This is almost hypnotic. One of the leaders at a Tea Party event with the Citizens of Liberty holds forth on the science of global warming. [Note: there will be no academic credit awarded for this Internet learning exercise].
The site for this organization makes clear that this is about a world socialist agenda:
No, nothing will ever be enough for these extremists. Because it really isn’t about saving the planet in the first place. It’s about pushing a socialist agenda to cripple the capitalist nations of the west. It’s about wealth redistribution and socialist schemes under the guise of environmentalism.
While nothing will ever be enough to straighten out the socialists and other Koolaid drinkers, we have more than enough for the American people to force our government to stop treating us worse than foreign dictators and stop this cap and trade global warming tax nonsense in the Senate.
I had to add this to our library of hard-right science, here.
Rep Lyons, they are calling your name. South Africa anyone?
Everything I’ve ever read – from proponents or opponents – about the supposed strategies for combating Global Warming support her theory.
Even if its happening, and even if – a big “if” – mankind is the primary cause, the methods being put forth by the Warmists to stop the trend DO seem to be far more about “pushing a socialist agenda to cripple the capitalist nations of the west” than they do about cooling the planet.
That video was very hard to watch. Global warming has not, and I will repeat myself for the right wing deniers here, Global Warming Has not been discredited. Get busy and actually do some reading instead of watching Fox News and listening to this tea bag “expert”.
Rafflaw:
Most of the “right” wing thought is that mean earth temperatures are rising slightly but they think it is caused by natural forces, such as ramped up sun activity.
As to solutions I recently heard about a rock that will absorb CO2.
Finally for most of earths 5 or so billion years it has been hotter than it is now. So our current period is not exactly the norm for earths temperature.
On the one hand some people think we cannot control our environment and on the other they do. I doubt we can even if we stopped all human CO2 emitting activity, if mother nature wants to heat the earth that is what is going to happen.
Same bunch that is always the first to scream for help when the Sh.t hits the fan.
Put me on the search committee for the Palin 2012 Campaign. I think I see the next Administrator of the EPA.
I’m not certain her audience was buying her speech as much as she hoped for. There was a lot less enthusiasm and cheering that I might have expected. I wonder if the issue could be divorced from taxes so that people could actually hear out the evidence. This seems like an antitaxation rally to me, hitched on to global warming as the boogieman. If global warming was hitched to a jobs creation program, which it certainly could be if we’d get cracking on alternative energy, I suspect many people at the rally might be on board with the idea. People are desperate for jobs. People are scared. Small business people get screwed a lot. The problem is the analysis of the issue gets seen through an untrue lens. In this case, clear and overwhelming evidence is seen as so many evil lies. Those christians urging stewardship of the earth are on the right track in reaching out to these types of christian conservatives. The secular and/or non-fundamentalist relgious community needs to offer solutions that create jobs and wealth while cleaning up the environmental damage.
IS,
I understand that the deniers think that the warming is caused by natural forces. However, the vast majority of scientists agree that it is man’s activities that are causing the global warming. If you do not agree with sound scientific studies aren’t you spitting into the wind? Are these deniers taking this stand because they think their corporations will be harmed by legislation to curb our emissions and they don’t care about the outcome if their dividends are continuing to be paid? This tea bag lady is a prime example of what the denier faction is feeding to the masses. They give them lies such as hers that the global warming studies have been discredited and never state by whom. The difficult and expensive solutions that are necessary to slow down and eliminate global warming are necessary and we have waited too long already. IS, the experts tell us that we can reverse the effects of global warming if we act now. Do you disagree with the scientific community or do you believe like the lady in the video that the science has been “discredited”?
It matters not a fart-hing just who, exactly, is “responsible for global warming.” The effects proceed apace despite any time-burgling blamestorming sessions convened by hapless humans.
Nor does identifying the culprit (that dirty birdie!) alter what must be done: adapt or perish. This has been the bargain for at least 3.7 billion years, and probably much longer.
There are a couple of key markers worth watching. The lag so far has been sea level rise. Climate models have been off in the sense their predictions are coming true much earlier. Nor have they accounted for the acceleration of warming/melting that is observed, particularly in the arctic. The ice that is going, hundreds of thousands of years in the making, buttresses land sheets. Take away the supports…this is not rocket science.
Pray sea level rise does not follow this pattern. The global economy will not be able to respond to the ongoing disaster recovery that will be required.
For ostriches such as those in the video, at least the sand is dry.
Pax,
M.
It is the Obama administration and our indurstry “leaders” that make me much more angry that this woman. They have access to the best scientific evidence yet they do worse than nothing. They still wish to invest in things like “clean coal” and the oil industry. Who then is more culpable? The person who is ignorant and does nothing or those people who know very well the consequences and still do nothing or actively support those activities that will bring harm? I’m very unhappy with the ignorance displayed and embraced by this woman and her followers but I am angry as hell at our ruling elite, who for some reason, think money can buy them out of any problem, including this one. That is a miscalculation that will cost us all dearly.
Jill,
Isn’t it a little naive to think the industry leaders will do something to kill their golden goose? It has to come from government and the Obama administration has been working at pushing the global warming issue forward. It has only been 6 months. I understand your comments about so-called clean coal, but that is only one part of the picture. One more thing. Those tea baggers or the people who are inciting and instigating the tea-baggers are not ignorant. Their bills are being paid for by corporations and Fox News. Thankfully, their numbers are small, but the right wing media like Fox and others are stoking the flames to increase the numbers, but more likely to make the small numbers seem larger than they are.
Jill
I thought too we had elected a President that would do the right thing but that ship has sailed.
Don’t know a lot about the following subjects. Desalination, hydro electricity, earth moving, high speed rail systems to name a few but I do know that here in Wisconsin it is “grow local, eat local” and recently Wisconsin refused to go along with building coal fired energy plants. Some hope anyway.
Now it occurs to me that the southwest, including California has politicians that simply wish to continue to ignore drought conditions even when a large share of American agriculture is produced in California.
I recommended this possibility: Below San Diego bury large pipes from the Pacific ocean inland say 20 miles and at that point dig a canal 2 or so miles wide and hundreds of feet deep leading to hydro electric dams. Sea water would be pulled in through these pipes, fed into this canal…during the process stripping as much salt from the water as possible. The used water would be re-routed to the beginning of the canal to increase water pressure and further remove salt. Water from below the dam would also be pulled into desalination plants. Water would be moved from the desalination plant process to canals moving it into California, Arizona and New Mexico. Electricity generated from the dams would be transmitted also into California, Arizona and New Mexico. I can see hundreds of these hydro dams and desalination plants along the border between the USA and Mexico all the way to the Gulf Of Mexico. In addition, an electric rail system drawing power from these dams could be built above the canals to transport workers. Also, this corridor could be used for solar plants, in some areas wind farms, for recycling plants, and perhaps even plastic recycle facilities. Call me crazy but why can’t we build lego type houses from recycled plastic. God knows there is an island of plastic the size of Texas floating in the ocean now.
I believe there are ways to address these problems: drought, clean water, ocean acidity, mass migration that is coming from rising sea levels, climate change that is a direct result of ocean warming, water pollution from mountain top removal mining and oil drilling.
Catastrophic scenarios abound: Polar ice caps melting is one of them, complete loss of ocean marine ecosystems, the Southwest turning to a “dust bowl.” Even the disappearance of bees. Einstein has stated that when the bees disappear man has about 4 years left.
I do, however, believe that mankind will indeed become extinct before an American president puts the survival of it’s people above a second term.
I think I done discovered the theory of relativity. They must be relatives.
rAFFLAW:
I do not believe global warming is man made, oh we may contribute a tenth of a degree increase with human activity but the major cause of global warming is the sun in my opinion.
The cost to reverse that tenth of a degree is going to be staggering. From where I sit, I cannot understand why we would try and spend billions of dollars to cause a minor adjustment in mean earth temperature.
Green technology is not going to create jobs. The government cannot create jobs if the private sector doesn’t think it is worth allocating resources to. The only way to do this is with tax cuts and other benefits for companies that “create” green jobs. This is the same as paying farmers to not plant or plant peanuts or soybeans. This creates a false reality and will take resources from things that actually work to create jobs.
Bill Clinton was lucky in that he rode a technology tidal wave that was created by the private sector. When Clinton took office very few people even knew what the Internet was and now just about everybody uses it. I think Obama thinks he can do the same thing but the problem is that the private sector created that boom not government.
Government, in my opinion, does not allocate resources efficiently or effectively. A committee of bureaucrats cannot figure out all of the unintended consequences that will occur from central planning. I don’t care how smart you are you cannot control and foresee consequences that will result when you cause 300 million people to take financial decisions based on what the government intends to do or not do. It is intellectual folly and supreme arrogance.
We are going to become a third world country, but at least we will be green.
China and India should surpass us in terms of GDP in a few years and our standard of living will be in the toilet but we will have lots of clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, but probably not because we will not be able to afford clean-up costs.
to all that think ocean levels will rise when ice caps melt. Take a large bowl of water and put a large chunk of ice in it, mark the bowls water level before and after the ice melts. Then get back to me and let me know what happens.
Global warming is to this generation’s conspiracy theorists what chlorination of drinking water supplies was to the conspiracy theorists of the ’50s, another plot to enslave mankind. Dialogue is impossible because the Bush administration succeeded in politicizing science to such a great extent that many conservatives now regard serious scientific inquiry as simply another tool to advance the liberal agenda. The attack on climate change research and the attack on evolution theory both spring from the same mind-set, a deadly combination of anti-intellectualism and biblical literalism. The woman speaking in the video is illustrative of this new know-nothingism. She is a perfect illustration of why one can visit the bookstore at the Grand Canyon National Park and buy literature explaining how the canyon was formed by Noah’s flood.
IS, you’re ignoring, among other things, the difference in density between saltwater and freshwater. Back to the drawing board.
Mike A.,
Are you claiming that an ice cube, made up of fresh water, floating on fresh water when melted, would result in a different resultant water level than what would occur if the ice cube was floating on salt water?
Interesting displacement theory.
“Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” – Jules Henri Poincare
Jim Byrne, the answer is yes.
Mike A.
Well said. The Bush regime and its religous right followers have brought science down to a level that is scary. That lady in the video and all that actually believe that she is telling the truth, where is their science to rebut the peer reviewed studies that prove global warming is mostly man made? The only thing that they can point to is the sun is getting warmer and God is taking care of us!
Mike A:
Fresh water has a density of 1.0 while salt water has a density of 1.025. From this, you can see that salt water is slightly heavier than fresh water.
An iceberg is a large piece of freshwater ice that has broken off from a snow-formed glacier or ice shelf and is floating in open water
I dont think it makes much difference. An iceberg is fresh water so it expands as an ice cube would. The same thing is going to happen.
So pour some salt in bowl of water measure the level and then throw some ice cubes in and measure the level and measure it again after the ice cubes melt. Then get back to me.
In fact all the fresh water would float on top of the salt water and then we can pump it into storage wells and have all the fresh water we want for farming. Since the weather will be warmer we will have a longer growing season and will be able to feed more people so the population of the earth will get bigger and that will cause more pollution and garbage. So I think I have really hit on the reason for wanting to lower global temperatures-reduction in population.
Rafflaw:
just out of curiosity what happens when the sun goes away?
The sun has the biggest effect on earth temperatures. It is the engine of our world, it makes the clouds, the currents, the wind, it warms the ocean, it cools the ocean.
The idea that man has a significant effect on global temperatures is postulated by university professors that want grant money from the federal government or the UN.
You think science doesn’t have a political agenda as well? If I wanted grant money and the giver of the grants thought that the moon was made of green cheese, I would sure try real hard to make my case.
Isn’t that what lawyers do, make there case to put their client in the best possible light? The facts don’t matter if they can get their client off. Same with scientists, they need the money for research and their livelihood.
I have looked at both sides and I think yes the earth is warming but I don’t believe it is from human activity.
Yes, well said Mike A. and Rafflaw.
Please correct/help me if I am wrong.
My understanding is that the greatest factor in rising sea levels is whether the ice melting is over land or water. If the ice melts, and it is currently all above water (floating) it won’t make any difference to sea levels as the volume of ice has already displaced the water.
The problem is when the ice melting is over a land mass. Then the ice has not displaced its’ own weight; so as it melts sea levels rise.
As large amounts of ice are lost the rate of global warming will be accelerated as ice reflects large amounts of light which would now be absorbed and converted to heat.
IS, yes there will be a difference in level. If you take an ice cube, put it in a glass and fill the glass up (the ice cube will bob above the water level) and let the ice melt the level will remain constant. Water expands so while it looks like you have more ice, and its melting will overfill the glass, it will not. If on the other hand you fill the glass and drop in an ice cube the glass will overfill because you are adding more water (form is not material for the experiment) in some amount to your glass.
So what? Your analogy only works for ice already in the ocean, not ice over ground as it is on Greenland and Antarctica and various glaciers. Antarctica is a mountainous land mass under all that ice. The seas will rise.
CEJ and Lottakatz:
Yes I understand about the ice on the Antarctic and Greenland. How much sea ice is there? 9/10 of an iceberg is submerged and displacing a certain volume of water.
I have found from net search that Greenland’s Ice sheet is about 3×10^6 ckm and the Antarctic ice sheet is about 33,000,000 ckm.
The arctic ice is mostly pack ice, so what is the volume differential when it melts? It should lower sea levels. So the question is what is the differential sea level when all of the ice on earth melts, the land ice will cause it to rise and the sea or pack ice will cause it to fall. I could find nothing on this differential change in sea level.
Most of the rise in sea levels are based on both the Antarctic and Greenland ice packs melting and these are significant, but there is no mention of resulting levels should all of the ice on earth melt. That is the real question.
Not for nothing, but water expands when frozen; which is why ice floats.
Also, it’s nice to know that capitalism intends to thrive in the melting ice caps
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,579265,00.html
IS I’m not certain why these guys aren’t pointing the obvious out to you. Your experiment is wrong. The ice at the poles isn’t in the ocean. So the more accurate experiment is to take a glass of water mark it’s level then melt an ice cube into it and see if the water rises.
And just so you know, LottaKatz was right about the water level, assuming the ice was floating, the water level wouldn’t change in you experiment.
Josh,
You’re absolutely correct. Displacement is displacement.
rafflaw,
I must disagree. If you look at Obama’s energy policy you will see that it does not move very far and very fast, both of which are absolutely necessary to avert catastrophe at this time. I agree that industry leaders have no intention of moving away from squeezing the last nickle out of a source of energy that cannot be sustained. I don’t believe the govt. has to go along with them. Through the use of tax incentives, the withdrawl of other tax incentives and by the use of govt. investment in a time of economic crisis, you can get even the oil industry to move off the dime. All they care about is money, so give it to them. As long as they make it from building alternative energy infrastructure, and don’t make it from oil subsidies, it will happen. A president is not a victim of his donors. He could understand this is an emergency and use a basic system of bribes to turn the energy compaies around. Better still he could put aside his desire for oil/industry money and do the right thing because it is necessary, because it is an emergency.
I also object to the painting of right wing christians as the only ones who will ignore evidence and ignore science. It should be clear that ignoring science is a team sport in this nation. Putting it off on those stupid right wing christians is itself ignoring clear evidence that many people don’t know, or worse, many do know and don’t care (others of whom whooliebacon pointed out).
IS,
A few points: In the last 8 or so years, the Executive branch (Which the NSF is part of), was known to put pressure on scientists and other government bodies to suppress data on climate change. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653
The scientific concern over the melting ice packs is only minimally about rising sea levels. Since that is the most sensational part, it gets the most press. The polar ice packs help restrain methane, insulate the water against heat loss, and the winter convection of the Odden ice tongue helps drive thermohaline circulation (the system of deep and surface currents).
I’m not going to try and convince you that we’re causing climate change, hopefully at some point you will go through all the research with a less biased eye. I just want to point out that this isn’t the first time that the climate has been changed because of life. Look up the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Paleoproterozoic era. This sort of thing has happened before, and life went on, however I think we’d all prefer if mankind was included in the list of life that goes on.
Global Warming: Scientists’ Best Predictions May Be Wrong
When it comes right down to it, the truth is WE DON’T KNOW if man is the cause of global warming. As such, we don’t know if we can do anything to stop it.
What we do know, is that we have an obligation to humanity to try. The alternative is to sit back and do nothing.
Leaders in Iran are going up against a brutal ruling regime. This opposition could get them imprisoned and/or killed. There are leaders who will risk everything when everything is on the line. I’m not willing to accept my political class as a group of cowards. If they can’t act with courage in an emergency then they shouldn’t be in office. Here’s the story from Iran:
“Iranian reformists, among them Mohammad Khatami, the former president, have called for a referendum to resolve the crisis that has gripped the country since last month’s disputed presidential election.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/07/2009720112418612488.html
“What we do know, is that we have an obligation to humanity to try. The alternative is to sit back and do nothing.”
Jim,
I agree. When you ponder the fact that some athletes were debating whether to attend the Olympics because of the air pollution in Beijing, I think you’re led to the inescapable conclusion that humanity must change over to the production of non-polluting energy sources. The benefits alone to the US if we gave money and tax credits to develop these sources and revitalize our industrial base are untold. Even without government aid major businesses should understand this is not about politics, but about farsighted management, that will have the added benefit of a better world for our progeny.
While I do feel that humans have a big responsibility in creating global warming, to me that is almost irrelevant. Polluting our atmosphere can’t be a good thing in any manner, especially where the technology exists, or will shortly exist to end it. The industry’s that oppose it are shortsighted in their opposition and will go the way of the buggy whip industry when the automobile was introduced unless they keep up with the times technologically.
I place a lot of blame also on the Christian Fundamentalists who believe Armageddon is near because with that attitude why bother to do anything to help the planet? Sadly, they do not know history or they would understand how many times in the past that Armageddon was supposed to occur, 1,000CE, 1666CE or 2,000CE anyone, and of course didn’t. They spread a what do we care attitude, along with the proposition that the chosen few will be better off in Heaven and so don’t care what we do to ourselves and/or our children.
Gyges:
Do you honestly think mankind can stop global warming or that we contribute enough by products to significantly change our climate? We may change it a little bit and I am certainly not going to argue that point but one good volcanic eruption spews hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. In fact the recent large eruption, what was it Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, caused earth to cool slightly because of the shading effect of the particulate matter.
Global warming is a way to get people to change their habits through fear and intimidation, nothing else. If it wasn’t global warming it would be global cooling or evaporation of ocean water, or loss of fresh water lakes or something that would scare people into reducing consumption and production.
Heck most of the people on this site don’t even seem to understand that when ice melts the volume decreases so how can the average person sift through all the BS about global warming.
If the earth wants to get rid of humans it will do it whether we want it to or not. Our species is already set for extinction at some point in the distant future, so I say we need to figure out how to keep the sun from dying.
Global warming research is taking valuable resources from a real problem. We should be spending money to learn how to travel to hospitable distant planets so our species can populate the universe when the time comes. Global warming is taking valuable time and money from this necessary research. If we don’t learn how to travel to distant planets now we are going to become extinct as a species (and that is a certainty). So we need to start now, this research is vital and truly imperative to our survival as a species.
The Mars mission should take top priority as this will be the first small steps for populating the universe. We should also fund a permanent Lunar settlement. If we don’t do all this our species will cease to exist.
I call on President Obama to set a program in place that will put humans on mars in the year 2025 and for travel to the edge of our Solar System by the end of this century. If we don’t we will become extinct.
Mike Spindell:
All that you said about new technology is true but the automobile was not developed by government it was developed by a free people.
Eventually when market forces are right we will have the green technology. How do you know that the government intervention in our economy over the past 90 years hasn’t strangled this very innovation? I personally believe that we would be living in a more highly developed society had we been truly from government intervention.
With that said how do you know that the government isn’t the reason for global warming in the sense that innovation has been strangled by government regulations?
IS,
I’m not sure what you’re point is, other than you don’t like what we’d have to do if the theory is right, so it must be wrong.
I go to the doctor and he says “You have a congenital heart defect, if you don’t make certain changes to your lifestyle it will very likely kill you.” Is that a way to get me to change my habits through fear and intimidation? My behavior can only have so much of an effect, and eventually I’m going to die anyway.
Oh and figure out some way to throw in space travel into my metaphor.
Space colonization is a pipe dream right now for a myriad of reasons. Transplantation would also likely just result in more species of human ancestry, which is not the same as avoiding extinction.
Gyges:
if the theory is right do what you have to do. I don’t think the theory is right, as far as man made goes. How high is the mean temperature going to get and how much can we lower it? How much will it cost and how much do we save. If we have to spend 100 trillion dollars to save 500 billion dollars worth of property and other assets it is not worth the cost.
most people already have flood insurance and some people are going to get ocean front property so I say that is a wash.
What is your point about the heart problem? If the doctor is right then you have to take action but I would get at least 2 more opinions from competent doctors before I underwent surgery or other deleterious procedures or medicines. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
Jim B,
Kudos for quoting Poincare – he’s always been a hero of mine, the man was freaking brilliant.
IS,
Unfortunately, you’re missing the point (although, as a scientist I applaud the experimental approach being taken here as well as CEJ and lottakatz’s explanations). Wether a melting ice cube raises or lowers the level of salt water (and I would guess that between bouyancy issues and the difference in density it wouldn’t be a large effect in any case) is not the main reason that the melting ice caps raise the sea level – a glacier is formed by snow accumulating on an ice shelf over long periods of time – its not floating. When a glacier breaks off of the ice cap, the sea level is raised because of the volume that was not in the water. When the glaciers in question are 30 mile long pieces of Antarctica, this effect is significant. Additionally, we are clearly capable of doing something about global warming – you mentioned how particulate emissions from volcanoes can lower temperatures – it is certainly within our power to ignite a few volcanoes (a nuke in Yellowstone would likely set off the supervolcano there and probably trigger an ice age) therefore it becomes a question of a cost/benefit analysis of our options. One attitude that you share with Jill is that because cap and trade can’t possibly effect global warming, its not worth doing – this ignores the fact that policies evolve, too. As global warming (or, more accurately, climate change) becomes more apparent, it will become politically possible to tighten pollution controls and having a system already in place will expedite this. It may not allow us to fix the problem before it is too late, but the way I see it, it’s the only game in town except for burying your head in the sand…
S.B.
Please do not say I am against cap and trade as I never claimed this. I’m for anything that will work. I flat out said I would bribe the oil companies and I mean it. Bribes for them to go alternative is money well spent. I don’t enjoy bribing greedy blood suckers but I would do it in a heart beat to stop climate change and I have no idea why all the Congress people and the President who took their money, don’t pay them back by giving them all the tax incentives in the world to go with alternative choices. As long as they send all the bribe money for them to stay as oil/coal companies, they will. That same money should be put to better use.
Rafflaw: the vast majority of scientists agree that it is man’s activities that are causing the global warming.
Really, http://www.petitionproject.org/
BDaman,
From the AAAS website: “Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.” From the “AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change” (Dec. 2006) “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”
From your petition’s website “31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
Jill,
I didn’t mean to imply that you were against cap and trade, just that you didn’t think that it would work (and you’ve made it very clear that you are for more being done, not less). I apologize if I’ve misrepresented your position. I agree with the intent of most, if not all, of your positions, I just think that often they aren’t feasible or realistic. I think that the best way to control industry (or anything really) is negative feedback – taxing the negative behavior of industry allows the cost to be explicitly accounted for and adjusted to achieve the desired results. As far as I’m concerned any program of this type is a step in the right direction and a good start. (I’d be willing to bribe the oil companies, too, if I thought that it would be effective, but I don’t – if you want to raise fuel economy, raise the gas tax – this achieves the objective and raises revenue (we need to pay down the debt somehow…))
Slartibartfast:
Actual volume difference between frozen ice and water is about 8-9% so you are right it is not going to be a big deal, although with about 33,000,000 ckm of ice in Antarctica and Greenland its not a small amount either.
Seriously, I don’t think the major issue is melting ice caps as I doubt we will get hot enough to do that. What is at issue is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a policy that will not be effective just because some scientists said so. My team has a bunch of scientists that say global warming is not man-made and that cap and trade and other programs will do nothing and cost billions of dollars.
I have been watching the environmental movement since my college days when there was a protest at our campus to derail a Nuclear generating unit about 2 miles away. There was a panel both pro and con. In my view the cons were not presenting honest arguments and it was all about emotion and hysteria. I have seen nothing to suggest that the world wide environmental movement has changed tactics in 25 years.
In fact I saw a show last night where some Italian executive was getting a hard time about developing tar sands in the Congo. He was willing to be a good steward of the land and it would create jobs for people in the Congo but it was being thwarted by some environmental group in Germany.
It appears to me that most environmentalists are rich people who don’t want poor people making any money and want to keep their country trails and beaches pristine wilderness with no impact from the proletarian component of society. They push anti-growth agendas to maintain there status. Daddy made the money and they are too stupid to keep it so they try to stop competition through government restrictions, making it impossible for other companies to start up or compete (actually maybe not so stupid).
So in my view everyone supporting Global Warming is doing the bidding of the crony capitalists. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Bdman,
Perhaps a better example would be the American Meteorological Society, which has “a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts. An official statement on their website starts with: “Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established. Further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate changes that can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations1.”
The petition gives the number of meteorologists as 341, which would be 2% of the 14,000 members of the AMS. To expand it out further, it gives the number of scientists studying “atmosphere” in general as 578, or 4% of the membership of the AMS.
Gyges:
just because 2 things happen at the same time does not mean they are connected or that one is the cause of the other.
We have had increases in temperature before as in right before the little ice age. Which if my understanding is correct, lead to an increase in global population because of higher grain and other crop yields. When the little ice age came so did the Black Death.
No hydro-carbons back then except wood and peat. What say you?
IS,
That mankind has had an impact on the environment is undeniable. There’s a hole in the ozone, an island of plastic the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific, species mutating and dying off, rivers and lakes too polluted for anything to live in them… For you to say the environmentalists are all selfish rich people with devious ulterior motives is an insult to the majority of us who want to try to solve these and many other man-made environmental crises.
IS,
You’re right, correlation doesn’t equal causation.
I’m willing to bet that neither of us is an expert when it comes to climatology or the other sciences involved in this discussion. We don’t have enough time to get the extensive education needed to understand the theories involved and analyze the entirety of how they stack up to the best available evidence. However, people at the AAAS, AMS, The National Academies, etc. are. Those organizations all have issued statements saying that the theory of man made climate change is supported by the evidence.
It’s a matter of who you trust. I trust the way science works. I trust that while there may be some scientists doing bad research for whatever reason, there are many more that aren’t, and that the system favors the honest and those doing good solid research.
S.B.,
Do not continue to misrepresent what I have written or have not written. You are a very smart person. You are misreprsenting my point of view. That is a dishonorable thing to do. Nothing that you have said about my position is accurate in either your first or second post. Next time, be accurate or do not write about my posts.
Question why was Greenland called Greenland and what has become of it since it was named so.
Slartibarfast:
Why is there a hole in the ozone? Why have we allowed our garbage to be dumped into the ocean? Species die off and mutate, I think it is called natural selection and evolution.
Face it SB crony capitalists are behind all of this and you are just a tool they use to advance their agenda.
Take Archer Daniels Midland for example, they have gotten rid of all the small farmers how did they do that? I bet their lobbyists in DC wrote a bunch of environmental regulations that small farmers could not comply with. Face the truth, the environmental movement is a crony capitalist scheme to eliminate competition. Once they get rid of all of it they will pollute like maniacs and tell us they have to to keep us fed and clothed and housed.
Quit being a pawn. You seriously think the Sierra Club is buying all that land for set asides, look where they are buying it and what natural resources are under the land and on it. Oil, gas timber, minerals and it’s all tax deductible as a 501C3 corp. It’s a conspiracy all right, of crony capitalists in bed with government bureaucrats.
The only human being that was altruistic was Jesus and even he did not die for nothing.
bdaman:
I thought the Norsman named it to keep everyone away from Iceland or so the story goes. Although it could have been green and we are just being fed a bunch of BS by the envirocronyists.
About 81 percent of Greenland’s surface is covered by the Greenland ice sheet. The weight of the ice has depressed the central land area into a basin shape, whose base lies more than 300 metres (984 ft) below the surrounding ocean. Elevations rise suddenly and steeply near the coast.[40]
These Icelandic settlements vanished during the 14th and 15th centuries, likely due to famine and increasing conflicts with the Inuit.[11] The condition of human bones from this period indicates that the Norse population was malnourished, probably because of soil erosion resulting from the Norsemen’s destruction of natural vegetation to allow for farming, turf-cutting, and wood-cutting, because of a decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age, and because of armed conflicts with the Inuit.[9] Jared Diamond suggests that cultural practices, such as rejecting fish as a source of food and relying solely on livestock ill-adapted to Greenland’s (degrading) climate resulted in recurring famine which led to abandonment of the colony.[9] However, isotope analysis of the bones of inhabitants shows that marine food sources supplied more and more of the diet of the Norse Greenlanders, making up between 50% and 80% of their diet by the 1300s.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
This is an example of records being broken here and all over the world this last year we have been breaking records of 100 years or more since record keeping began.
RECORD EVENT REPORT…CORRECTEDNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DETROIT/PONTIAC MI634 PM EDT SAT JUL 18 2009…RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE SET AT BOTH FLINT AND SAGINAWTODAY…THIS AFTERNOONS HIGH TEMPERATURE AT FLINT WAS ONLY 67 DEGREES. THISIS THE LOWEST HIGH TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN FLINT FOR JULY18TH…WITH THE PREVIOUS RECORD BEING 68 DEGREES SET BACK IN 2000.IN SAGINAW…THE AFTERNOON HIGH WAS ALSO 67 DEGREES. THIS IS THELOWEST HIGH TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN SAGINAW FOR JULY18TH…WITH THE PREVIOUS RECORD BEING 68 DEGREES SET ALL THE WAYBACK IN 1914.Northern MI – Lower Penninsula: (by up to 7 degrees F)RECORD EVENT REPORTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GAYLORD MI840 PM EDT SAT JUL 18 2009…RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES SET ACROSS THE AREA…THE TEMPERATURE AT THE GAYLORD REGIONAL AIRPORT ONLY REACHED 57DEGREES ON SATURDAY…JULY 18…ESTABLISHING A NEW RECORD LOWMAXIMUM TEMPERATURE FOR THE DATE. THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 63 DEGREESSET EXACTLY 100 YEARS AGO IN 1909. … RECORDS IN GAYLORD DATE BACK TO 1893.AT THE CADILLAC AIRPORT…THE HIGH TEMPERATURE ON SATURDAY ONLYREACHED 59 DEGREES. THIS READING ESTABLISHES A NEW RECORD LOWMAXIMUM TEMPERATURE FOR THE DATE…SMASHING THE OLD RECORD OF 66DEGREES SET BACK IN 1924. … RECORDS IN CADILLAC DATE BACK TO 1909.AT THE PELLSTON AIRPORT…THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 59DEGREES ON SATURDAY ESTABLISHED A NEW RECORD LOW MAXIMUM FOR THEDATE…BREAKING THE OLD RECORD OF 61 DEGREES SET IN 2000. …RECORDS IN PELLSTON DATE BACK TO 1948.Houton Lake, MI: (by 6 degrees F)
RECORD EVENT REPORTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GAYLORD MI843 PM EDT SAT JUL 18 2009…NEW RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE AT HOUGHTON LAKE…THE TEMPERATURE AT THE HOUGHTON LAKE AIRPORT ONLY REACHED 59DEGREES ON SATURDAY…JULY 18…ESTABLISHING A NEW RECORD LOWMAXIMUM TEMPERATURE FOR THE DATE. THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 65 DEGREESSET IN 2000. … RECORDS IN HOUGHTON LAKE DATE BACK TO 1913.Lansing, MI: right in the middle
RECORD EVENT REPORTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAND RAPIDS MI628 PM EDT FRI JUL 17 2009…RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE TIED AT LANSING MICHIGAN…THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 70 DEGREES TODAY TIES THE RECORD FOR COLDESTHIGH TEMPERATURE FOR THE DATE WHICH WAS SET IN 1937.Grand Rapids, MI: western lower penninsula (by 4 degrees F)
RECORD EVENT REPORTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAND RAPIDS MI641 PM EDT FRI JUL 17 2009…RECORD COLD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT GRAND RAPIDS…THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 67 DEGREES TODAY AT GRAND RAPIDS SETS ARECORD FOR THE COLDEST HIGH TEMPERATURE ON RECORD FOR THE DATE. THERECORD WAS 71 DEGREES SET IN 1937.
Jan 25 2009
RAS AL KHAIMAH // Snow covered the Jebel Jais area for only the second time in recorded history yesterday.
So rare was the event that one lifelong resident said the local dialect had no word for it.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090125/NATIONAL/688880349/1010/enewsletter
Slart,
You’re probably better suited to explain the whole statistical outliers thing to Bdaman than I am, care to take a whack at it?
bdaman:
come on, you know global warming is causing those low temperatures!
The Huffington Post says so.
Yes, we do need to take care of the planet and clean it up. We need to plant as many trees as we can to suck up all that Co2. Except, don’t tell that to this administration.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/blogs/obama-administration-green-lights-logging-in-tongass
IS: if people really knew by studying the ACTUAL FACTUAL data instead listenning to the AP and media they would be shocked at what they learn. I like the polar bear commercial where they are dying, running out of food and no place to get cold. If one was to look at the actual numbers of Polar Bears from 1950 they would be pretty convinced that the polar bears are doing just fine.
Florida State University recently published a report that worldwide tropical cyclone activity is at a 30 year low, which is or close to the all time low. Just don’t tell Al Gore who said in his movie will will have more and more hurricanes and they will be stronger because as the oceans warm it adds fuel to the fire.
http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000009650.cfm
watch
Gyges:
how do you know the statistical outliers are not a predictor of a future trend? Especially in a natural system like weather?
I would tend to agree with you if you stretched a hundred pieces of steel and some failed at 58 ksi and four or five failed at 60 or 62 ksi. You could say they were the statistical outliers and that 58 ksi was the strength. But weather is unpredictable and so are other natural systems. These statistical outliers may be an indication of a coming trend or not.
Aren’t there too many variables to really plot a predictive equation from gathered data?
So bdamans post could be a statistical outlier or it could be the beginning of a new trend. I don’t want to spend trillions of dollars and then find out we were actually going into another ice-age and could have prevented it by staying our current level of greenhouse gas output.
So do you pull the trigger? Global warming or new ice-age that could have been prevented by leaving current greenhouse gas emissions unchanged. If you screw that decision up there are going to be some very angry people.
Check out the PDF on who visited the WH from the energy sector. Here’s a clip and a link: P.S. Don’t forget the many fine companies descending on Congress to help write the energy bill! That’s why I say as long as these “fellers” are contributing to our President and Congress and lobbying them up, why not give them the money they’d normally take for non-renewable projects and ask them to do renewable ones instead? Same money, better outcome.
“Is the White House taking a page from Dick Cheney’s playbook by refusing to disclose who’s visiting the West Wing to lobby on energy and climate issues?
Much like the preceding administration, Team Obama is fighting to keep White House visitor logs secret. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonpartisan watchdog group, recently requested that the Secret Service make the White House logs public, asking specifically for access to records of visits by coal company executives. The request was denied, and the group is now filing suit.
CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request [PDF] to the Secret Service on May 15, requesting “all records relating to any visit” made to the White House by the CEOs of 16 major coal companies and lobby groups.
In their response to the request [PDF], the Secret Service claimed that the logs qualify as presidential and vice-presidential records and thus aren’t covered by FOIA—and could also be protected under “presidential communications privilege.”
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-22-obama-white-house-coal-energy/
bdaman:
buy land with timber on it, you can use the trees for carbon offsets and sell the credits. Why do you think the Sierra Club is buying all that land? They stand to make billions when cap and trade is passed. This global warming stuff is BS intended to put money in the pockets of Al Gore and his friends. He is going to be the Carbon King and so king of the world. And all these people crying global warming are nothing but his tools.
here are some interesting facts:
Carbon Sequestration:
Heat from Earth is trapped in the atmosphere due to high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases that prohibit it from releasing heat into space — creating a phenomenon known as the “greenhouse effect.” Trees remove (sequester) CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis to form carbohydrates that are used in plant structure/function and return oxygen back to the atmosphere as a byproduct. About half of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2. Trees therefore act as a carbon sink by removing the carbon and storing it as cellulose in their trunk, branches, leaves and roots while releasing oxygen back into the air.
Trees also reduce the greenhouse effect by shading our homes and office buildings. This reduces air conditioning needs up to 30%, thereby reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned to produce electricity. This combination of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, carbon storage in wood, and the cooling effect makes trees a very efficient tool in fighting the greenhouse effect. (11)
One tree that shades your home in the city will also save fossil fuel, cutting CO2 buildup as much as 15 forest trees. (16)
Approximately 800 million tons of carbon are stored in U.S. urban forests with a $22 billion equivalent in control costs. (1)
Planting trees remains one of the cheapest, most effective means of drawing excess CO2 from the atmosphere. (15)
A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. (10)
Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually — or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles. (8)
If every American family planted just one tree, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be reduced by one billion lbs annually. This is almost 5% of the amount that human activity pumps into the atmosphere each year. (17)
The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.
Over a 50-year lifetime, a tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of air pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion. (2)
Reduction of Other Air Pollutants:
Trees also remove other gaseous pollutants by absorbing them with normal air components through the stomates in the leaf surface. (3)
Some of the other major air pollutants and their primary sources are:
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)- Coal burning for electricity/home heating is responsible for about 60 percent of the sulfur dioxide in the air. Refining and combustion of petroleum products produce 21% of the SO2.
Ozone (O3) – is a naturally occurring oxidant, existing in the upper atmosphere. O3 may be brought to earth by turbulence during severe storms, and small amounts are formed by lighting. Most O3 – and another oxidant, peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN) – come from the emissions of automobiles and industries, which mix in the air and undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. High concentrations of O3 and PAN often build up where there are many automobiles.
Nitrogen oxides – Automotive exhaust is probably the largest producer of NOx. Oxides of nitrogen are also formed by combustion at high temperatures in the presence of two natural components of the air; nitrogen and oxygen.
Particulates are small (<10 microns) particles emitted in smoke from burning fuel, particular diesel, that enters our lungs and cause respiratory problems. (10)
There is up to a 60% reduction in street level particulates with trees. (1)
In one urban park (212 ha.) tree cover was found to remove daily 48lbs. particulates, 9 lbs nitrogen dioxide, 6 lbs sulfur dioxide, and 2 lb carbon monoxide ($136/day value based upon pollution control technology) and 100 lbs of carbon. (1)
One sugar maple (12" DBH) along a roadway removes in one growing season 60mg cadmium, 140 mg chromium, 820 mg nickel, and 5200 mg lead from the environment. (1)
Planting trees and expanding parklands improves the air quality of Los Angeles county. A total of 300 trees can counter balance the amount of pollution one person produces in a lifetime. (10)
Want to really do something about global warming plant some trees, I did and do every chance I get.
IS,
We don’t know that. However, you have zero evidence to support your theory. There’s an interesting term I’ve heard: JAQing (Just asking questions) off. It’s a debate technique where you ask a lot of questions and never explicitly make a claim. The beauty is that since you never make a statement you can’t be wrong, and there’s sure to be some questions that the person you’re debating with can’t answer, it appears that you “Win.”
Let’s look at this discussion. You and Bdaman have presented as evidence that climate change isn’t man made: Saying that you don’t think it’s man made, posing A LOT of hypothetical “how do we know” type questions (There’s an interesting term I’ve heard: JAQing {Just asking questions} off. It’s a debate technique where you ask a lot of questions and never explicitly make a claim. The beauty is that since you never make a statement you can’t be wrong, and there’s sure to be some questions that the person you’re debating with can’t answer); and a list of factiods (considering how much data is involved that many outliers is hardly surprising, and another dishonest debating technique. Since time and effort is limited, nobody is going to answer every single point that Bdaman has put forth, so it appears that there is nothing available to refute him). I’m leaving out that weird crony rant, because I’d like to believe it was satire.
Well call me a skeptic, but I have yet to see anything that has the weight of a single one of the organizations I’ve mentioned endorsing the theory that climate change is man made, let alone all of them reaching the same conclusion (although the National Academies does use weaker language).
Since I don’t think I’m going to convince either of you, and my time is limited, I’m done.
Ooops,
Sorry about including that passage about JAQing off twice, my proof-reading skills are lacking today.
Gyges so is your logic
Gyges,
“JAQing off twice, my proof-reading skills are lacking today.”
No wonder; I heard it could lead to blindness.
gYGES:
“JAQing (Just asking questions) off.”
I ask 2 questions and you accuse me of this?
That is pretty far fetched.
And as far as climate change goes your side doesn’t have much “evidence” either. I am merely positing my opinion you can take it our not take it. Anyway I have posted facts in the past and you all don’t believe them either if it doesn’t fit with your world view.
Which is pretty much the way people are bent in general.
Climate change caused by human activity probably amounts to a very small percentage but not large enough to take action.
Just because 100,000 people says it is true doesn’t mean it is. For Christ sake most of the leading scientists of the 19th century thought Darwin was a dumb-ass. The whole history of scientific discovery is corrupted by one source or another. The 19th century scientists were corrupted by religious beliefs and I tend to think the global warming crowd is corrupted by a veneration and belief in Mother Earth.
If Lovelocks Gaia Hypothesis is correct then the earth should be able to self regulate, as it would not know where additional CO2 was coming from and global warming is a moot point. I think you were touching on that in a post above about algae.
You do this straw man, JAQing off thing a good deal. I am beginning to think it is your way of dismissing a differing points of view with little or no thought/effort on your part. Then everyone says “good show Gyges you obliterated his argument”, even though you have done nothing of the kind.
I posted the information on trees because bdaman brought that up and I thought it was interesting as I did not know trees did all of what they do. It was a partially tangential posting.
This is not a settled question, nor is national health care or taxes or regulations on industry or any of a host of issues that progressives think they have the “high” ground on.
IS you can lead them to the water but you can’t make’em drink it
Wonder how much this contributes to Co2 in the atmosphere.This place in Uzbekistan is called by locals “The Door to Hell”. It is situated near the small town of Darvaz. The story of this place lasts already for 35 years. Once the geologists were drilling for gas.. Then suddenly during the drilling they have found an underground cavern, it was so big that all the drilling site with all the equipment and camps got deep deep under the ground. None dared to go down there because the cavern was filled with gas. So they ignited it so that no poisonous gas could come out of the hole, and since then, it’s burning, already for 35 years without any pause. Nobody knows how many tons of excellent gas has been burned for all those years but it just seems to be infinite there.
Near Record Cold July Means Shrinking Bills
Usually Hot Summer Month One Of Coldest On Record In Chicago
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.cold.weather.2.1090165.html
“We are running a full degree colder than the coldest July (2000),” said Jeffrey R. Stoudt, a meteorologist and organizer of the Berks Area Rainfall Network.
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=148347
I have this strange, inexplicable urge to rake leaves, toss a football, order a Halloween costume (even scarier than my usual outfit). Better yet let me hit SNOOZE on my alarm clock, curl up into the fetal position and dream of warm, sultry, steamy weather – July the way it’s SUPPOSED to be. This is a cruel joke.
MORE RECORD COLD HIGH TEMPERATURES ARE POSSIBLE ACROSS THE REGION ON FRIDAY. HERE ARE THE COLDEST HIGH TEMPERATURES RECORDED AT ST CLOUD…THE TWIN CITIES…AND EAU CLAIRE
ST CLOUD 66 DEGREES IN 1927
TWIN CITIES 66 DEGREES IN 1939
EAU CLAIRE 68 DEGREES IN 1939
Global warming has become so fevered, that it has taken on the passions and logic of religion.
In any case, pillory me as you may like, I do not believe in anthropic global warming theory.
The amount of greenhouse gases produced by mankind pales in comparison to the quantity created by other natural processes, volcanoes, farting cattle, termite digestion, trees f’cryssake give off methane, water vapor from evaporating ocean, the list goes on forever.
Al Gore’s movie revolved around ice core samples correlating to CO2 levels in the atmosphere – but it has been shown that his cause (CO2) and effect (temperature) are reversed, the temperature level precede CO2 levels.
Finally there is scientific analysis available that suggest the very premise of the greenhouse effect may not even be viable as a real thermodynamic/StefanBoltzmann steadystate phenomenon.
The models in place suggest that for the greenhouse theory to work, the Earth must act as a greybody absorber of electromagnetic radiation, at the same time acting as a blackbody emitter of electromagnetic radiation. A physical impossibility on the order of perpetual motion.
Gary T I like how co2 is the main culprit of every excuse there is why something is either dying, facing extinction, drying up, making places flood, Creating major hurricanes, changing the evolution process and yes like your list it keeps going and going until co2 is completly gone.
This is great, Prof. was wondering if you qualify and are you a bettin man.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/07/everybodys-talking-about-the-weather-but-no-one-is-betting-on-it-yet.html
Fish have lost half their average body mass and smaller species are making up a larger proportion of European fish stocks as a result of global warming, a study published Monday has found.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d672f9d7f0f64fefdf0b21e696b41e21.7a1&show_article=1
Has nothing to do with all the people who just want to catch big fish. It’s the co2. Has nothing to do with the long liners raping the sea, it’s global warming. Has nothing to do with the big fish natural selection to eat little fish. It’s the glaciers are melting because of high levels of co2.
Why are people giving the govt. a hard time about spending twice the amount per pound of ham then they can buy on thier own at the local super market. Don’t these people understand that the more ham you consume the less pigs there are and the less pigs there are the less co2 is emitted into the atmosphere because they won’t fart anymore.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/usda-760000-lbs.-of-ham-for-1.2m-2009-07-20.html
Everyone,
This is a pretty lengthy post, and most of you have read something like this before, so I’d advise skipping it.
IS,
Didn’t see your post about trees when I was writing that. I found it interesting as well.
I never claim to win arguments here. I probably could be considered the losing side of many, because I walk away from debates fairly frequently. I would be pretty surprised if anyone here considered me one of the great minds that frequent this web-site.
The thing is that since I know I’m in the presence of better minds, and am generally not all that interesting, I have a set of rules that I try to abide by:
I don’t start a conversation unless I think I have something interesting and unique to say.
I always honestly consider what the other people involved are saying.
I try to only engage people that I think will honestly consider what I’m saying.
If I see a flaw in an argument I will generally point it out (It just so happens that straw men are one of the more common things that pop up. The other common one is lumping someone in with a group just because they share a single similar viewpoint. You’ll notice I’ve on several occasions defended people I disagree with from being called trolls, or lumped in with extremist groups. Since we’re not face to face it’s easy to make someone into a representation of the “other side” regardless of what they’re actually saying and both of those are two indicators of someone slipping into that mode of thinking). I would hope people would do the same for me. I assume that everyone that comes here comes here to learn and to help eliminate their mental blind spots. When it comes to scientific arguments I’m more aware of the possible blind spots than most, because I had to work my way out of my Young Earth Creationist indoctrination. Believe me if there’s a pseudo-scientific view, I probably held it.
If find out that I’m wrong or could be wrong, I admit it. Same goes for if I don’t know\can’t find the answer. I freely admitted to not knowing the answer to your questions.
The most important rule is that if I feel like the conversation is going to just degrade into an argument, (which is something I usually have no interest in engaging in) then I stop my end of it. I don’t claim victory, I just explain why I’m leaving and stop posting.
There’s a few other guidelines I attempt to follow, but they’re stylistic and brevity things (and since I have already broken most of them with this rambling treatise, I’ll leave them out).
I’m not as consistent in following my rules as I’d like to be, and am a little quick on the draw when it comes to pointing out logical fallacies. I apologize if that offends you, my intent is honest discussion, not antagonizing those who disagree with me.
Jill,
Again, I apologize for misrepresenting your position. Could you please tell me how I misrepresented you so I don’t make the mistake again.
bdaman,
Gyges asked me to explain the concept of statistical outliers to you in light of your repeated lists of temperature records, but I think that you are making a more fundamental mistake, which is to look at very small pieces (CO_2 level or high and low temperatures, for example) of what is a very large and complex system (our planet) and then you use these tiny snapshots to make statements about the system. Scientists try to look at subsystems which are large enough to have interesting dynamics yet small enough that we can understand aspects of them. You’re using bits of scientific data to fallaciously support a political position. What many people don’t seem to understand is that most scientists (good ones anyway) don’t have a political agenda in the practice of science. It’s hard enough to figure out what’s going on from the data alone that trying to spin the facts as well makes it nearly impossible to understand what you are studying (which is why most of us got into this in the first place). Our scientific understanding is getting better all of the time and our politics should be informed by the best understanding of science available no matter what it says, not used to justify pre-determined political positions.
Slart,
I told you you could do a better job then me.
Slartibartfast thank you for the explanation. I have read and read and read how we are not suppose to mix science and politics together. This is kinda tuff right now when you consider that politics is mixing with science.
most scientists (good ones anyway) don’t have a political agenda in the practice of science.
The ones that do have a political Agenda are the ones that are pushing us and cramming it down our throat that Co2 is the one and only thing that is driving climate change. Co2 is the sole driver. You probably agree with that, right?
Then how come the statistical data says different. Not just the last year, thousands of years. Is Al Gore a scientist or a political driver. When this administration censors an employee of the EPA because it doesn’t fit with thier agenda, isn’t this mixing science with a political agenda. When Al Gore says the science is settled there will be no more debate when in reality nothing has been settled. Yes I yern for an honest open debate about climate change. There is one thing we know thats a fact the climate has been changing for thousands of years just like the suns output. The only thing the sun has done latley is rise. It ain’t puttin out alot of burst and this has alot more to do with temps than Co2.
I do a tropical analysis during hurricane season. This is a copy of one I sent out recently. East Coasters be prepared just in case.
I’ve been tracking a tropical disturbance the last couple of days east of the Leeward Islands but didn’t want to jump the gun. It did not look like it would hold together. This system has been tagged 97L by the NHC a few days ago. Wind shear remains high at this time and the NHC is still giving it a 30% chance of developing in the next 48 hours. This area will slide thru the Islands today and track towards Cuba. Most of the model guidance agree that a piece of Invest 97L will break off and track into the area of the Bahamas by later Wednesday and may evolve into some sort of a tropical entity off of the US Southeast coast by late this week and into this weekend. The model guidance, however, does not agree on where exactly this possible sub-tropical or tropical system will form. The CMC is forecasting development around the 48-72 hour mark coming up the coast from South Florida while the GFS keeps it as disorganized showers and thunderstorms. I will update you as soon as I get a better handle on the convection that has fired back up again today in spite of the strong windshear.
Record low temperatures in 31 states
19 Jul 09
__________________
New records: 183 + Tied: 73 = Total: 256
AL, AR, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA,
MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, OH, OK,
PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_low_temps_in_31_states-19Jul09.htm
Gore’s hometown: Record cold breaks 1877 record
‘Set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president’ – Nashville’s
58 degrees on Tuesday wiped out the previous record low for
the date of 60 degrees, set in 1877. It was the third morning in
a row when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low
temperature record.
See: http://www.climatedepot.com/
Record low temperatures at 13 sites in Saskatchewan –
one going back to 1900, another to 1911 – 16 Jul 09
Winter arrives three months early in Peru, killing 246 children
under the age of five – 12 Jul 09
Coldest May on record in New Zealand – 2nd coldest June – 10 Jul 09
See What’s Happening in Other Parts of the World.
Jesus H. Christ.
I’m still on sabbatical, but I can’t let that slide.
That is the stupidest thing to ever come out of your mouth, bdaman.
Global warming doesn’t mean the temperature everywhere is going to be warmer. Everyone got that? Bad name for a complex concept. Here is what it really means:
The atmosphere is a thermodynamic engine. It takes energy from the sun and tidal actions of the moon in combination with the astrological process known as procession and it creates what we perceive as weather and seasons. The dynamic interaction and high energy state of weather boundary zones, like tidal pools or thermal vents, gave rise to life on this mudball such as it is but that evolution was in part predicated on a somewhat (and this is a REAL IMPORTANT WORD) predictable patterns in weather that emergent life could exploit. You hunt in the spring and summer and hibernate in the winter if you want an example. Some creatures like corals only breed at certain times of the year in very specific weather conditions. Ask a farmer how important weather is.
What global warming means is more heat is put into the system than the system is naturally able to accommodate by either removing the CO2 via oceanic scrubbing (a much less robust process than we originally thought) or by reflection and ablation into space. Chlorofluorocarbons bond with other molecules in the upper atmosphere and prevent that heat from escaping. This retained extra heat causes instability. See thermodynamics and complexity theory for further clarification. In this case, it’s not direct heat, but chemicals we use on industrial levels that prevent waste heat from escaping back into space. We’d have the same result though if we just lit a bunch of crap on fire, detonated enough nukes or were unlucky enough to be around next time Yellowstone blows up.
The weather isn’t “getting warmer”. It’s getting crazier.
LESS PREDICTABLE.
Global warming may mean some places get hotter. It also means some places will get colder, wetter and/or dryer than in the previous weather cycles. Cycles for which our knowledge is largely represented by data collected by paleo-climatologists and covers the huge spans of time before the industrial revolution when we WERE NOT PUTTING HEAT RETAINING CHEMICALS INTO THE AIR other than farts and campfires. If you use that as a baseline, you should only be looking at narrow range data that has a comparison to the pollution causing global warming today: like the eruption of shield volcanoes or asteroid impacts that put huge amounts of material into aerial suspension naturally AND screw up the global weather. Otherwise, you’ll never see the issue because of all that other “good data” – data which LIKE ALL DATA, is only good in and with proper context. And if you look at the data in context, yeah, we’ve just about broken the atmosphere to the point where one day the ozone layer will just go away.
Enjoy the gamma rays and host of other high energy cosmic rays that will rain down like atomic death when that ozone gives up the ghost. If the searing droughts and unpredictable floods don’t starve us all to death first.
But that’s not important, is it? It won’t happen in your life time. Will it? Care to wager on that? How about wager that on the lives of your children? Let’s make that bet interesting, shall we?
Deniers of global warming who use the “it’s cooler now” argument fail to understand the basics of thermodynamics, meteorology and physical geography. There is no disagreement among scientists as a whole at this point. Only pols afraid of losing the graft money they get from polluting industries they’d have to force to change their ways or shut down entirely. Well, the pols and those who are swallowing their denier propaganda.
It’s an argument based in ignorance. Pure ignorance. You’ve said a lot of fringe stuff I’ve never called you on, bdaman, but I’m calling “Bullshit” on this one. I know it’s hard to accept that we are capable of ruining something as grandiose as the weather. The increase of unpredictable and deadly weather over the last 20 years says otherwise.
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2008/world/north-america/global-warming-to-increase-unpredictable-weather-pacific-institutes-heather-s-cooley-testifies-before-congress/
BIL I love you man and you can post some really well thought out educated bullshit yourself. Now how many days has the sun gone without sunspots. Are we in a solar maximum or minimum.
Hey Bil I take great appreciation that it twas I who got you to post. Hope your doing well my friend.
Thanks Buddha, I just didn’t have the energy to explain that. I would just add (since most people seem to think that a 1 degree temperature rise is small), to consider the enormous amount of energy needed to raise the mean temperature of the earth one degree celsius.
Gyges:
“I assume that everyone that comes here comes here to learn and to help eliminate their mental blind spots.”
Exactly. I just have very strong opinions about things and if I think I am right I will hold onto a belief until it has been proven to be wrong or it can be logically refuted.
I dont mind back and forth at all but I dont like being called a racist (not that you did) or told I am JAQing off.
You, Mike Spindell, Mike Appleton, Mespo and Buddha are all very interesting intellects and since I am pretty one way in my beliefs I find it challenging and interesting to read your posts.
bdaman:
“Fish have lost half their average body mass and smaller species are making up a larger proportion of European fish stocks as a result of global warming, a study published Monday has found.”
I read an article in a magazine called the week or this week about sheep getting smaller because of global warming. the thought was that since the weather is getting warmer the runts are able to survive and reproduce because they don’t have to contend with the cold. Supposedly since 1985 sheep are getting smaller by about 3% per decade. The reduction could also be because of better medical care but they are saying global warming is the cause.
Russian scientist issues global cooling warning
“15:5325/08/2006
ST. PETERSBURG, August 25 (RIA Novosti)- Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian scientist said Friday.
Environmentalists and scientists today focus on the dangers of global warming provoked by man’s detrimental effect on the planet’s climate, but global cooling – though never widely supported – is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.”
It was thought to start occuring in 2012-2015 if bdaman is right about his temps, looks like the Russian was off by a few years.
Budah: Ask a farmer how important weather is.
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer’s Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm
The media is telling us farmers that we need to be afraid of these rapidly changing weather patterns, but I don’t think the weather patterns are any different than when I first started farming over 50 years ago,” Chamberlain said.
http://universe.byu.edu/node/1029
The problem with the whole Global Warming/Climate Change is it’s based on a COMPUTER MODEL. Not to mention that co2 is blamed for everything that is dying, going extinct, drying up, making places flood, Creating major hurricanes, changing the evolution process. Nothing else is ever considered.
N. Dakota farmer on Cold July: ‘Al Gore should be out here’…
With a summer like this, you can`t tell my Dad there`s global warming.”I think Al Gore and his group should be out here and tell us about this global warming stuff.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/07/16/n-dakota-farmer-on-cold-july-al-gore-should-be-out-here/
You don’t hear this discussed much but the sun’s solar flares/sun spots have been very quiet. In 2008 266 days went by without a single spot appearing on the star, which accounted for 73 percent of the entire year. In 2009, out of the 189 days that have passed, 142 have been without spots (75 percent). Such a reduced activity has astronomers thinking, because we are nearing the point of the lowest-ever-recorded statistics on solar activity. These data can be traced back to 1913, when the Sun lit without a spot for 311 days.
On May 19, 2009, record low temperatures were recorded in 28 states, more than half the states in the United States of America. Many of these record low temperatures are the lowest in 100 years, and some the lowest in 115 years. Iceagenow.com, a web portal tracking global temperatures reports, “If there had been record warmth in 28 states, your would have seen ‘we’re-causing-global-warming’ headlines plastered across the front page of almost every newspaper in the country, and TV hosts would have gleefully announced the dire news. . . . But had you even heard about this?”
NOAA’s full report on these locations and record low temperatures is set out at the end of this Examiner.com article.
RESURGENT SUNSPOT: Yesterday, sunspot 1024 took the day off; the fast-growing active region stopped growing and even decayed a little. Today, the sunspot is growing again. It now measures 125,000 km from end to end, almost as wide as the planet Jupiter. This 3-day movie from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) shows recent developments:
The size of the spot makes it a fine target for backyard solar telescopes. And it is worth watching. Sunspot 1024 is the first big sunspot of new Solar Cycle 24, and it is crackling with minor but photogenic B-class flares. By itself, this one active region won’t bring an end to the deepest solar minimum in a century, but it does show that the sun’s magnetic dynamo is still working–a fact some had begun to doubt.
IS: It was thought to start occuring in 2012-2015 if bdaman is right about his temps, looks like the Russian was off by a few years.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm
Good site for you and everyone else that believes co2, all by itself, is the blame for everything related to Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global Flooding, Global Fires ect ect
Our government and the major news media are not reporting the consequences due to the weather destroying crops and reducing yields. I found numerous articles all over the world mentioning cold-weather damage.
Hail and rain damage! I’ve never seen so much hail damage – it seems to be hailing all over the USA. Here in North Florida I’ve seen more hail in the last 4 months than in my entire lifetime!
http://www.iceagenow.com/Crop_reduction_60_percent_in_some_cases.htm
bdaman,
The problem with sunspots is simply this: the sunspot cycle has nothing to do with global warming. Zip, zero and nada. They impact solar and space weather, but unless you’re a satellite or on the ISS, the ozone protects you from anything a sunspot or a flare could emit (which is mostly radio energy and not heat, this phenomena is caused by collapsing EM fields). Solar flares and prominences, while huge and impressive, some large enough to engulf Earth many times over . . . they are very far away. For the heat of solar flare to reach us?
It’s 93 million miles away. M-I-L-L-I-O-N. That’s so far astronomers use it as standard measure of local distance(s), the AU (astronomical unit). Another way to think of how large that distance is is to factor this into your thinking: The speed of light is 186,000/sec. It takes EIGHT MINUTES FOR SUNLIGHT TO REACH EARTH.
The sunspot cycle has an effect on SPACE weather, but the EM spectra they emit is not primarily heat, but radio energy. It screws with space ships, satellites, radio astronomy, and anything electronic and unshielded to no end, but it’s not a heat adding transaction to our little mudball. Sunspots in fact slightly cool the area where they erupt, but their net impact to total heat emitted is small enough to be inconsequential. The radio output, however, can be staggering. Our sun is a main sequence G V class star. Part of the salient features of these types are star are not just color (white to yellow) and their smallish size (often given the misnomer “yellow dwarf”), but their very steady rate of burn. There is a variation of luminosity but it falls within very narrow range and happens on very long time scales. Very. This is due largely to mass and gravity. Stars in this section of the main sequence have great stability due to homeostasis between the pull of gravity and the mass of the burning fuel. Ours does the balancing act very well thankfully for us humans. Yeah, we get cyclical ice ages, but evidence from the fossil record indicates that the most devastating weather events to ever happen on Earth are/were caused by either vulcanism or asteroid/cometary impact, by radical changes to chemistry early in Earth’s history (at one point there was so much oxygen it would be toxic to modern life, but the giant insects loved it) but not solar activity like flares or increased average output. This is not to say there are not dangerous stars out there. Look into a Cepheid Variable and then tell me our stable and well behaved star causes global warming. You can’t, because it doesn’t. Our boring little stable sun over the lifespan of ALL humanity has much less effect on they thermodynamic system of Earth than you’d expect. The heat output is for all intents and purposes stable. Our atmospheric chemistry however HAS been changed. And by us. It’s only getting worse. And that’s the part of the equation holding in the excess heat, not the sun.
I used to tutor astronomy. I can rattle on about how wrong this tack on global warming is all day long. Our star is steady, predictable and boring.
Want to focus on a real conspiracy related to global warming that threatens us all? Quit wasting time denying the science and ask why the most vocal critics, who are NOT scientists by the way, but businessmen and politicians, are so interested in maintaining the status quo in light of evidence that we could be rendering the planet uninhabitable by humans? Uninhabitable by humans that may be alive today, as in your children and grandchildren. If you answer anything other than greed, short-sighted myopia and the egoistic evil that drive people like Cheney, then you’re not paying attention.
186,000 ft./sec
MILES
damn it
MILES
Pardon, my A-game is going to be off for a while. I just spent a large chunk of my evening with a weeping mother. My quality my suffer as I prioritize my brain power to the most pressing problems at hand.
Buddha,
Hope everything’s okay.
To paraphrase Animal House…
Buddha, my man.
Stay in your own movie.
-Bob
Buddha,
It’s always a pleasure to read your science rants.
IS,
Once again, I don’t mean to offend, and if I did I apologize. Perhaps this will also help illuminate things:
Read through what BDAman has said, and what his critics have said. You’ll see an interesting pattern, every time someone effectively casts doubt on his statements (like when I compared the number of scientists that signed that petition to the numbers in groups that have issued statements supporting the anthropic global warming theory, or Buddha and Slart’s brilliant explanations of why listing record lows proves nothing), he simply changes the topic. He doesn’t bother with a defense, he just moves on.
Now, compare that to what has been going on since the beginning of the “birther” movement in the last Presidential campaign. First it was “he doesn’t have a valid birth certificate” then it was “the one we’ve been shown was a forgery” then when that was debunked it was “Well we still don’t know it’s NOT a forgery, and even if it isn’t his Dad was a Kenyan citizen,” etc. etc. etc.
Skepticism is a good thing. I’m a Skeptic (capitalized), but in order to be a skeptic rather than a denier, you need to have some point at which you’d be convinced. That is what is missing with BDAman, no matter how many time his rationals for doubt get shot down, he’ll think of another reason not to believe.
I think you’re a skeptic on this issue, but there are all sorts of ways that people can rationalize and not even know it. The only way I ever learned to be self critical was by being told when I was wrong.
I ask you, at what point would you be willing to admit that the evidence supports that climate change is being caused by humans?
Gyges,
Excellent post! No one can hope to be open-minded without having some level of evidence that they accept would prove them wrong. Science is all about figuring out how to prove your theory wrong – an experiment is just an attempt to prove yourself wrong hoping that your failure to do so will lend credence to your hypothesis. I think that not having any way to prove yourself wrong is an essential trait for the follower of any conspiracy theory.
Buddha, I echo Gyges’ comments, although I freely acknowledge that I often have to read your “science rants” several times, once for enjoyment, and then two more times to understand them.
Mike,
More than anything the thing that keeps me coming back to this site is that there are few days where I don’t have to go to the dictionary or encyclopedia.
Buddah sorry been out all day and just got back. A quick response and I’ll jump back in the saddle. I can see from the above posts that I stand accused of avoiding questions or respond by changing the subject. Not the case but everyone is entitled to thier way of thinking.
Buddah you said The problem with sunspots is simply this: the sunspot cycle has nothing to do with global warming.
OK thats fine, but the average American associates global warming with temperatures thanks to Al Gore. He continues to talk about the planet heating up. Solar flares/sunspots IMHO have alot to do with temperatures. The less active the sun is the less heat it puts out, common sense in my book. Lets look at what NOAA says. Now I will be the first to tell you I don’t agree with everything that NOAA says but thought I would use them as a reference.
Short paragraph here’s the link:http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php
NOAA
But the jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth’s climate. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth’s climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth’s climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth’s climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth’s climate.
Now if we go back to the early 1913 when we know that the Sun lit without a spot for 311 days and we see the last year has witnessed cold weather records ALL OVER THE WORLD being broken and alot of those records ARE OVER 100 YEARS OLD. I kinda go hummm. Now you have a point when you say sunspots and flares have nothing to do with global warming, you taught astrology and science. Go back and read that paragraph from NOAA and replace the word sunspot with CO2. I’ll be back.
It appears here that the warmers here outnumber the skeptics.
Interesting statistic, but reasonable insofar that I think that global warming skeptics seem to generally track the political right, which seems to have been motivated by the pro-business postion premised upon the need for industry to be unfettered.
And it would appear that most here lean a little left, politically.
So, right away when one reveals one to be a warming skeptic, warmers will indict you as having some kind of ulterior motive, wheth it be party loyalty, or pro-business agenda.
I myself, just want to go with the truth first, then once the truth is affirmed (with whatever margin of error is acceptable), if it is determined that something undesirable will occur from inaction, what viable action would make sense in the context.
I really don’t have an agenda, I just don’t want to delude myself and become someone else’s lacky for THEIR agenda.
To that extent, I have seen enough impeachment of the evidence and theory of global warming to conclude its predictions are valueless and misleading. That is bad enough, but the ‘solutions’ proffered are totally unviable, and would set all society’s silly enough to buy into them, back into economic depression. It would impoverish people on a mass scale, completely unnecessarily.
I will go into the substance of what has been discussed here in my next post.
Gyges said here in a recent post that the skeptics will dart around the topic so as to just avoid answering a specific objection.
I might point out my earlier post, that almost no one here commented upon in any substantive way, so I will reiterate some of it.
Buddha also defended the position that just because it is getting colder in some places does not disprove global warming, rather it affirms it insofar that it shows that weather is just getting more unpredictable.
And yet this latter argument really feels specious; global warming on the face of its moniker would imply that it means the globe is warming up, not that the globe’s weather is becoming unpredictable.
Just reverse the theory’s name and see how much sense it makes.
Global cooling theory, and yet we find places on earth getting warmer – of course that has to mean that the theory is confirmed, because the weather is unpredictable.
How about global stasis theory, well some places are warmer, and some places are colder, so that must affirme the theory, because on the average the temperature is the same.
The point being, unpredictable weather “patterns” can be promoted as evidence of any theory, or no theory at all.
What and how will the warmers respond if the weather keeps cooling in the next few years? Will that be evidence for global warming also?
I may also ask the question posed by Slartibartfast, at what point, and by what evidence, would you have to begin to question the anthropomorphic global warming theory as viable science?
Mike,
You’re really going to love this one then.
bdaman,
What part of “tutored astronomy” didn’t you understand? I know more about sunspots than probably anyone here unless we have a professional astronomer lurking. Do you even know what one is?
Sunspots are depressions on the sun that are caused when magnetic currents impede convection and cause cool spots on the sun’s photosphere. These cool spots act like gigantic magnetic self-perpetuating hurricanes. The only reason they look black is that the surrounding material is ridiculously hot and luminous. The sun’s average temp is about 5,800 Kelvin. A sunspot is usually a 1,000 to 1,200 Kelvin lower in temperature, but if the sun wasn’t surrounding it, it’d be brighter than an arc welder. But the effect it has on Earth is minimal as I already described. Most of the energy released isn’t heat, it’s radio and other EM radiation. It doesn’t effect Earth weather expect in the ionosphere where it screws with radio while the ozone there protects use from those same deadly rays. While average luminosity does impact average temperature, your statements show you don’t know squat about ice ages either. They are most likely the result of a combination of variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit – all of which impact weather in a much more immediate and dynamic way than the sun (excluding novae). You’d know this if you’d taken either astronomy or physical geography. Sunspots take place millions of miles away. Orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession all happen HERE. Apply Occam’s Razor to that. Physics, like politics, is local.
The only other “theory” about sunspot activity affecting life on earth is a strange and probably coincidental increase in flu virus propagation and mutation during high activity cycles, but that is to be expected when you have increase in high energy particles. Viruses are simple creatures. One gamma ray to the right spot on the gene and, hey kids, you’ve got a new virus. This is still just theory as correlation is not causation and we simply don’t have enough historical epidemiological or sunspot data to make anything more than a conjecture. And that is the mistake you keep making. Correlation is not causation no matter how much you want it to be to justify your denial.
Read and understand a textbook on astronomy, chemistry, complexity theory and thermodynamics, because going back the sunspots just shows you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
The problem isn’t the Sun. It’s doing what it has always done. Makes things warm, cools down a bit, makes things warm, etc.
The problem is atmospheric chemistry. Chemistry we changed with the industrial revolution. Chemistry that keeps the “warm” from escaping the atmosphere because chlorofluorocarbons, useful for their chemical stability and heating qualities, when they reach the upper stratosphere the solar radiation is strong enough to make them UNSTABLE. It breaks apart the chlorine atom from the molecule and chlorine is HIGHLY reactive. It in fact bonds with O3 which makes up our protective ozone in such a way as to catalyze the O in the O3 into plain old O. Which makes it useless in protecting us from solar and cosmic radiation. In addition the CFC molecules themselves have the innate ability to retain heat. That’s why they make fireproofing out of it. This retained heat, as I’ve said before, introduces instability into the thermodynamic engine that is the atmosphere (and oceans). When net heat retention in the system increases, so does instability. Again – CRAZY WEATHER NOT HOT WEATHER. CFC’s don’t occur naturally anywhere on Earth either. We make them. A Belgian scientist from the 20′s named Frederic Swarts is the guy responsible for their development. DO NOT confuse this with the other greenhouse gases like ethane and methane, which can be produced by natural processes like volcanoes and cow farts. They retain heat as well although not as damaging to the ozone as CFC’s (chlorine is vile). Those gases are more problematic to control. Carbon also likes to bond with things like ozone and it also retains heat. And guess what oil is made of and has as it’s primary waste product? Carbon. And carbon is as bonding friendly as chlorine. I look forward to the day when the only use for oil is force feeding it the the Saudi royal family.
You should have stayed awake in high school science.
And Gary, this one is just for you: Everyone dies when either the ozone or the oceans break. You can’t have an economy of ANY scale when everyone is DEAD. That’s the problem with unfettered free market capitalism: it’s myopic, shortsighted and stupid.
Buddha:
I tend to agree that sunspots might be a dead letter issue on correllation to climate temperature; the graphs do not seem to be strong or consistent.
I also agree that if the Ozone or oceans break, everyone dies.
Of course that is the gravamen of the conversation, whether what we as an industrial species do has a global effect on climate.
(BTW, I totally am in favor of pollution reduction, and I totally am into and support alternative, renewable energy production)
But please address the few points I first made in this thread, which were of a fundamental scientific basis germane to the question of AGW:
The amount of greenhouse gases produced by mankind pales in comparison to the quantity created by other natural processes, volcanoes, farting cattle, termite digestion, trees even give off methane, water vapor from evaporating ocean, the list goes on.
Ice core samples correlating to CO2 levels in the atmosphere – have been shown that the changes in temperature levels precede atmospheric CO2 levels.
Scientific analysis suggests the very premise of the greenhouse effect may not even be viable as a real thermodynamic/StefanBoltzmann steadystate phenomenon.
The models in place suggest that for the greenhouse theory to work, the Earth must act as a greybody absorber of electromagnetic radiation, at the same time acting as a blackbody emitter of electromagnetic radiation. A physical impossibility on the order of perpetual motion.
Buddah maybe you should contact the Obama admin. sounds like you got it all figured out. Oh and by the way you should contact NOAA and have them retract these statements.
The jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth’s climate.
Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth’s atmosphere.
sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth.
Because according to your expert analysis Quote: The problem with sunspots is simply this: the sunspot cycle has nothing to do with global warming. Zip, zero and nada.Unquote
Also I would like to point out that we are now well into the 23rd cycle the number of sunspots in this cycle reached a peak in May, 2000 where the number of sunspots were measured at near 170. A secondary sunspot maximum occurred near the beginning of 2002 where the sunspot number was about 150 and according to Al Gore the earth was heating up and as the oceans warm we will have more frequent and stronger hurricanes wiping man kind off the face of the universe. Now we are in a 30 year low for WORLD WIDE tropical cyclone development, close to or at the all time record low. So either Tropical Cyclones just don’t want to form or THE OCEANS HAVE COOLED and we now know that last years Artic ice has returned to the 1979 levels and did it at the fastest pace ever recorded. Of course it wasn’t until someone was caught fudging the data did we learn this.
Buddah could you tell us how much greenhouse gases make up the atmosphere and what percent of co2 is present. Then explain to us how that percentage it makes up of all greenhouse gases will destroy us all. Can you also explain to us the difference between the Global Warming model predictions of 10-15 years ago and the REALITY of what has now taken place.
Gary,
CO2 emissions from natural sources are just that – natural.
But when you want to mention steady state phenomena, then you’ve answered your own question partially. Look into complexity. As you add more of any component to a system you increase instability. That doesn’t mean equilibrium cannot be regained, it just means the addition of anything, in this case heat, will cause disruptions in the systemic pattern as the internal matrix readjusts to new circumstance. It’s the Butterfly Effect writ large.
As for the absorption/emitter issue, you simply don’t understand how planets work if that’s what you think. Planets are not homogeneous. They have varied components that have differing radiation profiles. Some materials absorb or radiate or reflect better than others. Not all radiation comes from fusion or isotopic decay of unstable materials. Magnetic fields generate a lot of radiation. All planets emit radiation back into space if they have a magnetosphere. In fact, Jupiter puts out so much from its magnetosphere that it’s almost a failed star in its’ own right. If we find life on one of the moons there, I can guarantee you this: it will be more robustly radiation resistant than damn near anything on Earth. There is also albedo, or reflectivity. Some of what gets reflected back isn’t just light, but heat and other wavelengths as well. Speaking of which, let’s look at the Earth and Moon. The Earth and Moon both reflect and absorb light and other radiation at differing levels. The Earth is a “strong” (by comparison) emitter compared to the moon because it has a magnetic field. It creates a certain amount of “native radiation”. But the re-radiation back into space is impaired by our atmosphere. A certain amount of energy is lost by being trapped within its’ boundary as air, being a chemical compound, has absorption properties. This is part of why when it’s dark, we don’t all freeze to death. The moon, by contrast, has no native magnetosphere (or one so weak as to be meaningless to this conversation) and all the radiation there is either from space in the form of cosmic rays and sunlight or from Earth via our magnetosphere and Earth’s albedo (since we are so close). But there is no atmosphere on the moon. Nothing traps heat or anything else when it’s bombarded with radiation. It just heats up. No ozone to block some rays so it catches a lot of high energy wavelengths we miss due to our lovely ozone. Nothing to circulate all that accumulated energy like an atmosphere or an ocean – just barren rock that provides little more than a high albedo from being light colored. That’s why it’s a boiling 250 degrees on the day side and an equally deadly -380 degrees on the night side. But your statement “the Earth must act as a greybody absorber of electromagnetic radiation, at the same time acting as a blackbody emitter of electromagnetic radiation. A physical impossibility on the order of perpetual motion” is simply wrong and flies in the face of the evidence and science. Some planets emit radiation all the time, but if they are near a star, they all absorb it at rates dependent upon proximity. The two are not mutually exclusive processes. How that energy exchange is manifested on planets depends on local conditions.
bdaman,
It’s atmospheric chemistry and thermodynamics. These was nothing unclear about that. But you keep bringing up cool temperatures in specific locales like it’s some kind of talisman. What it is is denial and scientific ignorance. Worrying about the sun when looking at global warming is about as productive as worrying about termite mound in North Africa when looking at mosquitoes in Canada.
THE PROBLEM ISN’T HOW MUCH HEAT WE GET FROM THE SUN, BUT HOW MUCH OUR ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY ABSORBS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING TO RE-RADIATE BACK INTO SPACE.
If you can’t make that simple distinction, then evidence suggests I’m talking to either a moron in the science department or someone prone to delusional corporate propaganda that suits their fascist interests in profit over all of human life.
Don’t give up that day job.
And please, prove that point by bringing up sunspots again. You’ve done nothing to advance this conversation other than start it with your blatant ignorance of the subject matter.
Buddah I keep bringing up cool temperatures in specific locales like it’s some kind of talisman.
Buddah it’s WORLD WIDE. The middle east recieved snow last year for only the second time. 250 children have died because winter arrived three months early in Peru. Yea the proof is in the pudding my friend.
Gyges do you see that there is a flip side to the coin. I asked Buddah to tell us how much greenhouse gases make up the atmosphere and what percent of co2 is present. Then explain to us how that percentage it makes up of all greenhouse gases will destroy us all. Can you also explain to us the difference between the Global Warming model predictions of 10-15 years ago and the REALITY of what has now taken place.
Did Buddah bother to dabble in that one. Buddah still waiting.
Buddah Worrying about the sun when looking at global warming is about as productive as worrying about termite mound in North Africa when looking at mosquitoes in Canada. Take the sun out of the equation and tell me what you end up with.
I’ll take my stand from this.
The jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth’s climate.
Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth’s atmosphere.
sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php
bdaman:
“Worrying about the sun when looking at global warming is about as productive as worrying about termite mound in North Africa when looking at mosquitoes in Canada.”
I have now heard everything. That has got to be without a doubt the stupidist thing I have yet to read on global warming. BIL is probably just yanking your chain. He has got to be. There can be no other conclusion.
As you say take the sun out of the equation and what have you got? A dead, cold planet.
Here is a short list of major weather and news events of the last couple of years. Google anyone of these to read the story.
Brrrr… Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth
Brrrr… South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years
Brrrr… Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace
Brrrr… Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting
Brrrr… Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City
Brrrr… Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China
Brrrr… China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years
Brrrr… Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years– 260 Dead
Brrrr… Record Cold Hits Central Asia– 654 Dead in Afghanistan
Brrrr… Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir
Brrrr… Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years!
Brrrr… Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India
Brrrr… Snow and Ice in San Diego?
Brrrr… Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered
Brrrr… The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It’s Thick
Brrrr… Turkey’s snowiest winter continues.
Brrrr… Record Cold & Snow Blankets Acropolis in Greece
Brrrr… Longest Ever Cold Spell Kills Cattle & Rice in Vietnam
Brrrr… Most Snow Cover Over North America Since 1966
Brrrr… Australia Suffers Through Coldest Summer in 50 Years
Brrrr… Record Snowfall Slams Ohio River Valley
Brrrr… New Data Gives Global Warming the Cold Shoulder
Brrrr… Global Cooling Causes Armed Clashes in Canada
Brrrr… Snake Oil Salesman Admits to Ca$hing In on Global Warming Hysteria
Brrrr… New Research Claims Earth Sliding Into an Ice Age
Brrrr… Blizzard Blasts South Dakota– 4 Feet of Snow Reported
Brrrr… An Inconvenient Debate- Czech Pres. Challenges Gore
Brrrr… Record Snow Blankets Spokane, Washington In June!
Brrrr… Peru Declares Emergency– Cold Kills 61 Children & 5,000 Alpacas
Brrrr… Arctic Sea Ice Levels Are Up By 1,000,000 Square Kilometers
Brrrr… Denver Breaks 118 Year-Old Cold Record– Arctic Ice Refuses to Melt
Brrrr… NASA Reports Bogus Global Warming Numbers- Again
Brrrr… Goracle: Mayan Civilization Collapsed Because of Climate Change, Too
Brrrr… Global Warming Predictions Overestimated– Its a Hoax
Brrrr… It’s Snowing in the Desert But Gore Warns the North Pole Is Melting
Brrrr… CNN Meteorologist Says GW Theory ‘Arrogant’
Brrrr… Ice Comes Early to Lake Superior For First Time in 17 Years
Brrrr… Sea Ice Ends Year At Same Level As 1979
Brrrr… Goofy Hillary Says “Global Warming May Incite New Wars”
Brrrr… “Shivering” Al Gore Gets Put on Ice
Brrrr… Snow Falls in UAE For 2nd Time In Recorded History
Brrrr… Al Gore Braves Snow & Ice to Testify to Congress on Global Warming
Brrrr… Record Storm Dumps Foot of Snow on DC Global Warming Protesters
Brrrr… It’s Snowing in North Dakota– In June!
Brrrr… Rep. Broun Gets Cold Shoulder After Confronting Global Warming Hoaxers
Thanks, Buddah. I think I did understand the part about cow farts.
pardon me:
actually most of those slides were from 3rd world countries and they are victims of socialist dictators.
They are not victims of comfort they are victims of stupidity and tyranny.
Buddah If you can’t make that simple distinction, then evidence suggests I’m talking to either a moron in the science department or someone prone to delusional corporate propaganda that suits their fascist interests in profit over all of human life.
Lets talk about delusional corporate propaganda that suits their fascist interests in profit over all of human life.
Are you familiar with the chemical compound BPA. Last month, the Statistical Assessment Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization affiliated with George Mason University, released a study called Science Suppressed. How America became obsessed with BPA. A report which accuses the media “of ignoring the extensive research of respected scientists and major health agencies in the United States and around the world, which found BPA was not only safe but played an important role in ensuring food safety.” It also confirms what countless previous studies have said, BPA is safe. And as recently as July 15 of this year, a regulatory board in the state of California, composed of seven physicians, unanimously voted that “BPA should not be covered under Proposition 65, a voter-approved measure used by regulators to identify substances that can cause birth defects, developmental or reproductive harm. The latest research by Health Canada said that you would have to drink 1000 liters of bottled water a day in order to approach the amount they deem to be the tolerable daily intake for the chemical BPA. Despite countless studies demonstrating that BPA is safe, reporters, environmentalists, and liberal politicians continue to make hay out of this political issue. Until recently, this appeared to be nothing more than a typical attempt by liberals to go after business and manufacturing. You see, the radical environmental groups who fundraise off of this issue, the trial lawyers who line their pockets with class action lawsuits against BPA manufacturers, and the Democratic politicians who score political points by attacking BPA all have one thing in common. They all share the same PR guru David Fenton. If the name David Fenton of Fenton Communications sounds familiar, it may be because he’s the guy who invented the ‘General Betray Us’ ad campaign that MoveOn.org used to attack General Petreaus.
Putting aside the fact that the claims were entirely bogus, the fear campaign against BPA was a brilliant business move for Fenton and a win for liberals. David Fenton, of course, is a liberal activist. He represents many radical environmental groups like the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, who could benefit from creating a bogey man. And he also represents trial lawyers, who could make millions by bringing about class action lawsuits against the manufacturers of plastics. Lastly, trial lawyers are major donors to Democratic politicians, so getting them on board was easy. And plastics competitors who didn’t use BPA could now charge absurd prices for their products at upscale stores based on the fact that their product (though more expensive) was safer. I suggest that MR. Gore’s campaign to control Co2 is on par with this scheme against BPA.
bdaman:
good info. you are a breath of life giving CO2!
Gary,
Actually I said that BDAman tends not to defend his ideas when confronted with evidence to the contrary. I also went on to say (implicitly) that he wasn’t a skeptic, just a denier.
BDaman,
You’re rapid fire way of making claims makes it next to impossible to answer them all. It’s a well known dirty trick when it comes to debate. Let me point out that Buddha HAS, at least indirectly, answered your question.
“Look into complexity. As you add more of any component to a system you increase instability.”
BDAman,
I forgot to mention, if you think that scientists haven’t taken into account the errors in work done 10-15 years ago, and revised their theories, then you don’t understand how science works.
Science is self correcting, theories change and adapt to the evidence over time. That’s actually a big part of what makes something a scientific theory as opposed to just a theory.
You can’t disprove a current theory by saying that the original incarnation missed the mark. The differences between the two theories are there as a direct result of the original’s failings, they are corrections.
Simplest form possible, then I’m done with the filling the gaps in your education.
GLOBAL WARMING: It’s not about hot weather. It’s not about cold weather. It’s about UNSTABLE weather.
If that’s too complicated, I suggest taking up topics less challenging than science. Like which play-doh tastes best with kool-aid.
Buddha:
Your last post is illustrative and definitive.
That is good, so that I know where you stand on what global warming means.
I thought that global warming meant that the weather of the globe was warming, but I now understand you understand it to mean unstable weather. Ok, I can live with that – I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
In regard to your previous posts back to mine and others, I just want to say, complexity theory does not ever trump the conservation of energy. No matter what butterfly effect may be in play, it all must be within the limiting parameters of energy conservation; complexity theory cannot be an excuse or appeal to mysticism.
I say this because in replying to my post about modern greenhouse effect theory and the question of how the atmosphere/surface is warmed by the Sun, you assert a sweeping dismissal of the whole question by effectively saying “It’s all about complexity theory, look it up”, without even addressing the physics of the conservation of energy involved.
My point which you addressed tangentially, was that global warming theory requires the Earth to have an absorption rate that does not match the emissivity rate. Your very commentary supports your belief in that matter.
This however is simply an energy conservation violation.
If you believe in that, then you are right, we need not continue discussing this topic.
Bdaman:
I must say that your statement:
“Worrying about the sun when looking at global warming is about as productive as worrying about termite mound in North Africa when looking at mosquitoes in Canada.”
Is a bit off. Global warming is exclusively a Sun based phenomena, it s the whole thing that drives our weather, warming, cooling, unpredictable, whatever.
I am pretty sure you didn’t mean that the way it sounds.
Gary T:
bdaman did not say that, Buddha is Laughing did in a post up above. I thought Buddha must be joking but apparently not.
Man, you sleep in and you miss 50,000 posts…
bdaman,
It’s a little cooler here at the lake than I’d like, obviously global climate change is a myth.
Gary T,
You reversed my question and asked what would it take for me to believe that global climate change was a myth (I notice that you didn’t answer the question yourself) – if most of the peer-reviewed scientific publications gave evidence in opposition to GCC and the relevant professional organizations put out statements saying man was not involved in GCC (or it wasn’t happening), then I would have to seriously re-evaluate my views at a minimum. What about you?
Gary T,
As someone who has been fascinated by the mathematics of chaos since high school, has spent years studying fractal geometry, mixing, ergodic theory, and non-linear dynamics, and currently works doing mathematical models of highly complex systems (I model protein interactions in cells – my models have hundreds of proteins and thousands of reactions and are simple compared to the weather of the planet) I can tell you that Buddha is entirely correct on this one. You are adding more heat to the system (via greenhouse gasses) and while this amount is small compared to the total energy of the system, the complexity allows small changes to have large effects which can potentially destabilize the climate – this results in record temperatures (high and low) as the energy flows become stronger and more unstable.
bdaman,
The sun came out here and it’s warming up, maybe I was too hasty earlier.
Buddah this may be what it is now GLOBAL WARMING: It’s not about hot weather. It’s not about cold weather. It’s about UNSTABLE weather.
Buddah I might be an idiot but I aint no fool. Do you really want me to believe that they named it global WARMING because it’s not about warming. You have bumped your head Buddah. Now that there hasn’t been any warming in the last ten years they want to use the term climate change just like they went from War on Terror to Over Seas Contigency Operation. What a bunch a hooey.
How bout it buddah what amount/percentage of co2 makes up the atmosphere/green house gases. Please tell us how this tiny percent is the killer of all killers responsible for everything thats dying,crying, going extinct, drying up, making places flood, Creating major hurricanes, changing the evolution process and nothing else is ever considered. $$$$$$$$$$ see the post above about BPA
Who was president when U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose most sharply since 1990, the U.N. benchmark year for action to fight climate change?
– George W. Bush (2001-2007)
– Bill Clinton (1993-2000)
– George H.W. Bush (1990-1992)
This is a trick question on this site.
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/21/is-bill-clintons-climate-legacy-a-problem-for-obama/
bdaman,
Your point?
Slart,
That he views this as a political issue rather than a scientific one?
Slartibartfast:
Must be very interesting work. How many courses did you have to take in thermodynamics to get your degree in Mathematics. At least that is what I assume you to have a degree in.
Gyges:
I dont think bdaman’s point is political anymore than the rest of you on this issue.
IS,
O.k. then why would he bring up Bill Clinton?
IS,
I have a BS, an MS, an MA, and a Ph.D., all in mathematics, acquired in 4 years of undergraduate and 10 years of graduate education. I started out as a physics major as an undergrad, so I have a pretty solid foundation in physics, including courses in thermodynamics. Why is it not relevant that greenhouse gasses block the radiation of energy (heat) thus adding to the total energy of the system? Why is it not reasonable that this effect is more important than solar variation in the earth’s climate? And why couldn’t these small changes be the cause of large effects in the frighteningly complex system of the planetary climate?
That was just an FYI post, I ran accross it while reading and it was just released a couple of days ago.
Bdaman,
I think that you were also trying to imply a fairly absurd and irrelevant case of correlation implies causation.
Slartibartfast I read your resume and it is quite impressive. Could you provide us with the percentages of the green house gases. Specifically what percent does co2 represent in green house gases and what percent co2 represents of the total atmosphere.
Bdaman,
I am not and never claimed to be an expert on climate change, I am, however, an expert on complex systems and as such I am claiming that it is entirely reasonable to think that small changes in the total energy of the planet mediated by an increase in man-made CO2 levels could have a significant effect on the complex system that is the climate as a whole. I’m not saying that we should stop doing research or that we understand the cause and effect here completely, I’m saying that the best evidence currently available says that there is a problem and we are contributing to it. In light of this, waiting until we’re sure that we understand everything before trying to ameliorate this problem (at which point we will be unable to fix it in any case) seems to me to be not much more than sticking your head in the sand.
Slartibartfast I’m saying that the best evidence currently available says that there is a problem and we are contributing to it.
CO2, Soot, Modeling and Climate Sensitivity
Warming Caused by Soot, Not CO2
From the Resilient Earth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/
http://atlasbear.com/2009/06/20/the-scariest-counter-in-the-world/
All of Bda’s sound and fury, And yet…
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full)
To quote the abstract.
“Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes…Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years…”
Gyges I needed only to see this at the top of the article to see where it comes from. Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006
James Hansen of the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS) has been implicated in the recalculation of existing data to make the planet appear warmer than in previous decades. For instance, in one infamous incident, he threw all balloon data regarding temperature out of his historical analysis because it revealed cooler atmospheric temperatures than his theory of Global Warming was comfortable with. You see Hanson needs the world to get continually warmer as CO2 increases if his theories of anthropomorphic global warming are correct. The easiest way to do that is to rewrite past records.
“There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 – 11:45 in Earth & Climate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/there-appears-to-be-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-way-temperature-and-carbon-are-linked-in-climate-models/
Slartibarfest:
Arent you neglecting cooling mechanisms such as rain and evaporation? As temperatures increase wont there be additional water in the atmoshere that will react with the CO2. Also additional CO2 can be and is absorbed and stored by trees.
Slartibartfast:
Your resume is indeed impressive, and that you have an underpinning of physics in your studies makes it all the more germane to the discussion (of course mathematics alone, e.g., knowledge of chaos theory, would not be enough).
That would make you the best educated person here on these topics, I believe.
This makes it all the more puzzling as to why you would give Buddha’s answers to my question an unqualified thumbs up.
Buddha averred several times to the idea that chemicals can take in quiescent heat energy and store them up:
“Worrying about the sun when looking at global warming is about as productive as worrying about termite mound in North Africa when looking at mosquitoes in Canada.
THE PROBLEM ISN’T HOW MUCH HEAT WE GET FROM THE SUN, BUT HOW MUCH OUR ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY ABSORBS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING TO RE-RADIATE BACK INTO SPACE.”
Slartibartfast, being a mathematical physicist, you must know that all the energy that a body absorbs in radiant energy, must be re-radiated back out, do you not? There is not going to be a static net retention of that heat over any period of time.
Furthermore, did you not understand my comment about conservation of energy trumping chaos theory?
Apparently not, so I will elucidate somewhat more: although chaos theory certainly suggests (but by all means does not demand) that a serially interdependent fractal process system can go chaotic if even a little more energy is introduced into the system, those chaotic activities can only go so far as to the magnitude of their unpredictibility – the system as a whole will be limited by the Hamiltonian descriptor, i.e. chaos activity cannot trump the limitations that the total energy available will provide that is driving it in the first place.
So, notwithstanding the mission creep I see occuring here in this thread – that global warming does not mean global warming, rather it means chaotic weather – I do not deny that excessive heat introduced into a system may make it go chaotic, I do question however whether an incipient stability in our atmospheric shell, due to the StefanBoltzmann equilibrium with the Sun, would prevent it from ever accumulating such additional energy levels.
As to what would convince me that AGW is a real phenomena and a contemporary effect?
Well, if the Al Gore movie’s assertion that temperature follow-tracked CO2 levels were actually true, if the percentage of greenhouse gases produced by man was a significant percentage of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, if we would see higher temperatures today than ever before in the past, perhaps if God came down and publically proclamated that it was true.
One thing I would not depend on exclusively, is the opinion of a committee, particularly if that opinion is diametrically opposed by another committee.
You know it is really hard to disprove a negative. There simply is no correlative evidence that shows this to be true, so what you are asking me to do is make up things in my imagination that would be definitive proof. I have a sneaky suspicion that this “science” of global warming is not even falsifiable.
Slarti,
I think I like you even more now. You’ll keep me accurate and honest on math – not that I’m stupid enough to lie about math, but I’ll stipulate while my knowledge of the subject is good, it is not close to perfect and pales to your expertise. If I were to say something as silly as “conservation trumps chaos theory”, I know you’d set me straight. Other than physics, symbolic logic and game theory, to my shame I’ve always been a bit of a lazy learner in that area. There was that brief fling with differential equations but what young man in college doesn’t experiment a little? No, much math I’ve learned from necessity to understand other areas of interest rather than desire to learn math for its’ own sake. To be honest, I blame my teachers. Reading Sagan and Hofstadter got me to at least pay attention to their usually horridly boring presentations of what can be an exciting subject. Had I been more inclined in that direction, I’d have probably a different career path, become an astronomer or an astrophysicist. Maybe something in theoretical physics.
Space is the just the coolest thing ever. Although life was largely thought to be a bad idea at its inception, even the Guide says space is cool as long as you carry your towel and don’t panic. As an amateur scientist, I appreciate the input of a professional. I’m glad you keep coming back. You are an asset to this blog.
Buddha,
Thanks. My personal history with differential equations is long and tawdry and far from over… I’m actually a bit stunned at “conservation trumps chaos theory” and I’m trying to regroup before I answer. There’s quite a bit of ignorance proudly displayed there. I actually met Hofstadter once – he was the speaker at the awards banquet for a math competition that I was in (I got a copy of “Metamagical Themas” as a prize, which he autographed). I am a fan of “Godel, Escher, Bach” and a living example of Hofstadter’s law: “It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law”. I may get distracted by something shiny and wander off from time to time, but I’ll continue coming back. I’ve got my towel, so it’s all good.
IS,
As to what I am or am not neglecting: I’m not an expert on atmospheric carbon dioxide so I can’t say for certain what the magnitude of these effects are relative to each other nor what effect trees have on the process, but I stand by my statements about the behavior of complex systems. I find the idea that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant detrimental effects very plausible.
Gary T,
First off, I’m a mathematical biologist, not a mathematical physicist (not a big deal, but it’s important to me). When I said Buddha is correct, I was referring to his comments about complexity and that the issue is more properly described as ‘climate destabilization’ than ‘global warming’. It was not meant to be a blanket endorsement of everything that Buddha has said on this board or even this thread (sorry Buddha). Now about “conservation trumps chaos theory”. What does this statement mean to you? Because what it means to me is that that you probably don’t understand ‘chaos theory’ (which is a popular term that is general and not very well-defined) or how the idea of complexity relates to the climate problem. Let’s continue on, you said:
although chaos theory certainly suggests (but by all means does not demand) that a serially interdependent fractal process system can go chaotic if even a little more energy is introduced into the system, those chaotic activities can only go so far as to the magnitude of their unpredictibility – the system as a whole will be limited by the Hamiltonian descriptor, i.e. chaos activity cannot trump the limitations that the total energy available will provide that is driving it in the first place.
Could you please define what a “serially interdependent fractal process system” is? This whole paragraph seems to refer to things you’ve heard of, but not fully understood. To answer the question I think you are trying to ask – there is an enormous amount of energy contained in the Earth’s atmosphere which means that the result of destabilizing the system could be very destructive (bigger hurricanes, creating deserts, etc.). I’m not sure what you’re trying to take the Hamiltonian of since you don’t really have a conservative system (energy absorbed from the sun and radiated to space), but the principles of conservation of energy and thermodynamics in general don’t preclude devastating effects from climate destabilization. As an aside, the laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems near equilibrium, and thus are probably not the best rules to use for an open system far from equilibrium.
As for your answer to my question, I didn’t find it entirely satisfying, but I doubt you found my answer to the same question satisfying either, so I’ll just thank you for having the honesty to answer. I don’t depend on “the opinion of a committee” as you put it – when I want to know what scientists say about something I look at peer-reviewed journals and positions of professional organizations. And you aren’t being asked to disprove a negative – I’m sure if the global mean temperature increased 10 degrees (C) in the next 10 years, you’d admit that global warming was occurring. And if global temperature showed no correlation with carbon dioxide levels over the next 100 years, that would surely be strong evidence to falsify a connection between greenhouse gasses and temperatures. This is a complex issue and you have to be open to the possibility that there is a man-made effect on the planet’s climate (just like I must be open to the possibility that there isn’t – sadly, I think the evidence makes it more likely that I’m correct) otherwise you’re taking a position for political reasons not scientific ones.
Slartibartfast
“you have to be open to the possibility that there is a man-made effect on the planet’s climate”
Look I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about me. There is no question about man’s effect on climate. We, some more so than others, are destroying this planet each and every day. It is EXTREMELY worse in third world countries. I have personally seen this and if anyone has not watch the video posted by Pardon Me, you should and take heed. By the way thanks Pardon Me for the video. My educational backround is no match for 99% of the people who post here and I’m sure it’s evident. I spend a great deal of time outdoors enjoying my hobbies. I’ve been a Bluewater fisherman all my life, a surfer, a diver(all three this past weekend) and going to paddle out this morning soon as I press submit. The whole problem with global warming has been in marketing and sales (this is my area of expertise) As I said before most people, including myself associate global warming with warming. You may not think it but I do understand that it’s really about climate change. Now, had global warming been coined climate change from the beginning it would be much more open to acceptance. Thats the marketing departments fault. The sales manager has also done a terrible job. His salesman have been caught fudging the numbers on numerous occasions and either hiding or eliminating reports that go against thier theory. This is why people don’t trust the salesman(men) Then the sales manager(Al Gore) has made a presentation of his product called an Inconvenient Truth in which many of the claims he made have turned out false. Alot of the claims went 180 degrees in the other direction. Again bad marketing and sales. Most people say, inconvenient truth turned out to be an Inconvenient Lie. Then you have a watch dog group that follows the sales manager where ever he goes just to see if he practices what he preaches. Low and behold they find out that he buys more of the same product that he’s trying to get you not to buy. On earth day when everyone turned their lights out for an hour and just lit candles, I myself included, he had his mansion lit up like a Christmas tree on Sunday morning, the third year in a row. The manager at the local power company is gladly keeping the public informed about how much of the product he actually buys and you would be AMAZED. It’s a bad sales and marketing job all the way around and the majority of people just don’t buy what they are selling anymore. Just look at the poles( North and South) sorry, Polls.
Slarti,
No apology needed.
Slartibartfast:
Firstly I must say that I have been tolerant about the mission creep on this issue, so far, but I really have to address this point and bring it back down to its original terms, insofar I am far more a skeptic of anthropic global warming theory than I am of global warming neat, or of “climate change”.
The thing about Climate Change is that it is a shmoo, it can mean anything to anybody, the Earth has always had Climate Change throughout its 4 billion year history, and the weather is inherently chaotic.
So it means nothing and everything at the same time.
As far as I understood it, the very hype and hysteria surrounding anthropic global warming theory was successfully sold to the public on the very explicit fear of ACTUAL global warming and its direct proffered catastrophes – continents of ice melting, ocean levels rising, species extincting due to excessive environmental heat, and the bogeyman of runaway greenhouse atmospheric heating, ala Venus.
The AGW theory was not sold on the far less sexy premise of climate change.
So, I address the question AGW in its traditional inception, not some new definition or alternate concern.
You have asked me:
Could you please define what a “serially interdependent fractal process system” is?
Well forgive me if I use my own terminology, but I considered it more descriptive of what I was talking about.
In short I am talking about chaotic dynamical systems.
I was referring to how a chaotic system forms from a linear one, and described the way the constituent elements depend upon one another in a serial fashion as opposed to a global one.
But my ‘clarification’ may be more obtuse than just rearticulating it.
And yes, traditionally the Hamiltonian requires a conserved system, but I was referring to the instantaneous Hamiltonian in the context I was describing. My point being that although the local variations of energy and chaos may exist, none of them on the average could exceed the instantaneous Hamiltonian.
You replied:
“but the principles of conservation of energy and thermodynamics in general don’t preclude devastating effects from climate destabilization.”
This is strictly correct, as undetailed, unrestrained destabilization can produce almost any kind of localized weather pattern. But to say they don’t preclude them is telling, because you are effectively playing the Pascal’s wager – the fact that it COULD be SO bad, that the probablistic insignificance of the possibility is subsumed in the risk analysis.
However here is where the thrust of my mission creep criticism is apros pro, I don’t deny the possibility of climate instability, but I do deny overall (anthropic) global warming, as such warming is fundamentally limited by the energy receivable from the sun.
You then sed:
“As an aside, the laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems near equilibrium, and thus are probably not the best rules to use for an open system far from equilibrium.”
To this I respectfully disagree. The laws of thermodynamics apply universally; they are not so constrained as you pose.
I agree you may have proffered a facially falsifiable scenario, but use your imagination and debating skills, even the scenario you hypothesized could be scientifically put into doubt, it would not be a slam dunk QED, an alternate and viable scientific argument could be put forth to claim it supports the opposite, or something else entirely.
These posts are getting a little tedious, and desultory.
Not well defined, as the engineer in me would prefer.
Buddah, I was going thru my video list and I came upon one of my favorites of all time and I immediately thought of you. I don’t know where you are in your faith but even if you are a non believer watch this 45 minute video. The shots from hubble if you haven’t seen these are incredible.
Also in one of your post above you touched on a bit about the earths axis and tilt. Would you honor me with your opinion on what will happen in 2012 and the end to the Myan Calendar. Will the poles shift? Is it true that if you were to put all of the planets on a plate and were looking at the plate from the edge that come 2012 the earth moves to the bottom of the plate, which has never happened.
Buddah regardless of tit for tats I just wanted to say I love you man.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=17849695
Even if you don’t dig evangelicals? This isn’t so bad and it isn’t out of line about how I feel about space. I suggest it to the other science minded here.
Slarti:
“As to what I am or am not neglecting: I’m not an expert on atmospheric carbon dioxide so I can’t say for certain what the magnitude of these effects are relative to each other nor what effect trees have on the process, but I stand by my statements about the behavior of complex systems. I find the idea that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant detrimental effects very plausible.”
————————————————–
is it possible that your mathematical work has caused some inherent prejudice? When you are doing your theoretical work you probably do see changes to the system by minuscule adjustments to your original parameters. These fluctuations don’t necessarily convey to a naturally regulated system. And some systems are more susceptible to small amounts of input variation than others, it also depends on the type of compound.
For example a human can ingest a fairly large dose of arsenic and not be effected but given a very small dose of ricin leads to death.
bdaman,
2012 is the Mayan Y2K – their calendar rolls over and it’s going to wreak havoc with all of the Mayan computer systems because they didn’t plan ahead. I don’t know where you’re going with your plate analogy, but just about any fool notions about astronomy can be debunked at badastronomy.com.
IS,
Is it possible that my profession has caused some prejudice? I suppose it is possible, but I don’t think that it has (other than my tending to take a scientific viewpoint in most matters) and I stand by what I said about complex systems. My work is not theoretical, my colleagues are bench scientists and I work to help them understand the biological systems we are studying. I don’t see changes in my models in response to minuscule adjustments to parameters – in fact, we want models which show consistent behavior across wide ranges of parameters. While it is true that natural systems (I study cellular biology) tend to have a lot of redundancy and stability, it is also true that small events can have large consequences: A single photon can hit your DNA and cause a lesion on a gene involved in the cell’s defense mechanism that detects and repairs DNA damage. As a result the cell’s ability to reproduce without errors can be degraded resulting in accumulating DNA damage which leads to cancer. I’m not saying that the environment has cancer – I’m saying that we want to carefully consider things as the evidence comes in because, like cancer, the problems that we (probably) face are much easier to deal with sooner rather than later and there may be a point at which if the problems haven’t been addressed, they can’t be solved at all.
Gary T,
I don’t care about mission creep or climate change vs. global warming or what someone said was a problem 10 years ago or what Al Gore said or any kind of sales job. To me the issue is man’s impact on the planet and I believe that the evidence shows that man has had a significant impact on the planet (there’s a island of discarded plastic the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific) and I believe that the only way to prevent our species from drowning in its own wastes is through advancement in scientific understanding. I’m not trying to win debating points about the correctness of a 10-year old theory, I’m trying to discuss the best way (in my opinion) to solve what I see as potentially species threatening problems that are facing us. It’s not about which theories were right and which were wrong, it’s about making sure that the best theories are the ones we’re currently using and it should be science’s definition of ‘best’ that we use here (the theory that best explains the relevant data). When we inject politics into this part of the discussion bad things happen. Politics has a role in deciding how to act on the results of the science – what the costs and benefits of any course of action are, not in shaping scientific results.
I’m sorry but I’m going to have to get a little pedantic on you here as ‘chaotic dynamical systems’ (or more properly ‘non-linear dynamical systems’) is a field I’ve studied for many years. A ‘chaotic’ system does not form from linear systems – as my alternate name suggests, ‘chaotic’ behavior arises from non-linear systems. (I don’t like using the word ‘chaotic’ because it has a very pervasive and nebulous popular meaning and its technical definition is, well, very technical…) Also, I don’t think that the global climate is made up of constituent elements depending on one another in a serial fashion. I’m not sure what your getting at about the Hamiltonian – the amount of energy in the system cannot exceed the total amount of energy in the system? There is an enormous amount of energy in the system already – what we don’t want is greater concentrations of energy like bigger hurricanes which don’t violate any conservation of energy laws but could do a lot of damage. I have never in any way indicated that I am opposed to reasonably assessing the risk of potential catastrophes and the cost and effectiveness of programs to avert them (and I think that politics are an appropriate part of this discussion), I just think that the evidence that man impacts the planet is undeniable and that it’s likely that as our understanding of the ecosystem improves we will discover that the impact is even greater than we think now. You said, “I do deny overall (anthropic) global warming, as such warming is fundamentally limited by the energy receivable from the sun.” Consider this thought experiment: you have a bathtub half full of water which is being filled and drained at the same rate. Slow the drain down and what happens? I wont continue the discussion about thermodynamics as it would take us off-topic at a significant fraction of the speed of light, other than to say that if you’re interested you should look at the work of Ilya Prigogine who won a nobel prize for his work on thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium and to point out that life has a tendency to become more organized, violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Slarti:
thank you for the response.
“Consider this thought experiment: you have a bathtub half full of water which is being filled and drained at the same rate. Slow the drain down and what happens?”
I believe we would call this a first semester fluid mechanics problem that has nothing to do with thermodynamics, other than you are trying to make an analogy to an increase in energy with little or no means of dissipation. Which cannot happen except in a highly insulated system which the earth is not.
I am still reading about Prigogine, from my first fluid mechanics class and being stuck in traffic and watching traffic patterns it was remarkable how similar they were especially if you considered each car to be a point in the stream.
The behaviour is almost identical in fact.
I should have figured that someone would have studied and come up with equations modeling traffic flow.
that is one of the great things about this site, you go from global warming to traffic flow and it is amazing how connected all ideas seem to be.
IS,
The bathtub analogy was to illustrate to Gary T that energy (i.e. water) could be added to the system even if the input remains constant. Greenhouse gasses are clogging the drain by reducing the radiation of energy. One of my friends did an undergraduate thesis on modeling traffic flow – I’ve often suspected that traffic congestion could be improved by some modeling of how traffic jams occur.
Slart, I believe you said in one of your post one of the things you like is peer review studies. I found one that was just released. Let me know what you think.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
I’m not good at science speak but I think they are saying that they don’t believe Co2 is the driver of temps.
Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’
‘Surge in global temps since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean’
Wednesday, July 22, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. (Link to Abstract)
Full Press Release and Abstract to Study:
July 23, 2009
Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas.
“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.
According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.
“When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall,” says McLean.
“The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It’s no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful.”
Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
–
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
This figure from the McLean et al (2009) research shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier. The SOI is a rough indicator of general atmospheric circulation and thus global climate change. The possible influence of the Rabaul volcanic eruption is shown.
Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report
‘The science has, quite simply, gone awry’
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.
ABSTRACT. The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth’s climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation
time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean,
obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W
yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17
± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in
GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant
equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase
for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with
applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the
observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing
considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other
forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a
slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Howdy,
Has anybody here read “The Limits to Growth” or its 30-year update?
Slarti:
Now you have delved into areas that are not science.
Most egregious is the assertion that life can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It does not, and cannot.
Your analogy about water flowing into a bathtub (where the water represents energy) is also specious.
I have been hammering home the whole StefanBoltzmann energy radiative equilibrium laws from my very first post here.
It is simply not science to say that you can plug up the energy output while still retaining the radiative input.
No chemical, material, or any substance short of alchemy, is going to allow a radiative influx of energy, and then not subsequently release it at the same rate; nor will you be able to have any retention of that energy.
I do believe that you have been too long away from the fundamentals of physics, radiative analysis, and thermodynamic theory, as these snafus are just embarrassing.
(FYI, I know and agre that traditional human pollution of the planet is a travesty. I am not arguing that point however.)
Buddah this paragraph is for you especially yhe last sentence.
The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and SOLAR CHANGES.”
Buddah here’s more for ya my friend
The Earth’s history is very revealing on solar activity and our climate, less activity on the Sun results in “Global Cooling” and more activity results in “Global Warming”. Somehow this simple rule of “thumb” has not made an appearance to those people directly involved with “Man Made Climate Change” (MMCC).
And here is the reason why.
In times of low solar activity the Earth has more “dust” in its atmosphere, the MMCC analysis show this as a spurious “coincidence”. The principal climate scientists go on to say that volcanic “dust” was the reason behind times of “Global Cooling” and not the coincidental low solar activity.
This is what they say about the Dalton Minimum period from 1790 to 1839, during this time there was extra volcanic activity, and the dust from the eruptions reduced the effect of the Sun on the Earth.
At no stage was it put forward that the period of low solar activity was the “cause” of the Earth being more susceptible to tectonic plate movements. It’s another example of the IPCC/UN showing the “Effect being the “Cause”.
If you now accept that our climate is determined by the activity on the Sun, you must also accept that people can forecast the future from observed solar data rather then from the spurious analysis of “Man Made Climate Change”.
I recently put this question of low solar activity and tectonic plate movement to Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction, who specialize in Solar wind forecasts, and use their models for climate predictions on the Earth weather system’s, these show a very high accuracy in long range weather forecasts, and here is what he said….See the below comment section from Piers, he expands on the following remarks
http://solarcycle25.com/index.php?id=10&linkbox=true
continue reading here
Pardon Me, no I haven’t but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. Just kidding. I put it in a search engine and read about it as much as I could. This is one of the reason why I am so upset with this drive to push for cap and trade. It is a huge money making ponzi scheme to fill the pockets of the already rich. We have to do a better job of things on the ground. One of my first trips of many to Costa Rica I ran into a group of girls that were there sponsored by the U.S. Govt. to replant trees. This is one of many things that we should focus on, not some legeslation that fills the pockets of politicians. Access to clean drinking water another hot topic. As we polute the ground and oceans clean drinkable water for the poor becomes less and less. Think about it. It is the natural resources in front of you that need attention. Look at the switch to flourescent light bulbs and those new curly que bulbs. Do you know what happens when we put those in the landfills. If you get a chance read the book Cool It by Bjorn Lumberg.
3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!
UPDATE: It’s not just the surface land temps — Blog reader Tim points out “Water temps at Frying Pan Shoals (off Cape Fear) fell to 78 degrees a few days ago; NDBC historical data shows this occurs only 0.3% of the time in July!”
The period of July 17-20 was the worst, with over 1,600 stations breaking records. It’s worth noting that these stats include all records across the nation. Of the record lows, through July 20th (thanks to William Schmitz @ SERCC, check out their Twitter Feed), this was the regional breakdown:
Nationwide: 966
Southeast (AL/GA/FL/NC/SC/VA): 248
Northeast (MD/DE/PA/NJ/NY/CT/RI/MA/NH/VT/ME): 193
Next, a map of the Departure from Average temperatures so far in July (yes, we have one week left). Yes, that’s a “-10.0″ in Pennsylvania – double digit deficits over a month are rare indeed. Note that there are no positive numbers.
The lowest temperatures of the month are also impressive, with 50s in every state and 40s in most, some 30s. Normally temperatures are peaking in July.
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=weathermatrix&partner=&pgUrl=/mtweb/content/weathermatrix/archives/2009/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp
bdaman:
a yeoman’s work you have done in rebutting human driven global warming. It just never did jibe with me for a number of reasons one of which is heat loss is related to area another is that CO2 doesn’t appear to be any better or worse an insulator than O2 and Nitrogen as they have similar specific heats (I believe that is the term) of around 1.3-1.4.
It is all a bunch of BS so Al Gore and his cronies in the Sierra Club can make a bunch of money while sticking it to people that actually create jobs. They must be laughing at the gullibility of most people.
IS, thanks, was wondering when someone was going to comment. I could go on and on. It is exactly that, a scam. If you ever get the chance to read “Cool It” by Bjorn Lumberg, these are the things we as a people should focus on. This whole cap and trade nonsense would not of worked anyway unless China, Russia, and India would be on board, there not. Do I want to see smoke stacks spewing, no. Do I want to see a conservitive effort to rid/control the planet of polution, yes. Third world countries who do not have the technology to dispose of human waste properly need help first. Look at the video Pardon Me posted. We do a halfway decent job as a country, that said we are still one of the worst violators.
bdaman:
Check out Heaven and Earth by Dr. Plimer in Australia.
The video by pardon me appeared to be mostly from third world nations. Although I to want clean air and water I just think a free people engaging in mutually beneficial transactions is the best way to that end.
Gary,
Ah. So that’s why my car stays so nice and cool when I park it in the sun. Thanks for clearing that up.
NYC may miss 90°F for second time in history.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
444 AM EDT FRI JUL 24 2009
DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL CONDITIONS THUS FAR IN JULY…HERE ARE
SOME INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE…
WITH AN AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE OF 71.6…CURRENTLY RUNNING 4.7
DEGREES BELOW NORMAL…THIS JULY IS ON TRACK FOR THE 2ND COOLEST
ON RECORD. BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES HAVE OCCURRED ON 21 OUT OF
23 DAYS…WITH THE OTHER TWO DAYS BEING NORMAL. THERE HAVE BEEN
ZERO ABOVE NORMAL DAYS.
CENTRAL PARK HAS ONLY REACHED 85 DEGREES ONCE THIS MONTH…ON THE
17TH…AND HAS NOT YET REACHED 90 DEGREES THIS SUMMER. IF THIS
CONTINUES THROUGH THE END OF THE MONTH…IT WILL ONLY BE THE
SECOND TIME SINCE 1869 THAT 90 DEGREES WAS NOT REACHED IN JUNE OR
JULY. THE ONLY OTHER TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS 1996.
justme:
The global greenhouse warming effect is premised solely upon radiative heat retention. It is not the same colloquial greenhouse effect that the name derives from.
The one that you cite, and that most of us are familiar with, is a result of convective heat retention.
But I don’t blame you for the confusion, it is not something they talk about much, as per marketing this scare it resonates better for people to have this touchstone as an experiential reference.
Gary T:
you are wasting valuable CO2.
IS have you noticed since my post bdaman
1, July 25, 2009 at 6:28 pm Everyone who believes in AGW has vanished, poof like co2 into the atmosphere.
Bdaman:
you cannot argue with the truth, it is typically a losing proposition.
At this point I would think all but the most politically motivated would give up the idea of agw.
Now do you understand
“Do not think something is not possible without first exploring the possibilities” Ghandi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3677437859600027297
Bdaman and IS,
Yeah I noticed a dearth of the warmers here, they never did answer directly the several unambiguous points we three have raised and challenged them with, most notably the percentage of CO2 (and other GH gases) that mankind contributes to the total in the atmosphere.
I am struck by the hyposcrisy of the poster who asserted that when we are confronted with a point we could not answer, we change the subject.
Here, I see the warmers confronted with several points they could not answer, they not only changed the subject they totally evaporated.
Slarti most interestingly actually started espousing pseudo science in support of his view, such as the parapsychological position that Life has the ability to violate the laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy, and the proposition of the existance of the Alchemist’s goal of the universally impervious substance, similar to the universal solvant.
Really, after that impressive set of educational credentials he cited for himself, you would have thought he’d know better than that.
You really shouldn’t use words you don’t understand. Like science. But especially math.
This blog isn’t provided to cure your scientific ignorance. You boys feel free wander lost in the woods all you like eating whatever pro-oil propaganda you stumble upon and regurgitating it like mockingbirds, but rest assured.
Your proof is overwhelming.
It’s just not proof that industry isn’t to blame for global warming.
If you’re proud of the “deep understanding” of this subject you deniers have displayed here?
Don’t be.
This thread has become spectacular display of why America has to import tech workers. Any scientist coming though here are either going to be laughing their asses off or crying for the future of their children and grandchildren. Probably both.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration
Gary T,
Please don’t put words in my mouth. The only theories I mentioned were those of Ilya Prigogine and as he was a Nobel laureate chemist, I hardly think that his ideas are considered pseudo-science. I didn’t say that life violated the laws of thermodynamics, I said that it became more organized over time – my point was that like Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics have areas where they are accurate descriptions of reality and places where they’re not so good. Additionally, did you ever think that my failure to respond to your post had nothing to do with you? I’ve been busy working and haven’t had time to reply to you. I probably wont post anything for the next couple of days – try not to think of me running away with my tail between my legs (or marching off with my hands raised in victory), rather think of me wandering off muttering to myself…
bdaman,
You just don’t get it – I’m not saying global warming theory is correct or incorrect (although personally I find the melting of glaciers worrying… nice catch on the link Buddha), I’m saying that injecting politics into the science is absolutely the worst thing that we could do. I believe that science tends to be strongly biased toward the truth and that if it isn’t pushed off-course along the way it will generally get it correct in the end. I’m not swearing that everything that Al Gore has ever said is the gospel truth or that we should stop all new research into the climate, just that we let the scientists give their best answer to the questions before we decide what to do about it. Models get better, hypotheses get refined – this doesn’t indicate that the first steps were wrong, it shows how we’re moving in the right direction.
I’ve noticed that you blame the ‘global warming hoax’ on Al Gore and the industrialists that have apparently engineered this hoax in order to gain money and power. This illustrates a characteristic that conspiracy theory wingnuts seem to share: Ascribing the people with whom they disagree motives and tactics that would make Machiavelli seem friendly by comparison. Joe Biden made a comment that I really liked a couple of weeks ago – when asked about Leon Panetta’s comment about Dick Cheney seeming like he wanted the US to get hit again to prove him right, Biden responded by saying that he had learned never to question another man’s motive. I suppose that it is possible that you attribute such base motives to other people because that is how you think, but I personally think that it is more likely that most of the people in politics (President Obama included) are doing what they honestly think is best for the country tempered with varying degrees of self-interest. You seem to be buying into a lot of conspiracy theories – global warming deniers, birthers, and one link (on the birther thread) to a 9/11 truther article and you wont give them up even when your logic is exposed as totally fraudulent as Vince Treacy has done on the birther thread. This seems more than a little unhealthy to me. Most of the time everyone isn’t really out to get you…
Buddha,
As a scientist, this thread doesn’t make me laugh or cry, it just makes me sad.
P.S. to bdaman: Today it was in the mid-seventies and sunny here, a few clouds – more picturesque than anything else. The water is a little on the cold side, but that’s to be expected this far north. This proves that the earth’s weather is becoming perfect!
Slartibartfast I find the melting of glaciers worrying:… get with the program, they stpopped melting over a year ago. Had we not had erroneus reporting you would know this. Did you read the peer review study?
I’ve noticed that you blame the ‘global warming hoax’ on Al Gore: Have you not read how all this got started? where he got the theory in the first place?
I personally think that it is more likely that most of the people in politics (President Obama included) are doing what they honestly think is best for the country: Slart you got alot of growing up to do.
You seem to be buying into a lot of conspiracy theories – global warming deniers, birthers, and one link (on the birther thread) to a 9/11: For someone who say’s they have been busy, you sure have been busy reading the other threads.
and just how far North is North.
Buddah you have now confirmed you cant teach old dogs new tricks. Go lay down in the middle of the yard and stretch out on a sunny day. For this shall remind you of the dog days of summer.
and one more thing Buddah the photos are from July 06 and 07. Ask them to show you 08 and 09. It’s kinda like looking at the obituary in the paper and you see a photo of an old friend you went to school with and say they look just like they did in high school and then you slap yourself and go that is the high school photo.
One LAST thing, bdaman.
I’m done with addressing your staggering ignorance on this thread. It’s as productive as a fish singing about architecture. No. It’s beyond ignorance at this point.
You’re a moron in the science department. A half-assed understanding of mish-mashed terms is NOT a basic understanding of science and thank you for demonstrating that again and again.
Is that clear enough? Do you want a fresh study to show that fact? Is that data robust enough?
Al Gore’s venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.
Hara Software sells software to help track greenhouse gas emissions. The market for such software is now about $2.5 billion dollars in size, and is expected to grow by a factor of ten to $25 billion if cap-and-trade legislation is enacted, according to Hara CEO Amit Chatterjee.
Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm in which Al Gore is a partner, invested in Hara just last year. Chatterjee told Reuters that,
“This company would not have existed if Al Gore had not bought off on the idea.”
Gore is also under fire for lying to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) at the same congressional hearing about his relationship with Goldman Sachs.
Operating as a stealth tax, cap-and-trade will make the vast majority of Americans poorer and less free — but Al Gore, Kleiner Perkins, Amit Chatterjee and Hara will be laughing all the way to the bank.
He sure gets defensive as he ponders at the ceiling to come up with an answer. He is feeling like thirty years of his life is going up into the atmosphere. Poof
Chicago Sees Coldest July In 67 Years
Average Temperature Only 68.9 Degrees
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.coldest.july.2.1103959.html
The National Weather Service says 2009 has seen the coldest July since the official recording station was moved away from the lakefront in 1942. The average temperature this month in Chicago has been a mere 68.9 degrees.
Even in the years before 1942, when the National Weather Service recorded temperatures at the cooler lakefront, there are only three years that had colder Julys through the 26th.
Cinncinati coldest July EVER!!!!
How about this? We typically hit 90 degrees 8 times in July in Cincinnati. This month we will not reach 90 once! Beyond that, we haven’t even reached a “normal” high this month, and we will not do so before the end of the month. We have had 5 days with October level readings (highs in the 60s to low 70s), and there were 3 days with record cold high temperatures…so far.
Globally, we have more information on cooling ocean temperatures, flat sea-levels (no rises that were predicted by the climate models), thousands of record cold temperatures being set (in the United States alone) and monster winter storms in South America in places that haven’t seen such snow and cold in nearly a century. Oh, and the sun has been blank for 12 straight days, with an occasional weak sunspot trying to develop…and we’re nearly 200 days beyond the duration of a typical (485 days) solar minimum. Think about that. In a few months our minimum will be more than a year past the norm and there are still no signs of the new cycle beginning.
More soon!
Rich Apuzzo
Chief Meteorologist
Skyeye Weather
http://www.examiner.com/x-3854-Cincinnati-Weather-Examiner~y2009m7d23-A-flood-of-cold-weather-and-climate-data
Sure is funny how sunspots have nothing to do with nothing Nada Zilch Zippo but yet we have another meteorologist pointing it out.
Historic winter storm in South America most snow in 50 years
By Alexandre Aguiar / MetSul Weather Center
A major and historic winter storm is underway at this Wednesday morning in Argentina. Snow is falling in many parts of the country and in many areas not used to winter precipitation. Local news reports indicate snow already have been observed in the provinces of Mendoza, San Luis, San Juan, Cordoba, La Pampa and Buenos Aires.
In Bahia Blanca, a coastal city in the Southern part of the Buenos Aires, the snow storm is heavy and local authorities describe it as the worst snow event in 50 years. Roads are already blocked by snow and ice in the regional. TN news channel reports some areas of the Sierra de La Ventana could pick up even 3 feet of snow, unimaginable to the region.
Early this Wednesday afternoon, satellite pictures were showing a band of clouds advancing to the North and snow precipitation could no be ruled out in the capital Buenos Aires. In July 9th and 10th 2007 it snowed in the city of Buenos Aires for the first time in 89 years and it could snow again just two years later. Snow was also reported in the capital of Chile Santiago. MetSul Weather Center is not ruling out snow also in Uruguay.
Hey Buddah http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/9802307/Global_warming_explorers_in_Arctic_get_nasty_shock_polar_ice_caps_blooming_freezing/
U.S. spy satellites are not the only imaging satellites, and while spy satellites may be better at picking up a license plate number from a moving car, plenty of satellites can measure ice caps. But don’t take my word for it, just do a Google search.
So how about this headline: “Bush Hid Ice Images From People Who Can’t Use Google.”
the fact that previously classified spy satellite images were released does not mean that anything was concealed, since ice measurements were taken for decades by scientists using personal observation, airplane flyovers, civilian satellites, and many other means, much of which is available on Google. And the Bush administration actually asserted that there was a decrease in the ice shelf off of Alaska, so one would have to believe that the Bush administration concealed evidence supporting its position. But this has not stopped prominent left-wing blogs, such as Think Progress, from touting the declassified photos as evidence of a Bush administration conspiracy.
Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth’s daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.
There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.
So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html
Buddah, some more for yo ass.
NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible
7-28-09
Guest Post by David Archibald
NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006. Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature. The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent. To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements.
Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.
The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.
Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition, I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We won’t know how long that quiet period is until solar activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.
Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.
What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
This is HUGE, incredible and simply amazing. You have to read this.
http://climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?James Owen
for National Geographic News
July 31, 2009
Desertification, drought, and despair—that’s what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Cold July by the Numbers Posted 2009-07-31
For many people from the Midwest to the Northeast, this July was strikingly cool. In fact, for some cities like Chicago, Madison and Cincinnati, it was the coldest July ever on record. More than 3,000 daily record low or minimum high temperatures were broken nationwide, and many of which were in the Midwest and Northeast. The unusual coolness can be attributed to a storm system over Canada that continuously dipped farther south than usual.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?#extremes
bdaman,
The weather where I am continues to be quite pleasant thus confirming the insidious trend of global moderation. I have a question for you: What do you think that posting stories about record low temperatures is evidence for?
Slart it is a rare event that in the month of July which is the middle of summer that we have over 3000 records broken as it relates to temp. Had it been 3000 records broken for heat, I’m sure you would be posting them. I know you and Buddah are smart people, but this is not how global warming was pitched. We now have more co2 in the atmosphere and world wide the globe has been cooling for at least five years. The original pitch was the more co2 the hotter it will get. Now it is very possible (not according to buddah) that there has been a negative effect of warming due to lack of sunspots. Buddah says they have a zero effect. Google sunspots and read on. The theory is that during low sunspot activity there is more plate shifts in the earths crust and more volcanic activity. The ash that is put up blocks the suns rays. What state do you live in? Also did you notice how the weather channel all last week focused on the extreme heat in the North West but narely a peep on the records broken?
Slart if you don’t visit the climatedepot.com this would be a great place for you to start. There are many,many great articles that will help broaden your mind. My post are not all about cold temps. Read National Geographic above, very interesting.
Astronomers: ‘Sun’s output may decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2452/Astronomers-Suns-output-may-decline-significantly-inducing-another-little-ice-age-on-the-Earth
http://www.uschamber.com/assets/env/uscocpetendangerment.pdf
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has shocked the global warming debate by its formal call to hold a public global warming trial to decide on the “evidence” that mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial “complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect
Brenda Ekwurzel of the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists, is discouraging the idea of a trial. This is the same Ekwurzel who claimed global warming made it “less cool” this summer
There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. Lack of warming for past decade and recent global cooling, follow a peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm. In addition, a global temperature analysis on April 24, 2009 found “No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974.”
Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admitted in 2009 that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger’s own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.