measurements since 1983 have confirmed these simple facts [4, 5]:

a.) The Sun sorts elements by mass and selectively moves lightweight ones to the solar surface.

b.) The solar surface is 91% Hydrogen (H) and 9% Helium (He). H is the lightest of all elements. He is the next lightest element.

c.) The interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe), oxygen (O), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si) and sulfur (S). These same elements make up bulk material in rocky planets near the Sun and in ordinary meteorites.

d.) The core of the Sun is a neutron star. That is the energy source that lights the Sun, heats planet Earth, and generates an outpouring of solar-wind H and solar neutrinos from the surface of the Sun.

4. "Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios", Proc. SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology: The Present and the Future, 27 Oct-1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA, U.S.A. (ESA SP-517, editor: Huguette Lacoste) pp. 345-348 (2003). ISBN: 92-9092-827-1
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717

5. "The Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, pp. 1847-1856 (2006).
arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

NASA's reputation as a space agency and the reputation of NAS as supervisors of federal science agencies will both suffer if the public learns that NASA has hidden data for decades that showed the Sun - the source of Earth's heat and the source of global climate change - is not a steady H-fusion reactor [6].

6. "Fingerprints of a local supernova," to be published in Supernova Research [Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, in press, 2008].
www.omatumr.com/abstracts2007/20071202_Manuel_and _Ratcliffe.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear Chemistry
www.omatumr.com




By Polynikes on 2/27/2008 10:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting until a winner is officially declared. You can show me all the damn "science" you want, but thus far, none of it has been very convincing. I can't understand how anyone can possibly believe, in their heart of hearts, that it's one or the other for sure at this point.




By Wakefield Tolbert on 2/27/2008 10:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now that the northern hemisphere is encrusted in ice and snow for the time being, what about the issue of reflectivity, even temporarily?

Albedo, or the reflectivity of any substance, is high for ice for example and low for dark asphalt. Many people find it difficult to believe that the Moon's albedo is about that of dark asphalt like you see on the highway. Yet how bright!

Ice being so much more and thus why the poles are cold in addition to coldness merely for being tilted more away from the Sun and thus less insoleration.

Now then, even for a few months, are we going to see a lag effect of chilling of the earth as the increased reflectivity of the N.Hemispheric ice sends much of the insolaration back into space?




Solar minimum
By leebert on 2/27/2008 11:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't just a single-year blip. Haven't the global avg. temperatures flattened out in the past five years? Haven't major climatologists conceded this is the case, but still insist that the threat of CO2 is still there?

Isn't the sun itself is overdue for a long-term solar minimum, never mind an 11-year minimum? And were the minimum is as severe as the one 320 years ago it could pose a far greater disruption to civilization than will warmer temperatures:

As for CO2: I've collected some info on soot's very large warming role in the atmosphere & its huge effect in the Arctic. Note the time span on these articles & yet all the fear-mongering in the same time frame about Kilimanjaro, CO2, etc. These revelations about soot are from none other than V. Ramanathan (well renown research, head of INDOEX effort) and Jim Hansen.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/the_soot_files

I saw an article in a British paper column that described German cars as "the dirtiest" b/c they emit .... GET THIS: Carbon Dioxide! Um.... CO2 is dirty? Really?

Perhaps it's time to get reasonable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

I'm circumspect about the motives behind all this global fear-mongering ... if the ends justify the means, then the raft of lying about global warming suggests some very big goals promoted by the neo-liberal globalist elites that're unrelated to global warming.

Google for "Al Gore Maurice Strong." If that ain't enough to raise doubts, consider that Ken "Enron" Lay was a big backer of Kyoto b/c Enron was going to cash in BIG on the carbon trading schemes. Or that US & EU steel-makers are warning that steel production is getting shifted to China b/c Kyoto cost overheads in the West encourage off-shoring CO2 emissions to China. That'd be just dandy ... except that China's emissions per unit of production are 40% higher than the WORLD AVERAGE (never mind the West's average). So by the logic of the neo-liberals that backed Kyoto, we're going to use carbon credits to encourage offshoring of production to China, hence screwing labor AND emit more CO2, BOTH.

There's something very very wrong with the neo-liberal avante-liberal leadership, they're playing with policies that I find to be either unnecessary or extreme and rhetoric that's deliberately misleading. I guess what really bugs me is that they're making it all up as they go ... at least conservatives can lay some claim to precedence, even if they're sticking with it only on principle. I'm not sure what principles Al Gore or Hillary stand for anymore except their own self interests and power.




By Damnyankee59 on 2/27/2008 11:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
When the people of this world realize that there is nothing that can really be done about global warming, a cosmic impact, solar cycles, or another ice age, the better off we will all be. So take a prozac, crack open a beer or soda, grab your fishing pole and chill. Things in this world come and go in cycles, and the other things we can't stop anyway. So save the whales because that is a good thing that we can control. Stop cutting down the rainforest because that is good as well, and save the polar bears in the process.

People need to learn that Mr Gore is not nearly as important as he thinks that he is, nor are any other celeb talking heads. And most of the scientist's educated guess's are still just a guess. The weatherman can't even get tomorrow's weather prediction right, so how can they predict fifty or a hundred years in the future what the weather is going to be.

On a positive or negative note, depending on your perspective. I am tired of the snow and ice this winter, I want my global warming back.........




correction
By lostgull on 2/28/2008 9:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
UPDATE AND CAVEAT:

The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

This from the source of the graphs you used in the posting about colder temps and snow fall but I didn't the correction anywhere. You, like most deniers of climate change have cherry picked the data that fits your needs and ignore all the facts. This is not science, it's called lying to further your ideas or personal agenda. We are not fooled.




US station temperature data
By pdeep on 2/28/2008 10:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
I am not a climatologist, but I am expert at time series analysis. I have been looking at rural station data in the US to ascertain if there is or isn't a decadal linear trend in temperature, within the signal-noise characteristics of the data.

I have yet to find any evidence of a linear trend since the 1880's-90's, but it's pretty clear that there are a number of decadal cycles at work (no kidding!) as well as solar influences on temperature. As time allows, I'll keep looking!

An example from the Wichita, KS station is found here.

http://www.well.com/user/pdeep/pages/warm07/stat02...




global cooling
By oreodont on 2/28/2008 11:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
I've been a geologist for over 30 years and have never experienced more of a mockery than the so-called 'science' surrounding the global warming issue. It's disturbing to have scientific methodology hijacked as a tool 'to prove' that evidence fits a model.

Global warming due to greenouse gasses. Who knows? Most of the cultists couldn't draw a carbon-based molecule and certainly couldn't explain it's properties and the variables that make up the tenuous relationship between that molecule and increased temperatures. Global warming cultists are akin to Creationists grasping at straws 'to prove' a position rather than any adherence to scientific methodology.




global cooling
By skywatcher on 2/28/2008 11:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
If you haven't noticed, for the last year we have had the strongest La Nina in eight years. Of course temperatures have fallen! But La Nina doesn't last forever -- it probably won't last the rest of this year, and my bet is you'll see temps on the rise again.




Just a viewpoint
By awarenessnow on 2/28/2008 12:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why should I believe you when the majority of real scientist say you are full of it?




By Machinegear on 2/28/2008 3:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
This Global Cooling is really a shame. Last year, all of us upper midwest folks went to Wal-Mart and bought shorts for the first time.

*grumble* (stupid scientists)

Back to Carhartt.




Global Warmingr
By RDH929 on 2/29/2008 11:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to acid rain? Did we solve that problem which allows us to move on to global warming? Or could it have been another hoax? If I had to sit through all those damn film strips in grade school about acid rain and we aren't worrying about it anymore, I want those hours of my life back.




By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 12:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
I know I'm new to this page, well really this particular site as a whole, but I have spent the past few days periodically viewing the posts here and on some other blog pages as well, but the thing that gets me is that people, scientist, politicians, etc, along with college students like myself all seem to bring up valid points concerning the weather our planet has recently and historically witnessed. That being said (and I apologize for the long drawn out sentences) I still constantly hear about this global "consensus" that just cannot exist; there is just too much data from every field flying around in a crazy flurry by people who have taken their view of the world and are playing it as an unquestionable dogma. And their supposed to be talking about science? How can there be a consensus on a topic that, until the past 100-150 years, we really couldn't even start gathering all of this data for, especially in regards to recent solar data (which in my opinion is extremely interesting and powerful). To think we have, in just one century, figured out all there is to know about a planet that has been around for billions of year (or if your church affiliated thousands) is to know that we are wrong. If science has taught us anything, it's that even if there is just one person (Galileo, Copernicus, Plato, Newton, so on) just one person with the gall to sit their rear end down, analyzing, producing and effectively reproducing charts and graphs that encompass the entirety of the situation and if that one person can sit down and PROVE beyond an inkling of a doubt the exact cause, or in this case causes (because yes each has an effect, each) whether solar, anthropogenic, natural, galactic, glacial, etc, that by doing this with an absolutely un-biased view point, an entire world can be turned on its head. The inconvenient truth, and the real swindle here is that neither side knows beyond a reasonable doubt exactly how each of these factors work hand in hand in producing the climate that we have today, much less what we will have in any time of the future. It never matters how many people say something is true, the only thing that matters is that there is one "fool" open minded enough to see past the politics to find the real answer. That is true knowledge and that is true science.

The moment science is mixed with politics, true science dies and this other breed takes it's place. There are scientists out there who do their research out of love for their field of work, and who aren't politically tainted, why aren't we getting more information about these climate affecting possibilities from scientists in each individual field, who are self funded and don't have any bit of money flowing into their pockets and research from oil companies, political parties, or special interest groups?

once again I would like to apologize for the long sentences used, might have made that a tad hard to read. o and how do i get my DT rating up? :)




Apples and oranges
By wildlifer on 3/3/2008 9:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Seems Watts committed a few errors:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-wi...




By snoozr on 3/4/2008 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Forgive me for being a little off topic (meaning not specifically about the article above), but I'm hoping some of you knowledgeable non-global warming bandwagon beaters can help me.

Our youngest son was assigned a project in school that is pro-global warming. My son told the teacher that he didn't believe in GW, and didn't wish to do a project promoting the theory. Given the reaction of his teacher, you'd have thought he'd announced he was a terrorist. Still, he asked if he could do a paper against global warming and after some consideration, she said he could.

I'm proud of my son for standing up for himself and want to help him be able to give facts to support his position. The problem we have is that much of the anti-global warming info we have found is very scientific and above a 10 year old child. Frankly, I have trouble understanding some of the information to him myself.

Might any of you know of books and/or websites that give solid anti-global warming information that kids can understand? Or at least, information that adults of a non-scientific bent can understand and then explain to kids? Any help would be greatly appreciated.




By Integral9 on 3/5/2008 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dang it! I was really looking forward to having beach front property in a decade or so.




545
By someotherguy on 3/5/2008 8:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
If particulate matter in the air leads to global warming why do we spray metals to combat it?
It would seem like madness.




Global warming truths and myths
By webo on 3/6/2008 7:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
See what the Met Office in the UK has to say on the issue
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/...




Global warming hysteria
By Keijo on 3/6/2008 8:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that hysteria has really gotten too far .
I understand that humans have to decrease real pollution like sulfur, freon, and so on, but talking about CO2 level are really face. First of all, animals including us are the biggest producers of CO2 (or should we stop breathing.)
And you don't have to be a scientist to know that nature controls CO2 level very well => the more we have CO2 the more plants,trees and all green livings use CO2 for growing, because they need CO2 and they break that to C what they use for building them and they pass O2 back to the atmosphere ( so CO2 is totally recyclable in nature) but we should stop destroying forests, because they are earths lungs. The temperature has always gone up and down, and we actually have had less than 100 years reliable instruments and statistics to compare global temperatures (note we have had instruments in use earlier in very small limited areas, and using those values are not reliable enough for providing global statistics.




By JNelson43 on 3/7/2008 1:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
The issue of warming/cooling is real, and the fact that the long-term data proves it, does not mean that we can ignore the issue. The important point not addressed is that the trend over an intermediate time-frame is of great importance to civilization: The coldest weather of the past 40 centuries centuries is not the extreme for the past 40 millenia, and so on for longer periods. We don't have news reports of ancient tribes/clans having to move inland because of rising sea levels, and likewise for moving to lower altitudes and latitudes in colder periods. They just coped with it.
A rough analogy: you can drown in a pool of water that averages 1/4 inch deep... You can freeze to death in a climate with an average daily temperature of 72°F (20°C), and similarly for sea-level changes over the centuries. Therefore, to the extent that our CO2- and soot-emitting civilization is CONTRIBUTING to the warming (look at glacial ice packs and boundaries for the last 100 years), we should find our points of agreement and go forward from there.
JNelson43




By JNelson43 on 3/7/2008 1:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
Re-post - got the Subject wrong.
The issue of warming/cooling is real, and the fact that the long-term data proves it, does not mean that we can ignore the issue. The important point not addressed is that the trend over an intermediate time-frame is of great importance to civilization: The coldest weather of the past 40 centuries centuries is not the extreme for the past 40 millenia, and so on for longer periods. We don't have news reports of ancient tribes/clans having to move inland because of rising sea levels, and likewise for moving to lower altitudes and latitudes in colder periods. They just coped with it.
A rough analogy: you can drown in a pool of water that averages 1/4 inch deep... You can freeze to death in a climate with an average daily temperature of 72°F (20°C), and similarly for sea-level changes over the centuries. Therefore, to the extent that our CO2- and soot-emitting civilization is CONTRIBUTING to the warming (look at glacial ice packs and boundaries for the last 100 years), we should find our points of agreement and go forward from there.
JNelson43




Results
By tpga on 3/9/2008 6:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Silly people. Doesn't this prove that GNN is actually getting the job done?




The point of this all is....
By VoiceOfReason on 3/10/2008 9:23:14 AM , Rating: 2
Global Warming, and all it's about, is pretty much false. Me owning a blender, or a car, is not going to send the world spiraling into an inferno. If people want to prove global warming is true, then find me proof. I have not seen anything that could actually mean it's right. All of what I've seen are theories. During the Medieval times, there was a higher spike of temperature then what we've had. Now, all the "Global Warming" has been virtually wiped out in a year. When my father was in school they said, that in 30 years, the world would have gone apocalyptic, and it would be a desert. That was 30 years ago. I'm only 15, and I can see the lies that are told. Al Gore's little Doom prediction? Rush Limbaugh made the clock to count it down. When that timer runs out, if we AREN'T dead, then it just proves my point more. If anyone REALLY wants to think about why it got warmer, why don't they look at all the hot air escaping from al gore.




By Babrbarossa on 3/11/2008 3:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I wish this article were true (and I do- i even took a minute to enjoy the possiblity- felt good) then I came back to reality.

They have plotted JANUARYs only here- of course there are fluctuations from month to month. And i think it's bullcrap that its a limitiation in the graphing software- The real data is widely available from the very sources this guy uses- F.F.S. LOOK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GI...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

it's nice that we had a cold January and all, but wake the hell up




By IceAgeHipster on 2/27/2008 6:57:06 PM , Rating: 1
Rest assured that the heads of all the oil companies got together and figured out that they could profit more in a cold earth than in a warm earth (heating oil sales, natural gas sales for furnaces, etc). They were responsible for yesterday's global warming and they are responsible for today's global cooling. You can't prove I'm not right so it must be true!

Fight the oil companies!!!
Fight global cooling!!!




Question for Algore..
By tinakay on 2/28/2008 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
When, Mr. Gore, are you going to apologize to people for claiming that 'the debate is over' on 'global warming.' Oh, I forgot, you NEVER let FACTS get in the way of your screeching alarmnism. Oh, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences should probably apologize too, for giving Gore's fictitious propaganda piece 'An Inconvenient Truth,' (which Gore himself admits contains conjecture, exaggeration, and theory) an OSCAR. What a joke. I only hope our government gets their heads out of their as**s before this nonsense kills our economy.




Take It Back!
By pauluskc on 2/28/2008 2:29:06 PM , Rating: 1
I just hope the Nobel committee takes back Al Gore's medal on grounds of misleading the planet.




Blame it on Bush
By IceAgeHipster on 2/27/08, Rating: 0
Your all full of BS
By bshanna on 2/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Your all full of BS
By logdogsmith on 2/26/2008 7:05:52 PM , Rating: 5
Please refrain from debunking debunking when you do not know everything the debunker knows and does not know.

Or, following your logic, Al Gore should have shut up a long, long time ago.


RE: Your all full of BS
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 7:12:27 PM , Rating: 4
> "CO2 levels are above any historical averages"

No. Atmospheric CO2 levels stand at present at about 380ppm. In the earth's past, they have varied from just above 200ppm to over 3,000 ppm.

> "Second found this on the NASA website in response to these rumors."

That NASA post is months old, and in response to a different story entirely.


RE: Your all full of BS
By jbartabas on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Your all full of BS
By masher2 on 2/26/2008 7:46:50 PM , Rating: 3
The point is that, on a geologic time scale, atmospheric CO2 isn't high. It's actually very low. And the paleoclimatic record also reveals a very poor correlation between CO2 and temperature, meaning higher levels don't automatically equate with a warming trend.

Recent research has shown that past estimates of CO2's forcing abilities were far overstated. Even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is anticipated to generate only some 1 degree of total warming. Given we've already experienced over half that warming already (barring the last year's cooling pulse, of course), there certainly doesn't seem to be any reason to scream the sky is falling.


RE: Your all full of BS
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 8:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
He was talking about history(-ical), so basically since writing appeared, so not so long ago ... (yes I know, I am being over peaky-stretchy about the terms :-P)

To come back more seriously about your main point, yes CO2 has been much much higher than every value we can ever dream to reach in a close future ... when the Sun output was radically different, or later when the continents were actually one big mass of land, or even when the Earth was populated with many things ... but humans or even primates ... and? what's the point?

The fact remains that since the Earth and life on Earth look more or less like we know it now (< 500,000 years), the CO2 has not exceeded 300 ppm. To reach the 3,000 ppm you were talking about, I guess you have to go back > 150 My for the best estimate (accounting for the most favorable error bars) to > 300 My. That's a radically different climate pattern we're talking about!


RE: Your all full of BS
By Cruiser804 on 2/27/2008 12:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a fact, earth's climate is always changing, that's just what it does. Always has and always will.

Here is another, scientist are human, they are not above error, hubris, ignorance and greed. History is replete with examples of scientists ardently protecting long disproved theories for personal pride, greed etc.

In my opinion, theories of man made global warming will prove to be one of these discredited theories. But Al and his crew will continue to cling to it becuase they love the bling and props.


RE: Your all full of BS
By rsmech on 2/26/2008 8:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Your right, let's not learn from history, climate starts today. It fits the models better.


RE: Your all full of BS
By MadMaster on 2/26/2008 11:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh but when the planet had 1000 ppm of CO2, it was also 5-10C warmer (estimated, it is hard to find evidence exactly how warm. However, one clue is there were crocodile bones found in the Hudson bay that dated to one of the times the planet was warm).

However, the planet has not been above current levels in the last 500,000 years (according to this graph, other records show a million + years).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420...

Also note how closely the temperature relates to the CO2 levels and how we came out of our last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Another important note, this graph does not include current warming.


RE: Your all full of BS
By masher2 on 2/27/2008 1:01:23 AM , Rating: 3
> "Oh but when the planet had 1000 ppm of CO2, it was also 5-10C warmer "

Not always. In at least one instance (the Late Ordovician Ice Age), CO2 levels were up to 15X higher than they are today -- some 4500 ppm. And yet the planet was locked in one of the worst ice ages it's ever seen.

> "note how closely the temperature relates to the CO2 levels "

Your graph is taken from a 1999 paper on Vostok ice cores. Higher resolution data subsequent to this has shown that temperatures are indeed correlated to CO2...but in reverse. The temperatures begin rising before the CO2 dos, up to 1,500 years earlier in some cases.

In case you don't catch the cause-effect problem with that, here's a posting that explains why CO2 cannot be the cause of those rises, from ex-Harvard physicist, Lubos Motl:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-a...


RE: Your all full of BS
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 12:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CO2 levels were up to 15X higher than they are today -- some 4500 ppm. And yet the planet was locked in one of the worst ice ages it's ever seen.


You mean when the Earth looked like that:
http://www.paleoportal.org/media/boilerplate/0/501...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jan....


RE: Your all full of BS
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 7:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ooo...those links totally tickled my geeky sense! :D

What's cool is look back about 50 million years ago...

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/050Marect.jpg

Many of the places that have oil today were under water then. (forms a lot of the science behind oil geology...).


RE: Your all full of BS
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 6:34:05 PM , Rating: 1
Masher are you trying to say that CO2 today is a natural event?

What are you going to say next? We blew up the WTC towers?

Oh and the OrDovician was 445 Million years ago. We have VERY little evidence to support any claim (except for geological records...).

And yet, this still contradicts what you say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician#Climate

I could just as well say "15 billion years ago there were monkey that knew how to travel time." Yet you couldn't prove it or disprove it, doesn't change the fact that I'm talking out of my butt...


RE: Your all full of BS
By Entropy42 on 3/1/2008 1:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Unless I'm misunderstanding the statement on this website:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/gases_e.cfm

"On a worldwide basis, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are known to be small. In comparison with the gross fluxes of carbon from natural systems they represent only a fraction (~2%) of total global emissions"

Then yes, CO2 concentrations today would be *mostly* a natural event.


RE: Your all full of BS
By jbartabas on 3/2/2008 3:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong.

Apparently it's a common misconception around here ...

While anthropogenic emissions represent only a fraction of total global emissions, the natural emission and absorptions are roughly in balance. That allows the small but continuous net input from human to build up an imbalance over time.

Again: human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

If you would have finished the sentence you've quoted, paying attention to every single word you would have noticed that the whole point is about accumulation:
quote:
but they are perceived to account for most of the observed accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere.


Most of the naturally emitted CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere (it's absorbed for the most part), hence natural variation are roughly between 180 and 280 ppm. We are today at ~380 ppm after decades of accumulation of anthropogenic input.


RE: Your all full of BS
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 1:34:06 PM , Rating: 3
When gators were living in the area of Hudson Bay, it was closer to the equator. See Plate techtonics.


RE: Your all full of BS
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 7:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, this is what it looked like 55 million years ago, and that was the time of the last greenhouse earth.

CO2 concentrations during this time were 1000ppm and the temperature were somewhere from 5C to 10C higher.

And the planet looked about like this...
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/050Marect.jpg


RE: Your all full of BS
By Hawkido on 2/27/2008 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
I love when Goregonuts spout "historical evidence" of past CO2 levels.

They discover and record the historical CO2 levels from ice cores.

Gore and pals claim that if the CO2 levels double the temperature will increase enough to melt the ice caps...

Yet there is still ice for us to get cores from that show that the CO2 levels were 10 times what they are now.

So how did the WATER FREEZE when the CO2 levels were so high?

LOL Enviralmentals and Goregonuts must have eaten the paint chips from their 1970's cribs.


RE: Your all full of BS
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 6:39:26 PM , Rating: 1
You don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

Arguing from ignorance. Do some research and you won't sounds so stupid.

Here's a little help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cores
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221

Oh and btw, the record goes back 800k years, and CO2 levels during that time have not been higher than they are now (neither have temperatures).


RE: Your all full of BS
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, it seems some of these folks have their tinfoil wrapped a little too tight.


RE: Your all full of BS
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 7:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be more cautious as far as temperature records are concerned.


RE: Your all full of BS
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 12:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
I have obviously not said that, but if you want to misrepresent my position to make it easier to make your point, do as pleases you.

Now if you really want to understand my point, usually you want to learn about the effect of a perturbation of a system by keeping all the rest being roughly equal. With the Earth it is not that easy, but coming back 500,000 years ago is a reasonable time scale from a climate and a geology point of view (not even mentioning the issue having a biosphere representative of anything close to what we know).

Coming back hundreds of millions of years ago, when CO2 concentration was considerably higher, is probably a great subject of research, but you will have the greatest difficulties to link your results to the present situation. That is obvious when you consider that for example parts of Africa were at the South pole and atmospheric and oceanic circulation were largely different from what occurs with the present conformation of land masses. Now if you would have a bit of knowledge about climatology, you'd already realize that drawing conclusion about today's and tomorrow's climate from such old paleoclimate is necessarily limited, especially regarding the major question of feedbacks.

Following your argument, one could analyze the Earth original atmospheres, full of hydrogen an helium, or later (until ~ 200 Myears ago by the way) with large concentration of CO2, little O2 and a very simple biosphere. I'm not sure were you're going with that, but probably not further than any climatologist ...


RE: Your all full of BS
By ed34222 on 2/27/2008 12:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
That 380 ppm number seems a little high...

I know that its popular to site numbers from that active volcano in Hawaii; but, it's not really a good measuring stick as the numbers fluctuate with the volcano's activity.

For those who still believe in the CO2 GCC holy grail, volcano owners need a whole lot of carbon credits.

Don't suppose it maters much anyway. 200 vrs 380 ppm thats what an 18 millionths of a degree difference, if there was no wind, at most?


RE: Your all full of BS
By Rakkasan1 on 2/26/2008 7:21:34 PM , Rating: 5
God, people like you make me tired. So every commenter on this thread is a scientific illiterate, except you? OK, so I'm a lowly historian and you're a chemist. Fine. Let me tell you what I do know, friend.
I know that a diagram (Mann's discredited "hockey stick") that wipes out a three-hundred year historical reality, the Medieval Warming Period, is patently fraudulent. I know that when I see a goofball described as a "leading climatologist" spouting the insane proposition that the infancy of industrialization is what ended the Little Ice Age, I am watching a political hack with zero credibility. I know that when a petition supporting global warming is presented with 4000 names and half of those names are not scientists, that science had little or nothing to do with it. And I know that when the gears start switching to "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming," the wheels are coming off the bus.
I further know that politicizing science in the name of a concept as undefined as "social justice" is a crime against both science and history.


RE: Your all full of BS
By Tacoloft on 2/26/2008 7:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well written. I applaud your comment.


RE: Your all full of BS
By rsmech on 2/26/2008 8:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
ditto.


RE: Your all full of BS
By hcahwk19 on 2/26/2008 8:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
"I further know that politicizing science in the name of a concept as undefined as "social justice" is a crime against both science and history."

As well as a crime against both society and justice.


RE: Your all full of BS
By theflux on 2/27/2008 11:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
Your post is already ranked 5, but I would vote it higher if I could.


RE: Your all full of BS
By leebert on 2/28/2008 12:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. Don't worry, there are credible climatologists who feel the same way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Wait 'til the alarmists have to explain why Kyoto will not only destroy jobs in the West, but also lead to increased CO2 emissions from off-shoring production to China.

It gets better: Last summer Prof. V. Ramanathan (IPCC INDOEX team leader) announced the startling discovery that heat-absorbing airborne soot wasn't dimming & cooling but was rather causing HALF of the HEATING formerly blamed on CO2!!!

IOW, their old computer models WERE WRONG. They didn't have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back up THEIR THEORIES, and NOW their climate models have been demonstrated to be BROKEN.

And in 2001 James Hansen HIMSELF commented that up to 25 PERCENT of all warming of the past 100 years was due to the Arctic melt-offs, and 90 PERCENT of that has been shown to be due to DIRTY SNOW that was caused by none other than SOOT.

Has the IPCC changed its tune? Has the media? NO! They still list SOOT as an unknown w/ a higher tendency toward surface dimming & cooling than heat absorption. Ramanathan showed that this *IS NOT* the case, soot has a net heating effect of 1 watt/m3 (more than it cools the surface). How did Ramanathan's team discover this? They got the heck away from the computer model & went and flew sorties of small robotic plains through soot-stained skies over the Indian Ocean. In other words they did EMPIRICAL RESEARCH!!!

Ramanathan & his team @ the Scripps Inst. went on to show how 40% of all the warming over the vast Pacific & the Western USA is DUE TO SOOT, how most of the early melts in the Rockies are due to westerly Asian soot AND how most of the ARctic & tundra early melts are due to Russian oil fields & S.E. Asian soot.

The Asian Brown CLoud is the biggest problem we have at the moment, and if the soot emissions were curtailed the problem would clear itself w/in months, not centuries. And for some reason we're going to keep China & India exempt from emissions reductions, so that we can send our jobs to Asia? Whiskey Tango FoxTrot?!

And now this! What climatology needs is to get the heck away from their supercomputers and to start doing some real EMPIRICAL TESTS!

/leebert


RE: Your all full of BS
By leebert on 2/28/2008 12:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
> I know that when I see a goofball described as
> a "leading climatologist" spouting the insane
> proposition that the infancy of industrialization
> is what ended the Little Ice Age, I am watching
> a political hack with zero credibility.

And just for the record, the end of the Maunder solar minimum is what ended the LIA.

/leebert


RE: Your all full of BS
By MIT70 on 2/26/2008 7:57:27 PM , Rating: 1
I believe you wanted to say " You're all full of BS". I look at spelling and grammar when I evaluate postings.


RE: Your all full of BS
By krws00 on 2/27/2008 8:10:22 AM , Rating: 1
I believe you wanted to say, ""I believe you wanted to say,” You're all full of BS"."

You might want to take a mental note of this... No one really gives a plug nickel how you evaluate their posting, but when you criticize someone for their spelling and grammar, you might want to ask your mommy to review your own grammar before you hit the post button.


RE: Your all full of BS
By Aikouka on 2/27/2008 8:57:40 AM , Rating: 3
Psst, if you have double quotes inside double quotes, the inner double quotes should now become single quotes to avoid prematurely ending your quote!

Wikipedia has a good demonstration of a quote in a quote (in a quote...): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark


RE: Your all full of BS
By Spivonious on 2/27/2008 10:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
pWned


RE: Your all full of BS
By porkpie on 2/26/2008 7:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Some more "rumors" for you:
quote:
The devastating effects of [the cold weather] on China's economy worsened yesterday as the destruction of winter crops added to pressures on food prices.

T he heaviest snowstorms to hit the centre and south of the country in 50 years have continued to cause havoc to Chinese New Year travel plans, with 105 million people affected , according to government figures.

Millions are stranded on roads, or stuck in stations, waiting on slow-moving trains or in temporary shelters around the railway stations.

Some 150,000 homes have collapsed and another 650,000 have been seriously damaged, say disaster relief officials.

But the long-term effects were looking equally ominous.

" The impact of the snow disaster in southern China on winter crop production is extremely serious," said Chen Xiwen, the government's leading expert on the agricultural economy. "The impact on fresh vegetables and on fruit in some places has been catastrophic."
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia/china-in...

I bet these guys are wishing for a little global warming right now.


RE: Your all full of BS
By YouAreSofaKingDumb on 2/26/2008 8:01:30 PM , Rating: 3
"Your all full of BS."
Don't you mean, mister intellectual, "You're all full of BS"?
Your small grasp of the language is an indicator of the depth of your knowledge on this topic.


RE: Your all full of BS
By bshanna on 2/27/2008 7:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct, I am a chemist not an English major. Also correct in saying that politicizing science is bad. It is done from both the right and the left, and I will gladly call out the doom and gloom people as well. The world is not going to be ending just because a few politicians say so. So I should add both sides of the argument are full of it. The data is weak, and a few spikes in CO2 levels ice core samples when volcanic activity was up, and CO2 were of natural causes. I may add these coincide with periods of high plant growth The earth works as a buffer, and when we move beyond its ability to regulate itself it will let us know. The forests and oceans can only hold so much... Do we need to stop using fossil fuels immediately, no do we need to listen to Al Gore? I don't know never saw his movie because I didn't want to see the propaganda... Do we need to have a logical look without cherry picking data. Yes


RE: Your all full of BS
By MIT70 on 2/27/2008 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
The data are weak.


RE: Your all full of BS
By whirabomber on 2/29/2008 8:39:41 AM , Rating: 3
Are you saying:

"All your data are belong to us"

?


RE: Your all full of BS
By random git on 2/27/2008 7:56:14 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. Whenever it's exceptionally hot these woowoos are quick to point out how one year does not make a trend (or how a decade doesn't make a trend), how measurements have margins of error etc. But when the temperature takes a dip, or even if the weather is just cold, all that critical thinking goes out the window and the phrase "global cooling" is brought up.

Snowstorms in southern China? Puh-lease, these are the same people who usually deny more frequent hurricanes having anything to do with warmer temperatures. Come on, massive weather systems like hurricanes have a lot more to do with the climate than whether there's a downpour or a snowstorm.

It's no surprise there's no mention of the normal, if not slightly warmer winter weather in Europe. But the ice cover in the arctic ocean is also skipped. It's diminishing like it has been for the last 30+ years.

When people with no background in meteorology or physics read articles like this they should compare it to similar anti-gw articles. The only consistency is the way they are made and their agenda. A scientific article or dataset is taken, coupled with some carefully cherry picked (or made up) facts and premises made by the hack. This bastardized data is then spun into a half assed article, the only purpose of which is to undermine the effort made by scientists to understand this planet better.


RE: Your all full of BS
By whatevr on 2/27/2008 8:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
*Yawn* I wonder what the next bandwagon everyone will jump on will be about...


RE: Your all full of BS
By Allie44369 on 2/27/2008 9:30:45 AM , Rating: 3
STOP, STOP.... stop all your fighting. You're scaring off the nice warm weather!!! I don't like global cooling, we had that when I was in high school and I don't want it to come back.

Quick, everyone run outside, right now, and start your SUV... run it all day if you have to!!!


RE: Your all full of BS
By cliffs56 on 2/27/2008 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
Trying to shore up your argument with the words, "as a chemist," while starting your post with "your all full of BS," indicated you do not even know basic English (should have been you're for "you are," only indicates you have no clue what you're talking about. But, many others before me contradicted your other points quite well.

I don't know what kind of "chemist" you are, but making your own meth does not count.


RE: Your all full of BS
By Skydiver1972 on 2/27/2008 12:36:22 PM , Rating: 3
Ah, the silly need to throw credentials around. How about: PhD geologist? (Purely academic, by the way -- vulcanologist, you see. Never worked for those "terrible" big oil companies. Yes, I know how you work, you bad boy, you! I could see the inquisitional gleam in your eye from a mile off.)

Man caused global warming is an utter, complete, unscientific hoax -- can I be any clearer? Or should I wash, rinse, repeat?

Your "facts" are simply nonsense (and simply non-science). You talk of statistics, so you'll be familiar with this statement: garbage in, garbage out. Which is why the dogma of global warming has never worked when actually applied to and observed in the real world (a necessary part of any working theory, but what's a little invalidation between friends?).

Thus we see the sudden need to change the label from "global warming" (which only works when a given level of solar output dictates warming -- oh, did I say such a blasphemy out loud? sorry! my bad) to the much more user-friendly "climate change." That certainly covers all the bases, doesn't it? (Though in our politically correct times, wouldn't "global temperature stabilization challenged" be even better? But I digress...)

Which means that people -- meaning those who subscribe to the climate change religion (and make no mistake, it IS a religion in the very worse sense, with unquestioning and unquestionable dogma, calls for inquisitions against we heretics, etc.) -- can assign blame to mankind for ANY change in the weather, and (most importantly) the underlying political agenda can proceed unhindered.

Most of the counter arguments to the precepts of the gospel of climate change have already been covered in the various threads here, but in my quick glance through I didn't see one point that I like to make from a geologist's standpoint: warmer is BETTER. (The article itself alludes to this.)

When the world has been warmer, it hasn't turned in the equivalent of DUNE (a good read, but unfortunately the bible, it seems, of climate changers). In fact a warmer world (and I mean even A LOT warmer) is a greener, wetter, milder, in a word, NICER world for we hairless primates.

If "greenhouse gasses" actually warmed the planet, I'd be for burning them in much larger quantities than we do at the moment. (By the way, I keep wondering how man-generated atmospheric pollutants raised the temperature of other planets in the solar system, but again I digress...)

Here's just the facts, ma'am: If the world is truly entering a cooling phase, we're in for a tough go. The result will be a harsher, more barren world, where a large percentage of the life on this planet (yes, even those wonderful fuzzy fellow travelers we love to protect) is going to struggle. Yes, even climate change religionists are going to witness and be part of some dark times, and we can only hope we'll have enough of BOTH carbon based and alternative fuels to get us through.

And just so we're clear: getting rid of humanity's carbon footprint is not going to do even the smallest thing to stop ANY form of "climate change" (pick from the following options: a) warming, b) cooling, c) neither warming or colling, d) both warming and cooling, e) all of the above).

Have a nice day.


RE: Your all full of BS
By stickstr1970 on 2/27/2008 1:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to know how long has the earth been here? Seems to me I heard that it has been here for millions of years, so being able to see a global trend would take more than one hundred years. One hundred years for our planet would be like less than five minutes in a human life, so that doesn't seem like a positive base line to tell wether or not the planet is doing somthing that it shouldn't.
We do not know what the true tempetures were prior to the mini ice age, during the Roman Empire, or even during 1000AD. So when I hear people screaming that we are all going to die from the warming trend I ask you to prove to me that the tempeture fluctuation is not part of the planetay cycle.


RE: Your all full of BS
By xinunus on 2/27/2008 2:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
There are things that are being used now to give us ideas of what the temperature was like 1000's of years ago. They have taken samples from ice cores and stalagmites and can get very accurate details that climate change has been occuring for millions of years. Even climate warming. This crap about we are causing our planet to warm are bs.


RE: Your all full of BS
By NikFromNYC on 2/27/2008 4:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
"One hundred years for our planet would be like less than five minutes in a human life."

Actually if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and human life is 45 million minutes (86 years), then it's exactly 1.0 minute, which isn't even plural.


RE: Your all full of BS
By xinunus on 2/27/2008 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
OMG!!! Who will save the polar bears from freezing... Quick give Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize for saving us from GLOBAL COOLINGG.. RUN FOR THE HILLSS THE COLD IS COMING!! DOHHH...


RE: Your all full of BS
By Eagle670 on 2/27/2008 7:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
The History channel had a great show on called "How the Earth was Made" If anyone can watch this and then still have the conclusion that human actions have any effect on this planets climate, I would love to here the argument.
My favorite comeback to the global warming hysteria is the question, What human activity caused the Ice Age and what human activety brought the planet out of it? Funny how many blank looks you get.


RE: Your all full of BS
By pauluskc on 3/3/2008 12:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Humans => Ice Age:
Neanderthal discovered fire - global warming and then cooling ensued.

Humans => No More Ice Age:
Human migrations to good ole USA (present-day USA) ended the Ice Age.

</joke>


RE: Your all full of BS
By Golferdude7238 on 3/7/2008 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
The year without a summer in the Carolinas

The year 1816 was famous as "the year without a summer." That year started out, in Stanley as well as other regions of the south, so mild for the months of January and February that many folks let their fires go out and burned wood only for cooking; however, March was very cold and windy. Showers started the Month of April but ended with snow and ice. In May the temperature was like that of winter. The young buds that began forming in April were stiff and frozen. Ice, one half inch thick formed on ponds and rivers in North and South Carolina. Corn was killed and after being planted again and again nothing was reaped from the cornfields. June was cold, the coldest month ever experienced in this latitude. Almost all green things as well as fruits were killed. There was ice, frost, and some snow flurries in July. August proved to be the worst month of all not only here but even in Europe. September started out with two weeks of pleasant weather and the rest of the month was cold. October and November were extremely cold and then December was mild. This extraordinary weather condition in 1816 had been caused by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Temboro in the Dutch East Indies, blowing 50 cubic miles of dust into the air and killing some 66,000 people. The volcanic dust clouded the skies all over the earth causing doom and gloom and the "year without a summer."

What do you think, could humans do this much damage to planet Earth's weather in a lifetime???????

I think not. Volcanoes put more CFC's into the atmosphere every day than all of mankind has already done.

Global Warming ALGORE style is a FARCE


RE: Your all full of BS
By pauluskc on 3/7/2008 3:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
they say that volcanoes are a drop in the bucket compared with people.

But I agree with you. Volcanoes dump a lot of crap into the atmosphere, have for millions of years. Thank you volcanoes!!

I wonder how much this undersea volcano eruption (22 million cubic meters) raised sea levels / temperatures... causing more polar ice melting and killing mass quantities of krill, kelp, and other CO2 converting plant life?

Probably insignificant, but that raise will be attributed to humans instead of the planet.

Pay attention people, the planet is trying to kill us off not the other way around.


Global warming is psychopathic
By loco4motion on 2/26/08, Rating: -1
Liberalism is to blame!
By bwhite on 2/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Liberalism is to blame!
By NikFromNYC on 2/27/2008 6:20:39 PM , Rating: 1
One problem with this argument is that separated-at-birth identical-twin studies (the big one in Minnesota) showed that almost all and I hedge a bit but mostly likely *all* personality traits are inherited by a factor of 50%. Psychology coined phrases such as "cycle of abuse" in which abused kids turn into abusive parents. Guess what? It's mostly inherited abusiveness! The distinction between correlation and causation escaped classic soft-science psychology.

Guess what else is influenced by 50% genetic (or embryonic conditions such as the stress or malnutrition of the mother) factors? Political affiliation!

So if you call Liberalism "madness" then you must also consider the humane fact that it is an inherited "defect". But why might such a "defect" not then be weeded out? Well, political activism is a great way for males to get female attention, and for females to get invited to high society parties full of high status wealthy males.

References: John Ray's entire blog at http://www.DissectLeft.blogspot.com
The two books by Judith Ruth Harris ('No Two Alike' and 'The Nurture Assumption')


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
Related Articles









Most Popular Articles







botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki