President Bush doesn’t find it easy to change course, but Britain’s Observer newspaper predicts he will do so on global warming in his State of the Union address next week. Then would come U.S. caps on greenhouse gas emissions and work toward a successor treaty to the Kyoto agreement — both stunning reversals by the administration. The newspaper pointed to the private talks that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had before Christmas, suggesting Blair may have timed his own departure from office to be part of striking a global deal at the Group of Eight summit in June.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
144 Comments
But . . . but . . . but . . . Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Hannity said that global warming is nothing but a bunch of whining tree huggers and that the Kyoto Treaty would wreck the economy.
So now they’ve got a helluva problem: stick with their story and make Bush into a tree hugging liberal wack-o OR stick with Bush and show themselves to be hypocritical Bush shills.
I’m betting on the latter.
But either way, it sucks to be them.
No wonder this thread is so quiet.
Fleetwood, GoofNuts, Nathan, Hank, JM, SolDVB, ProudMan, Heckler et al. haven’t got their talking points yet from Rush.
They literally don’t know WHAT TO THINK.
Support the Worst President Ever now that he’s flipped back to where he was before he flopped back to where he was last time (he original supported CO2 limits) or support the old talking points that global warming is “junk science”?
Man, this is going to be tough even for the professional liars . . .
Sean Hannity said that global warming was a liberal conspiracy.
Does that mean – it can’t be true – that George has become a liberal?!?!
I guess that snowball has a chance after all.
I don’t comment is because the last several times it wasn’t a discussion on opinion. It boiled down to trying to discredit me and my professional background.
I’m quickly learning if Liberals can’t seem to win their point they will resort to personal attacks.
So, no thanks.
What? George Bush is a hypocritical liar?
He’ll be right at home next to our own self-proclaimed hero.
You are quickly learning, JM, that except for venues like the Rush Limbaugh show that brooks no opposition, we liberals hand you CONs your asses every time.
Why?
1. Because the American people back our positions, not yours. Look at the war, at Social Security, at nationalized health care, at worker protection laws, at gay marriage, at women’s reproductive rights, at minimum wage laws.
The majority is with us.
2. We have facts, you have “faith.”
Your whiny “the big bad libs treat me so mean” doesn’t cut it.
If you don’t want to post, then don’t.
But there’s no way you can square this circle: either your CONservative hero Bush is wrong or your vociferous opposition to global warming is wrong.
Even your phony faith based “science” can’t make two opposite positions true at the same time.
Ooops. Oh well… we can’t expect him to do what is logical and rational.Not to mention that investing in higher efficiency is cheaper than wasting energy, plus all the money and lives wasted in oil wars.
‘U.S. denies British rumors on Bush climate change’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400424.html“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. official on Sunday denied a British newspaper report that President George W. Bush was preparing to announce a dramatic policy shift on global warming in his State of the Union speech this month.” (continues)
No Capn,
You don’t get it, because you don’t play by adult discussion and debate rules.
It’s like that Weather Channel Climatologist who wants all Meteorologists fired and decertified that don’t hold her view of Global Warming.
So much for freedom of choice and personal view huh?
Funny how Liberals shout about first amendments rights, then when the Right say their version of the story, they don’t have first amendment rights, they are just kooks and religious fanatics.
That about it Capn?
Anyone having a differing view from you is a kook or religious fanatic.
Not the first time that bush has had to eventually pursue policy that the rightful President Al Gore suggested. Maybe bush took time out from cartoons and FOX news and saw Gore’s documentary?
JM is on a roll today on other threads too about us trying to deny the right their first amendment rights.
I’m not sure any of us has told to to STFU and sit down.
We just reserve the right to correct your meme’s and lies with the facts.
How is THAT denying you your first amendment rights.
You have a right to post as many lies and falsehoods as you like.
We also have the right to present the facts and skewer fallicies in logid.
We all have first amendment rights. You just waste yours on truthiness. Dont be mad at us ’cause we can use the google.
Funny how when CapnAmerica was in the minority (on most things he still is, thankfully), it was the idiotic public that just didn’t understand. Now, he wields public opinion like a club. Chuckle…
True conservatives are not double minded. We have formed our beliefs and principles. We do not immediately by into the latest trendy theory without good cause. You have to prove it.
You are correct, facts are facts. And they are certainly in dispute here.
JM–
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right–I am a blog weasel who will write anything to discredit those I disagree with.
Now that we’ve dispensed with that red herring, let’s look at the issue.
You either 1. have to admit you were wrong about global warming and Bush is right OR 2. you have to admit that Bush’s new position is right and all the bullshit you spewed about global warming is wrong.
You can’t have it both ways. It may relieve your cognitative dissonance to demean me, but that does not get you out of this contradiction–either YOU or the man you claim can do no wrong is WRONG.
And here’s your sorry ass back, loser.
Outlander–who’s wrong?
You or Bush?
So, Outlander, what happened to the true conservatives like Hagel, Voinich, Smith, Warner, Kristol, Krautheimer, et al, when it came the the Bush Escalation?
Those folks jumped ship – should we assume that they were not TRUE conservatives?
And Bush – now agreeing with Gore that Global Warming IS man-made an measures are needed to address the problem.
Is Bush also not a TRUE conservative?
It doesn’t sound like there is a bunch of TRUE conservatives.
J R,
The WH denies the British rumor, see my 11:39 AM post.
JM…
1) Please tell everyone how a correction (revision) of ONLY 0.16 ppm is significant when CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm to 380 ppm.
2) Please tell us what horrible error(s) Scripps made. Improved resolution caused that slight shift of previous data.
‘REVISION of the INTERNATIONAL calibration scale for CO2-in-air: WMO-X2005.’http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/co2experts/abstracts/tans_p_19.pdf
If you CANNOT support your opinions with LOGIC, and valid scientific FACTS, then quit WHINING about being mistreated on an open forum.
No Capn,
I not claiming either side is right. I prefer to wait on Science to prove without a shadow of a doubt that man-made CO2 are the cause of global warming. The Global Warming science hasn’t made it to that level yet.
Do you remember the 1970s? Back then it was Global Cooling and was even featured on magazines such as Time. What happened to that?
Now, there is a faction of the Global Warming Theorists that says even if the earth cools instead of warming, it can be blamed on Global Warming because blah blah and blah. Talk about hedging your bets.
My guess in why Bush is caving in to the GW folks is for political purposes. Which doesn’t really conclude anything scientifically. I suspect there is more to be known than is being said by the Bush administration.
Oh, has President Bush announced a change in his position on global warming Capn? No? You mean all this is speculation published in a British newspaper???
Then I guess I won’t waste my time replying to your question.
!!! ATTENTION !!!
‘U.S. *DENIES* British rumors on Bush climate change’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400424.html
Look at ‘em.
They can’t bring themselves to say the obvious–Bush is wrong.
They can’t do it.
Being a CONservative is like being a four year girl and your President is “daddy.” Daddy is always right. He stands for everything that is true and right.
Anyone who differs from daddy is a hateful ENEMY and deserves complete and utter contempt and to be cast out.
There’s all these scary monsters out there and daddy protects us.
Daddy can never be wrong.
And yet daddy IS wrong.
Really sad that such a sizable minority can only feel comfortable with such childish thinking.
CONservativism, a mode of thinking for people who can’t think.
Thank God, Cosmos, thank God!
Defending a completely indefensible position is a skill the reich-wing has learned well.
Admitting that Bush is WRONG blows everything to hell.
You can bet there’s a huge sigh of relief over that denial among the chattering non-thinkers.
Well lets see. In the past 24 hours we have had a thread on AG Morrison saying he MIGHT not be able to account for some patient files.
Then another based on a Britsh newspaper’s guess that Bush MIGHT modify his position on global warming.Could we wait until something actually happens?
The Washington Post story implies that Bush lied to Blair.
What a surprise that must have been for Tony.
And now that the Labour Party is having to dump Mr. BLIEr so they don’t get crushed again in the next elections, it looks like the new PM is pulling the British forces out . . .
outlander,
“Could we wait until something actually happens?”
Global warming IS actually happening.
If we wait too long, positive, natural feedbacks will make it impossible to stop.
Capn: Your attempt to describe conservatives is laughable. I read the same article that it came from. You are here parroting every Democrat talking point from DU or wherever. Real deep thinking there, genius.
It came from actually two sources, Al Franken’s book “The Truth” and linguist George Lakoff’s theory of the “authoritative father.”
I never said it was original to me. As Shakespeare writes, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
I never said it was original to me. As Shakespeare writes, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
Actually, King Solomon first said that in Ecclesiastes.
Just given credit where credit is due.
Global warming is being played into a manufactured crises, along with “peak oil” to control the sheeple.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Cosmos,
Again with the calibration thing.
All I was saying that in my chosen career field, I cannot recook data like that and get away with it.
Let’s say I worked for a client and did some air sampling measurements. Those air sampling measurements were above EPA standards and my client got fined.
Ten years later I go back and “re-calibrate” those samples and offer the “re-calibrated” data to my client and he takes this data to court.
I can guarantee the first question that will be asked by the court and the EPA if my instruments were calibrated before I took the air samples. If I say yes, then the EPA and the Court will ask me, “Why is your first calibration wrong and second one right?”
I will tell them that technology has changed.
Then they will ask me, “Okay, technology has changed, do you have any unbiased samples that were not measured from that period in time to measure under current standards.”
I would have to reply no, because all of my samples were measured under the method of that day and cannot be guaranteed as not being compromised or contanimated by sampling methods.
This is my position on post calibration.
So this is my opinion Cosmos, so let’s drop this silliness.
I don’t believe in post-calibration methods because from my personal experience it is not accepted by a court of law and under present EPA standards. At least not of a few years ago.
I have a raised eyebrow on the Scripps data is because it is not what I am used to and certainly not in conformance with legal definition of submitting calibrated samples.
Professor Shaidurov’s theory makes much sense to me.
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.htmlA new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal “Science First Hand”. The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface.
Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.
The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth’s atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused “considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure.” Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures….
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Amazing!
A British paper? And what exactly is Bush’s ‘new’ policy on global warming?
The American media has mischaracterized his position on global warming so much over the years that I doubt any of the DU warriors even have a clue of what it is.
Furthermore, I don’t have any problem with what I think on this matter. Gore is an idiot. His ‘documentary’ was a farce. If there is global warming going on it is probably due to cyclic changes that have been going on since creation.
The idea that man can cause it or stop it is rediculous.
There you go people, the official opinion from the right wing!
Love ya,
Hank
JM,
1) You failed to explain why you believe a 0.16 ppm revision is SIGNIFICANT in data that has increased by 60 ppm over the years it was measured.
What’s the huge CLIMATE difference between 380.00 and 380.16 ppm?
Is 380.16 “warming”, and 380.00 “normal” climate? /sarcasm off
Tell us how you can read 0.16 ppm on this CO2 graph.http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html
2) What exactly would you do if ten years after calibrating your instruments, the calibration supplier notified you that the calibration gas data was revised?Hide the revision?
JM: “Do you remember the 1970s? Back then it was Global Cooling and was even featured on magazines such as Time.”
1) Time, Newsweek, et al are not peer-reviewed scientific journals.
2) In the 1970’s, scientists, such as Wallace Broecker, were worried about warming. The consensus was headed toward warming, NOT cooling.
3) Worries in the 1970’s about the damage climate change could cause (agriculture, etc) triggered international funding of climate research.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Ironically, 3 decades later JM uses “Global Cooling in the 1970’s” as an excuse to deny the scientific consensus.
meme
Hank!
You actually SAW Gore’s documentary?
I’d no idea you had such intellectual curiousity!
Cosmos,
I have explained my position on the calibration data ad nauseum. I don’t care if it was raised 0.000016, it’s not something I would do or that would be upheld in a court of law.
“If there is global warming going on it is probably due to cyclic changes that have been going on since creation. ”
Not according to the climatologists who have studied both past and present.
I collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. “I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges,” said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. However, the Protocol does not call on them to reduce their emissions.
In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn’t stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I’m not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and would like to see the media stop quoting the contary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of the SEPP. Getting one’s climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one’s news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading climate scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best easily available source of this infomation is from realclimate.org, a web site maintained by some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for The Weather Underground
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
JM,
It’s rude not to read posts carefully.
It’s NOT something that “you would do” — it’s something that the supplier of your calibration gases would do to you.
Climate change is NOT “a court of law”.
Again… please explain how a TINY 0.16 ppm variation invalidates the CO2 work done by NOAA Scripps, and other scientists worldwide.
You do have valid facts to back up your opinions, don’t you??
Flamey McGassy!
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/warming.html
I still see Ben is still posting realclimate.org, the Website owned and operated by Women Against Bush.
Yeah, unbiased views. heh
Hey Cosmos. I have explained my position. The I’ve explained my position, then I explained it again.
Then I went back and re-explained it. Explained it some more and then again.
You sir are a psychopathic nut that can’t accept someone’s opinion.
You are to the point of harassing me because I have explained my position many times.
So, if you want to continue to harass me about this single point, I’ll just chalk you up as being some psychopath that has the inability to move one with life.
Hank,
Since you’ve seen Gore’s documentary, perhaps you can educate us with a list of all the “farce[s]” you noticed in it.
JM,
Did I miss your explanations on what you’d do if the calibration gases you had used years ago were “revised”?Besides the “not applicable” nonsense that you wouldn’t do it, because it’s not under your control.
Did I miss your multiple comments explaining how a TINY 0.16 ppm variation invalidates all of their CO2 work, which rose 60 ppm?
If so, I apologize. Would you mind repeating them once more?
That’d be more convincing (and much less rude) than calling me a “psychopathic nut”.
I’m willing to “move on”… but I’m also curious why you are unable to defend your opinions.
Cosmos the psychopath,
I have explained my view on the calibration many times.
That is my opinion. you dont’ get to create one new question after another to satisfy your psychopathic obsession with this.
I can’t defend against a psychopath who is unwilling to move on. They are psychotic and won’t let go of a point.
No matter how many times I have asked them to.
It is my opinion period.
You don’t like it, lump it psycho boy.
JM,
Okay, I’ll just assume that you’re UNABLE to support your opinions with logic, and scientific facts.
It seems that all you do is hurl insults, and complain that you, and your old degrees are not respected.
At least I gave my degrees Cosmos.
You are too chicken to give yours, because you don’t have any degrees.
So you say my degrees are old. Let’s both apply for the same job that requires degrees and see who gets it okay?
And as I said before, this is an opinion blog. I am entitled to my opinion.
Your psychopathic behavior proves you are nothing but an ex-con who knows how to BS his way through life.
Stop blogging from prison Cosmos and go back to your cellblock.
Psycho pathic nut?
Oh there’s a psychopathic nut about ok. But it aint cosmos.
I’m thinking JM is the best candidate for the role of blog kook.
I’ve never understood his devotion to denying science and his seeming eagerness to destroy the planet. I think I am beginning to get it now.
JM is so completely miserable he wants to destroy the whole world I think.
Hey J R defending Cosmos?
You think he’s a little weenie and can’t defend himself?
Or are you both weenies and need to tag team?
And why are you butting in on a Global Warming thread?
Let’s hear your brilliance on the matter.
waiting…
JM,
Thank you for proving my points about your being UNABLE to support your opinions with logic and facts.
Instead, you make baseless insults, and brag about your degrees, like an immature child — “MY degrees are better than your degrees!”
You’ve also disrespected the huge # of very highly credentialed scientists currently working on climate research, such as at IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and RealClimate. That is unprofessional conduct.
Job competition? Way too easy.I’d just ask them to ask you why a 0.16 ppm international CO2 revision during a global climb of 60 ppm proves that AGW is not happening.
Then I’d relax… and wait for them to call security. ;)
You also disrespected me by asking me to give my degree.
Then you don’t honor my request by asking what your degrees are in.
You are just a dishonorable weasel.
And I’ve told you at least 2 dozen times now about the calibration.
YOU DO NOT CALIBRATE AFTER SAMPLES ARE TAKEN!
YOU CALIBRATE BEFORE SAMPLES ARE TAKEN!
THE DATA IS COMPROMISED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FOLLOW BASIC SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE.
Now, if Cosmos doesn’t acknowledge this explanationn, everyone will just conclude he is a psycho incapable of rational thought.
Come on Cosmos,
Let’s have your degrees.
I gave you mine.
Now tell me yours.
You have zero honor if you don’t.
JM?
I ALWAYS weigh in on global warming threads. I’ve posted this one twice before.
Cosmos does just fine on his own. I saw that you called him psychotic. As I told you on another thread, I think it is you who have….issues. And I’ve no desire to add to your pain.
Sigh….
I’ve asked time and again. What is the downside to addressing global warming proactively? Less pollution? Energy that we do not have to go to war to secure?
YOU JM are the most stubborn of all posters we have had on this issue since the departure of Paul F Rosell. HE was a trader in oil and gas leases.
What is YOUR dog in this fight JM?
Or….do you just NEED to fight?
Because Cosmos won’t answer my questions and he ask the same stupid question over and over and over.
Which I have answered over and over and over.
That’s why I call him psychotic.
The argument J R is that the Global Warming Support say without any hesitation that man-made emissions are the sole cause of Global Warming. Nothing else could be the cause.
I’m saying that is simply not true as there are many contributors to Global Warming. And all the Global Warming people want to do is create another tax, aka the Greenhouse tax.
We already pay enough taxes and those taxes go in part to the EPA, NOAA,NASA, US GEOL society to study Global Warming.
Why do people like Cosmos and hmmm (aka Ben Huie) want to put yet another tax on us.
What is their agenda?
JM,
As I’ve TOLD you multiple times, they properly and scientifically calibrated, BEFORE taking samples.
The data re the calibration gas they PROPERLY used was slightly revised LATER, and internationally, due to improved resolutions.
NOAA PDF report link at,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/bush_joining_go.html#comment-28007523
Now, please give us a “rational thought” as to why +/- 0.16 ppm makes ANY SIGNIFICANT difference when GLOBAL CO2 is at 380 ppm, and CLIMBING.
+/- 0.16?
Then why bother messing with the data. That is just bad scientific method messing with resulsts that are already calibrated.
If the method is already done in years past why do a pipsqueak data pump over, in your words an insignificant gain?
Ah forget it Cosmos.
You just want to see another Tax on everyone in America just because of your selfish views.
I hope they increase the price of gas double because of you Global Warming nuts.
JM,
“… say without any hesitation that man-made emissions are the sole cause of Global Warming. Nothing else could be the cause.”
So now you are pushing Mr./Ms. Straw-Person? Guess you missed the solar forcing component here?http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Not to mention all of the postive, natural warming feedbacks, such as loss of ice, and huge amounts of methane released from thawing Arctic permafrost.
forget it Cosmos.
You just want to see another Tax on everyone in America just because of your selfish views.
Man, the whole bunches of you people are wasting your energy.It is plain as your nose on your face on global warming.I don’t think that the “IF” should be the main focus, what we should be doing is try to figure out how the consequences of what has happen are going to change our lives now.Plant species, animal and human migration is going to have a tremendous cost on us now and it could be the demise of the human species.It does not take a PhD to know that you are dying.JM –Calibration can be done before and after as long you have your base line references.
Glad you are buying into Wiseman that’s your priveledge and your opinion.
I have a different opinion that Cosmos does not want to accept.
I won’t want to pay taxes to some International Agency never to see any end results of the product. They will just keep collecting taxes and if it turns badly for them, oh well.
I pay enough taxes for Global Warming by the US agencies who are the best in world. The US has its own satellites. We have our own Geologists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, PaleoClimatologists. All of these are already paid by the US Government and doing research on Global Warming.
Cosmos and apparently you now, what every US Citizen to pay into some International Fund in which will have no say in or no control.
No thank you.
Please, oh please, tell me how you all are altering your behaviour to make global warming, well, less warm.
Details and numbers needed.
Please tell me the # of BTUs you are reducing in your lives.
JM,
Because of MY “selfish views”?
Actually, it’s the views of many scientists, from Arrhenius in 1896, to the consensus (general agreement) of scientists worldwide today.
Also, I do NOT want a “Tax on everyone”, as you falsely claim. Feebates are a much better way of reducing human-caused GHG’s.
I suggest that YOU do some research — higher energy efficiency, combined with renewables are actually cheaper than fossil fuel.
Now it’s my turn to keep ignoring what your write Cosmos and just repeat the same thing over and over.
forget it Cosmos.
You just want to see another Tax on everyone in America just because of your selfish views.
JM –Very few of us has any real say so on how taxes are being spent, the majority of us are someone else’s pawn and we have no authority.Just like company insurances, you are paying for well women exams even if you don’t have any female anatomy.You take it or leave it, as for taxes you pay or you are not a member of this society.It sucks doesn’t it?
Keep your damn hands off my money! I don’t give a rip for yor pseudoscience. I understand that I have something that you want to take away from me!
Wiseman, what a wussy approach.
Just lay down and let libs create another tax.
Sorry, but I still have a voice in this society and I say no.
Not my post.
Keep your damn hands off my money! I don’t give a rip for yor pseudoscience. I understand that I have something that you want to take away from me!
Posted by: JM | January 20, 2007 at 11:55 PM
So I notice and it does not sound like your logic.
JM,
“Now it’s my turn to keep ignoring what your write Cosmos and just repeat the same thing over and over.”
That’s right JM… stick your fingers in your ears like a 4-year-old and scream, “I can’t hear you!”
Or… you could be an adult, read these 300+ pages, and tell me what you disagree with. http://www.oilendgame.com/
It’s your choice. Act like a 4-year-old… OR be an adult, and do some research.
Cosmos,
You read the 300+pages it’s your paper god.
And who put this proganda out?
progand=propaganda
It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.
In the US, where much of the world’s uranium is enriched, including Australia’s, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.
Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages – the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.
In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.
Contrary to the nuclear industry’s propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.
These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.
Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.
The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.
Dear Richard,
Almost everything you just posted about nuclear power is BS. On second thought, everything was BS.
You don’t know what tritium is. Tritium is a transuranic radionuclide of hydrogen. The amount produced in a nuclear reactor is neglgible. The amount released is insignifigant-unmeasuarable.
There is a reason your noble gases krypton, xenon and argon are ‘unregulated’. They too are released in unmeasurable amounts during the routine operation of the modern, water moderated, thermal reactors used for comercial power production.
I could go on but you have obviously obtained your information from some extremely biased left-wing source and to continue would be a waste of time.
Hank
JM,
“And who put this proganda out?”
If you had clicked the link I gave earlier, you’d have seen a link, “THE AUTHORS”.
The five authors impressive credentials, real-world experience, and accomplishments are listed here,http://www.oilendgame.com/TheAuthors.html
The ‘Forewards’ at Oil EndGame, by George P. Shultz (former Sec. of Labor, Director of OMB, etc) and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart (worked for Shell) are also worth reading.
A better post was made earlier Cosmos.
What are you doing to combat Global Warming Cosmos?
I have solar panels on my house and high energy efficient appliances. I have fuel efficient automobiles. I walk a lot instead of driving. My house is mostly dark until I enter the room because I have sensors that detect motions. When I leave a room the sensors are wired to shut off lights. I keep my house at about 64F because I like sweaters. :)
So, what have you done Cosmos?
Both hank and Heckler are wrong about tritium. Tritium is NOT a transuranic; it also is not three hydrogen atoms. It is a “heavy heavy hydrogen” with a nucleus containing 1 proton and two neutrons. Hank, I WOULD consider it to be of concern; however not as seriously as heckler indicates.
By the way – I favor nuclear power and hope that someday we will see fusion.
JM,
“What are you doing to combat Global Warming Cosmos?”
About the same as you except:
I don’t live in a delusional fantasy world, denying that humans are causing GW, and spreading denialist BS.
I’m capable of turning the lights on/off when I enter/leave rooms. ($ for motion sensors better spent elsewhere)
I prefer riding a bicycle instead of walking — faster, much greater range, and more efficient.
Ah poor Cosmos,
Never misses an opportunity to take a shot at me.
“I don’t live in a delusional fantasy world, denying that humans are causing GW, and spreading denialist BS.” Posted by: cosmos | January 21, 2007 at 04:36 PM
I tell him about my house and lifestyle and Cosmos says its denialist BS.
Poor poor Cosmos, he so hate-filled he’s having trouble with his reading comprehension. :(
JM,
“Do you remember the 1970s? Back then it was Global Cooling and was even featured on magazines such as Time. What happened to that?”http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/bush_joining_go.html#comment-28007594
That is GW denialist BS, upthread.
Would you like me to ‘bone dig’ and post your other GW denialist BS? Medieval Warming, Beck, Jawaroski (sp?), Scripps, Mauna Loa, etc.?
I don’t care Cosmos.
Feed your hate, knock yourself out.
“I don’t care Cosmos.
Feed your hate, knock yourself out.”
Let’s see, Cosmos actually provides links and science, and you accuse him of unreasoning hatred, latch onto any comment (the delusional fantasy world comment is 1. backed up by your behavior and therefore right on the money and 2. elicited by numerous childish insults from you).
You sir, are pathetic. Give it a rest.
JM,
I don’t need to post your other denialist BS, my point has been understood.
BTW, I don’t feel “hate” toward you — it’s mostly disappointment, because you seem to prefer deluding yourself.
Hey Ben,
You’re right, it’s not a transuranic radionuclide as a transuranic is any nuclide with more than 92 protons. However, in association with nuclear reactors it is of no concern.
In the handling and storage of nuclear weapons, especially stratigic warheads, it is a concern. Tritium is used as a neutron source in hydrogen bombs. The hydrogen in hydrogen bombs is actually tritium.
Very little tritium is produced in nuclear reactors. Less still ever escapes the primary containment. In fact, I doubt that any comercial plants even have the capability to detect the low energy beta radiation that is emited when tritium decays.
There are erroneous statements that are worse than the tritium example in Richards post. The whole crap about all of the fossil fuel required to mine, enrich, and mill uranium for one. We currently have in storage enough highly enriched U 235 to supply all of our electrical generation needs for at least 150 years.
This is so called ‘bomb grade’ urnanium and the leftest nitwits have for several years been trying to make the use of this uranium in commercial or test reactors illegal. We have so much of this stuff from weapons that we have taken out of service and from huge stockpiles we made during the cold war. It will be a shome if the PC folks prevent us from using this almost endless fuel source.
Disengenous half truths that Richard has regurgitated up from some left-wing website are no help.
Hank
AARRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Hank! We are largely in agreement!
I am a bit concerned about trtium; there have been suggestions of it’s production as a fission by-product. That said, it is not a ‘deal-killer’ in my view.
I’m with you on fuel. If we were to take just that material already slated for decommissioning from warheads and back-mix with depleted uranium you have a heck of a lot of fuel. The nice thing too is that you ‘ruin’ it for weapons use. Think “swords to plowshares.”
I’m with you – we need to be looking at nuclear power. I am especially intrigued with some new technology “microspheres”. “The boy” and I had an interesting discussion on this at the first meet-up.
ksagnostic,
Cosmos and I discussed Global Warming ad nauseum in two extremely long threads prior to this.
It’s getting tiresome when Cosmos latches on to some topic which has been discussed, redicussed and discussed again.
I don’t think that you get any tritium from fission. Most fission fragments are approximately half of the atomic weight of uranium.
Most fission fragments decay rapidly at first by beta radiation. Fission fragments have a very high neutron to proton ratio. Much to high to be stable. A neutron in the nucleus decays by beta radation and becomes a proton giving the nucleus a more stable state.
The noble gases that are produced as fission fragments are not of much biological concern because again, they are unlikely to escape the primary containment. If they do escape they are inert and they are beta emitters. Inert means they will not chemically react with other elements and retention in the body is impossible. Beta radiation will not penetrate the skin and therefor as a gas the only risk is inhalation. The concentrations in the atmosphere for them to be an inhalation problem are stagering. If you had a release from a reactor big enough for you to get a measurable beta dose to your lungs from a noble gas you would already be above fatal radiation limits from other sources.
Again, disengenuos crap from Richard’s sources.
Hank
Hank – you don’t just get the “1/2X” but additional debris – protons, neutrons, deuterons, and, (I think) tritions. That is the POTENTIAL concern. However, it can (I think) be dealt with. In fact, who knows, T could be an interesting material in and of itself.
A comment about nuke waste – in my scenario, using recycled weapons ’stuff’, we at least have no “new” waste.
Ben,
I had a moist shorts experience when a hand and foot montior shorted out and the radiologic alarm went off.
It was the one set right before the heavy water pool room. I sucked in about a yard of fruit of loom cotton when that happened.
Cyclotron – Texas A&M , 1970s :)
Also my friend,
I don’t know how to break this to you, but we agree on another major point. I was forced to go out and buy a paper yesterday morning for the second time in as many months because of your article!
In 1977,’78 I was a fly fishing guide on the Snake river below Palisades resivoir and on the Blackfoot river below the Blackfoot resivoir in Idaho. We share a love of rivers!
Congradulations on all you do to save the Arkansas river for the rest of us to access and enjoy!
Hank
PS For your eyes only, go to GOOGLE EARTH:
Best place in Idaho for record Brown Trout- 43 24 51.7 N by 111 19 32.3 W On the Snake river.
Best place in Idaho for Cut-throat Trout- 42 59 10.48 N by 111 46 33.72 W On the Blackfoot river.
That’ll get your attention!
I remember having a lot of fun at the synchrotrons at Stanford (the world’s only Junior University) and Cornell. The great thing was for a couple of months afterwards I could go out back and feed the dog without turning on the lights!
Hank – go visit http://www.arkriver.org
Dearest Ben,
I do get it!
When U235 fissions you get all sorts of crap. On average you get 2.5 fast neutrons. That’s what allows the process to become self sustaining. You also get alphas, gammas and every combination of Fission fragment you can imagine. The production of tritium is very negligible. Almost non-existant from a probablity standpoint.
It’s possible to get tritium from a leak on a nuclear weapon but again, I repeat, it is of no concern in nuclear reactors.
Hank
I did Ben. I downloaded a membership application also. I probably won’t join, but I would like to participate in a float sometime.
I’m trialling two of my dogs and training three dogs for other people right now and all of my spare time I seem to be picking up dog poop.
I do promise to contribute a little money as soon as we recover from our recent move.
Hank
We are not far apart. I tend to be detail oriented in these things so everything is on concern. BUT HANDLEABLE!
By the way – apparently the Eagle is doing another article tomorrow on the river – with lots of pictures of bald eagles.
Crap!
I’ll have to buy another paper! I haven’t seen our eagle yet this year. The past few years we’ve had a bald eagle that comes to the tall tree by our boat ramp to wait for his breakfast to appear.
There are a few that roost South of Afton and I think ours is one of them. Hopefully he’s OK! I’ve arranged my living room so that I can watch him in the morning out of our picture window.
Hank
http://www.kansas.com/multimedia/kansas/slides/eagles/index.html
Great shots! I don’t have to buy a paper now!
Last winter our lake was frozen except for a section in the middle about 100 feet in diameter. There must have been 200 Canadian Geese sitting around the hole in the ice.
The eagle fell out of the tree into a glide and landed at the edge of the ice. Walking along among the geese he was at least two and a half times their height!
All of a sudden he reached into the water with one of his tallons and snagged a fish that was at least 18 inches long. He took off and as he struggled to gain altitude for his flight back toward Afton he positioned the fish head first into the wind to make it easier to fly!
Amazing!
Hank
JM,
“It’s getting tiresome when Cosmos latches on to some topic which has been discussed, redicussed and discussed again.”
GW wasn’t “discussed”. You posted multiple GW denialist BS, I clearly debunked those, and you ignored my debunking.
If you’re tired of it, then stop posting your denialist BS, like ‘Global Cooling’ in the 1970’s, upthread.
Cosmos,
For one, I never denied GW. I denied your version of GW and it is caused by your version of GW caused my man-made carbon producers.
Secondly, you never debunked anything.
Your definition of debunk is to call the scientists I referenced as not believable. So you didn’t disprove the science you attacked the credibility of people you have never met and work you never studied.
All of this started with a Polar Bear population study which has already been proven that the vast majoriy of Polar Bear populations are doing just fine. The article referenced the Canadian population of Polar Bears affected by Global Warming from man-made carbon.
When I found direct quotes from the scientist who did the Polar Bear research in that area and he said there was not a problem with the Polar Bear population.
What did I hear? Nothing that’s what. All the conspirators completely ignored it. They instead to want to latch on to a story by newspaper reporters as gospel.
So Cosmos, stop posting your denialist BS.
JM,
Since you seem to believe in (natural, not human-caused) GW, I assume you also agree that the Arctic ice cap is melting.
I posted NASA links about that ice loss on the Polar bear thread.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/could_kansas_pr.html#comment-27066724
Please excuse me for not posting the OBVIOUS — Polar bears use that ice to feed on seals (at air holes) and to rest. Shortage of food also seems to be causing cannibalism.
‘Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html
You then responded with denialist BS, such as Medieval Warming, Warwick Hughes, E-G Beck, etc…
Suppose ALL of Kansas was under blizzard conditions, and almost all thermometers readings were below freezing.Please tell us *WHY* would you want to average in obviously defective readings of 50, 70, etc degrees F.?http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
And then there’s your totally bizarre claim re an international revision of the global CO2 calibration by a TINY 0.16 ppm.
That does NOT invalidate CO2 measurments that have climbed ~60 ppm since they started measurements.
No offense, but you seem scientifically, and logically bankrupt…
Ah, denial once again Cosmos.
If you will got back to the original Polar bear thread, I supplied a shortened version of the following link. Did anyone read it? nooooDid anyone comment on it? noooooDid they use it to point to error of Greenpeace? nooooo
In other words, you only use information that suites your agenda.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/15/polar-bears.html#skip300×250
Again with the carbon dioxide rising.
Your GW experts that only CO2 can be used to assert their claims of GW.
Wow, what a corollation! Let’s ignore El Nino, Clouds, Oceans, the Sun, Volcanoes, Satellite Temperature Measuremtn, etc. ad nausem…
“By gawd our man-made CO2 is causing global warming and we’re gonna ram it down your throat whether your like it or not!”
That last paragraph about cover your method Cosmos?
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/15/polar-bears.html#skip300×250“The 20 existing populations of polar bears are not all identical to the two populations that constitute the majority of the examples in the petition.”
It seems that JM is arguing that it’s OKAY to allow human-caused GW to wipe out two of the 20 existing Polar bear populations.
Again, no offense meant, but you seem to be scientifically, logically, AND morally bankrupt…
JM: “By gawd our man-made CO2 is causing global warming and we’re gonna ram it down your throat whether your like it or not!”
Again, JM??…http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Ah yes Cosmos, the one factor, one corollation science. It is Carbon Dioxide alone causing everything.
Yeppers solid science you got there.heh heh
What about space debris? I mean it’s at an all time high? It has a high reflective value and perhaps is reflecting all that radiant energy down on earth.heh heh
Ice melthing at the poles and Greenland. Did someone ever mention to you that Antartica was once land!!!!
How about Greenland? There was a reason that the Vikings had no difficulty farming in Greenland and sailing around the NON-ICY waters of Greenland? Because the ICE HAD MELTED.
No doubt it was SUVs and carbon emissions back in the Viking days. I mean Vikings drove all those Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escolades.
Yeah, there is Global Warming. But unlike you I’m not yet another Liberal Conspiratist who latches on to yet another conspiracy with tenacity of an Al Gore Chihuahua.
Perhaps Global Warming is caused by several things, the sun – duh.Or maybe the natural cycle of climatology that no one really knows how it works.
Tell me one Climatologists or any group of Climatologists that say they know absolutely everything there is to know about the climate and I will show you a liar.
This is what the CO2 conspiracy GW group wants us to do. They want us to ignore that no Climatologists knows the total answer why things happens in any detail.
The CO2 conspiratists latch on to CO2 because they see a corollation.
So science is about corollation?
Remember the frog joke I told? Cut off all four legs of a frog and the frog can’t jump because cutting off all four legs will make it deaf! hah!
This is what you’re asking Cosmos. Disregard all the other factors of Climatology and let’s make a decision that Global Warming is caused alone by man-made Carbon emissions which happens to be on the small end scale of things affecting climate. I might add, very small scale.
The line here is that GW conspirators want your tax money.
Why, because their meager budget can’t pay all the leech scientists employed? And of course all the publicity front men.
The US invests over $5 billion per year in study Climate Changes. yeah, it could be more in my opinion, several times larger imo.
But guess what? The US Climate Study budget is still larger than the sum total of the Kyoto Treaty conspirators by several factors.
The Kyoto Treaty people just want to get their money grubbing hands on US coin and use it without supervision of where the money goes or who spends it.
Oh and of course, China will never conform to any Global Warming standard. Go ahead GW conspirators march on down to China and spout your stuff, see how fast they throw you in a Chinese prison.
Because China’s human rights are bad, we should be thankful that we’re only somewhat as bad?
JM = Jerk Moron
JM,
“Ah yes Cosmos, the one factor, one corollation science. It is Carbon Dioxide alone causing everything.”
Is THAT what you think the JPG I posted says??? Are you UNABLE to even read a simple bar graphic??http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Besides CO2, climate is ALSO impacted by:CH4, N2O, halocarbons, stratospheric ozone, tropospheric ozone, sulfates, black and organic carbon from fossil fuel burning, biomass burning, mineral dust, aerosol indirect effect, aviation (contrails, cirrus), land use, and SOLAR.
Sigh…not Greenland, again? AGAIN, That was due to REGIONAL, NOT GLOBAL warming, during the Medieval Warm Period.They had to grow fodder crops, to feed livestock kept in barns during the long harsh winters.
Eric the Red named it Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name.
No offense, but you seem to be scientifically, logically, and morally bankrupt. Plus UNABLE to do basic research.
‘CEOs Ask Bush To Back Climate Protections’http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/CEOs-Ask-for-Climate-Protections/story.xhtml?story_id=112006A2HSY8 “The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.”
‘Is global warming driving polar bears to extinction?YES: As the Arctic ice recedes, the number of bears dwindles’http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/16516176.htm“The White House produced not even a grumble of dissent when its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently proposed polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.”
Sure thing Cosmos,
That’s why the Kyoto Protocol is asking for a
CARBON TAX!
spin, spin and more spin.
JM cluelessly offers more denial.
Corporations KNOW that GHG emissions will have to be cut, and they want to plan for it.
‘Report has ’smoking gun’ on climate’http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/science/4489902.html“WASHINGTON — Human-caused global warming is here — visible in the air, water and melting ice — and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.” (continues)
cosmos – that’s just Godless science – probably evolutionists too – speaking. You know that doesn’t count!
Ben,
Yeah, you’re right — like Inhofe said, human-caused global warming is just a big media hoax. /sarcasm and STUPIDITY off
test —-got the internet blinking on and off
From Cosmos’ link.
“The world’s global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005.”
So what is that, about 1/100th of a degree per year??
You know, I really thought that with all the hoopla, it would be more.
outlander,
Most of that rise happened in recent years. Also it’s a “global average” — most of the rise is in the northern latitudes. Melting Arctic ice, and methane from thawing permafrost are positive feedbacks, could increase the rate of warming.
This graphic shows the trends, altho it’s out-of-date.
‘Annual temperature trends: 1976 to 2000′http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.19.jpg
Yeah Cosmos, that graph doesn’t show the temperatures that show decreases in 2001 – 2005. heh
Sure, sure it’s out of date. That’s right. uh huh uh huh, that’s the way she likes it uh huh uh huh
Cosmos shows this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.pngBut ignores this, cause its inconvenient to show falling temps in Global Warming! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png
or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
So we have global warming and it must be our fault, evil humans and SUVs.
So it is hotter on Earth than it has been for a while and the weather/climate is changing, it must be our fault!
But can someone explain why Pluto is warmer? Why did they recently photograph signs on Mars that water or some liquid has recently flowed out the side of a crater?
Why are the Mars Rovers getting more power than was predicted, why are they still running?
Why all the sunspot activity?
Why was Comet McNaught so very bright, visible even in the day time?
The answer to these and other questions is SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING which is casused by the SUN being a little hotter. If mankind caused that then we have become gods.
JM,
“But ignores this, cause its inconvenient to show falling temps in Global Warming! :D”
Are you so DELUSIONAL that you believe that graphs showing average global temperatures increasing by about 0.4 C, 1980 to 2005 = “falling temps”?
James H. Macklin,
“which is casused by the SUN being a little hotter. If mankind caused that then we have become gods.”
We don’t need to become Gods.Mankind’s stupidly burning huge amounts of wood, coal, oil (P51 Mustangs, etc), and producing methane, CFC’s, SF6, etc has much more influence than solar changes.(bar graph)http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.19.jpg
Ooops, wrong link above,…has much more influence than solar changes.(bar graph)http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Many of the interannual variations in temperature relative to the trend can be explained by the release (during El Nino) or uptake (during La Nina) of thermal energy by the oceans.
You see, the Libs got all excited when El Nino helped them get that huge temperature spike in the late 1990s, when it dropped back down after El Nino did its thing, they weren’t quite as vocal.
Of course,not in the news today are all the Global Warming IPCC scientists who are now confessing that they were pressured by their supporters to put out data even though the scientists knew it was premature.
Polar ice melting scientists confess they really know very little on what’s causing the melting of ice floes, because no one understands the bigger picture of artic conditions and how proportional relationships with ocean cycles polar and solar activity affect clmate change.
Cut off all four legs of a frog and yell at it to jump. Global Warming Scientists will tell you that cutting off all the legs only leads to the conclusion that the frog is deaf and cannot hear the command to jump.
“Cut off all four legs of a frog and yell at it to jump. Global Warming Scientists will tell you that cutting off all the legs only leads to the conclusion that the frog is deaf and cannot hear the command to jump.”
I defy you to cite one example of that.
JM,
“You see, the Libs got all excited when El Nino helped them get that huge temperature spike in the late 1990s…”
El Nino was NOT the only factor in 1998 (or 2005).
Are you too stupid to understand the very SIMPLE concept of climate being a long-term average?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climateresearch.html“Such climate summaries are provided in a variety of formats, many based on a ‘normal’ base period of 30 years.”
Are you unable to see the red “Five Year Average” warming trend line on the graphs?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Unable to see that the temperature during a previous big El Nino (1982-83) was lower than 1998’s?Unable to see that the last few decades are warmer than EVER before in the 1860 to 1980 range?
The IPCC reports are conservative, being what 2000+ scientists from over 100 nations all agree on.
Ben,
It was a joke I heard from an Aggie Health Physicist when I was doing studies at the Texas A&M Cyclotron. heh
It was a mini lecture/warning about how military research scientists were drawing conclusions based on corollations instead testing their theories out on full models. Sorry can’t mention the project, but it was things that go boom.
It’s like the chart Cosmos keeps showing me of CO2 emissions, other gases and what-not on radiant forcing models.
But he (I should say IPCC) refuses to show how Climate is and can be affected by oceans, thermic devices like El Nino/La Nina, Volcanos and other things that affect climate in a major way.
Let’s say we take our theory to a blank planet and test it. We have all the elements there minus human population or inteference.
Now for sure, CO2 will affect warming to the extent that radiant forcing affects reflective/absorption values, but can we ignore all other data sets of our model to draw a conclusion.
I think not.
Link to article concerning upcoming release of IPCC report on global warming, which (the report) may or may not answer some of JM’s objections:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html
New debate fodder, at the least.
JM – the thing is, they HAVE done all that. They include a lot more than CO2 in the models.
JM,
“IPCC) refuses to show how Climate is and can be affected by oceans, thermic devices like El Nino/La Nina, Volcanos and other things that affect climate in a major way.”
Are you “slow”? AGAIN… those “affect climate” only for a SHORT-TERM, global warming looks at LONG-TERM.
Can’t you read a graph? See the labels, Pinatubo, El Nino, La Nina?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
JM: “Let’s say we take our theory to a blank planet and test it.”
Too late, we are ALREADY testing it now, on Earth. And we’re getting warmer.
‘2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html“2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years.
Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures.
However, what’s significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 WITHOUT the help of an El Nino.”
Global Warming except for the Southern Hemisphere right Cosmos?
I mean we can’t count that as they have all those huge oceans surrounding the countries. :)
Shouldn’t it be called half global warming?
What happened to the CO2 levels in the southern hemisphere? Not counted? Disregarded? The step-child of GW carbon based causes theorists?
If CO2 is the boogie man and is causing GW, what happened to our friends south of the equator?
Both hemispheres, not just north. Less severe in south due to moderating influence of more ocean but still there. See especially Fig 3 which is multi-year.
“Largest warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed.”
Antarctic Peninsula is in the Southern Hemisphere. It’s warming, like that of Greenland, could be quite interesting.
Is JM pushing his Southern Hemisphere oceans are cooling BS AGAIN? Memory problems? I guess I need to quote JM’s link from the ‘Arctic ice shelf’ thead, again.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/07/warming.ocean.enn/index.html“Since 1984, tropical waters in the Northern Hemisphere have warmed at a rate of about 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade, according to data compiled by NOAA. This figure is 10 times the global rate, a HARBINGER of CLIMATE CHANGE.”
Re air, here’s relevant quote from hmmm’s link, same thread,http://www.wunderground.com/education/2005warmest.asp“It’s sobering to note that even the Antarctic showed a net warming for 2005. The Antarctic had been the only land area on the globe to have cooler than average temperatures the past decade. If 2005 signals an end to this Antarctic cooling trend, we can expect a higher rate of global sea level rise in coming years as Antarctic melting increases.”
A bigger version of anomaly graph is in my previous post to JM,http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
Thanks for the links Cosmos, let’s see from the first one I got:
“We don’t have the accuracy yet to determine the magnitude of the average global trend, but we at least are trying to point out the signs of these trends.”
The second link:
“The Antarctic had been the only land area on the globe to have cooler than average temperatures the past decade”
And the last link provided:
“Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.”
“Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.”
That is particularly important. It shows that what is being measured is due to GLOBAL issues rather than LOCAL ones.
So what your saying Ben, the fact that the snow is melting around my house and ice melting around the house in Dallas is purely a local phenomena. By the way, I haven’t noticed any melting at night. Why is that Ben?
JM,
Thank yourself for the 1st link (below). You quoted from it Jan 11, on the ‘Arctic ice shelf’ thread — trying to prove your bogus claim that AGW wasn’t warming the “Southern Hemisphere”.
Memory problems?
‘Warmer tropical waters portend climate change’http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/07/warming.ocean.enn/index.htmlhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27554522
When do they teach children about “averages”? Sixth grade?Perhaps you can find a child to explain to you how if MOST of Earth is warmer than normal, and a SMALL part is a little cooler, the overall GLOBAL average is warmer.
It doesn’t melt at night because it is below freezing. DUH!
The urban issue is reflecting previously cited concerns that increasing measured temperatures might be ‘local’ effects – for example an area near an airport might be higher than when it was a field. Thus the notation that the locations were far from such influences.
As for the ice melting around your house – if your insulation is poor it will melt faster.
Ben,
And why is it that it gets below freezing at night? Are there factors present in the daytime differing from those at night?
Cosmos writes:
“When do they teach children about “averages”? Sixth grade?Perhaps you can find a child to explain to you how if MOST of Earth is warmer than normal, and a SMALL part is a little cooler, the overall GLOBAL average is warmer.”
Yes, yes they do teach that about averages.
They also teach in advanced statistical courses that means, modes, median, central tendency, loci description, etc.)
Also cautioned is drawing conclusions on a data set that may be out of bounds from other data sets when no explanation is offered for each point of data or the location (mathematical not geographical) where it was taken.
So, I have my panel of IPCC scientists and we steadfastly use our brass encased thermometers and some digital models to go out to our pre-selected sites and record temperatures all times of the day.
We send in our data as good scientists, but exclude night time data as we find it irrelevant because stuff doesn’t grow much at night and ice doesn’t melt very well.
A team of our old College Professors get together to review the data. They notice the nighttime temperatures are missing from the data sets.
They ask where are they? You and your team replies, the night time temperatures have nothing to do with our research as we are trying to prove our theory on a global scale of warming indications over time.
The professors slap their collective foreheads and scream, “Mein Gott! Have you forgotten all what we have taught you on entropy, laws of thermodynamics? You can exclude data just because it is convenient for your research! Were you sleeping through the class on phase space and coordinate space! You ignore the translation motions of matter at certain times of the day to come to exactly what conclusions?”
The professors don their sweaters and meet in the lounge for discussion on whose dog is more metaphysically approprient in terms as applied to the exilstentialiam of Hemmingways novels.
JM,
“You and your team replies, the night time temperatures have nothing to do with our research as we are trying to prove our theory on a global scale of warming indications over time.”
Do you ENJOY proving that you’re a clueless idiot re human-caused global warming?
Trapping of radiated heat by GHG’s is more noticeable at night — heating by the sun is more dominate during the daytime.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm“On average, between 1950 and 1993, NIGHT-TIME daily minimum air temperatures over land increased by about 0.2°C per decade.
This is about TWICE the rate of increase in daytime daily maximum air temperatures (0.1°C per decade). This has lengthened the freeze-free season in many mid- and high latitude regions.”
So Cosmos,
How many of those white-latticed boxes have been put out for temperature measurement in rural areas? How many in mountains? How many in jungle areas? How many are on floating buoys in the ocean?How many of any of those temperatures have been included in the IPCC data sets to make their conclusions on GW?
How much oceanagraphic study has IPCC done? Aren’t the oceans 75 percent of the worlds geography?
Why isn’t ocean climate change included in the IPCC data sets when they flash those charts up like Al Gore?
How come?
JM, most of your stupid questions will be answered in about 10 days, at http://www.ipcc.ch/
Meanwhile JM, since you seem to believe that night-time temperatures are “irrelevant”, “chew” on this old news,
‘Global warming ‘threatens rice yields’ ‘ (June 2004)http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1462&language=1“Global temperature increases could cause significant reductions in yields of rice — the staple food for over HALF of the world’s population — according to research released this week.
Scientists have published ‘direct evidence’ that increased NIGHT-TIME temperatures associated with GLOBAL WARMING can cause rice yields to fall.
The research found that rice yields had decreased by more than ten per cent while the NIGHT-TIME temperatures in the dry season rose by 1.1 º Celsius — THREE TIMES the increase in average maximum temperature over the same period.
This trend in NOCTURNAL temperatures is consistent with data from elsewhere and is linked to increasing concentrations of ‘GREENHOUSE GASES’.—
And JM, re oceans, in case you missed it,’Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html“In a NASA study, scientists have concluded that when Earth’s climate warms, there is a reduction in the ocean’s primary food supply. This poses a potential threat to fisheries and ecosystems.”
That’s a positive feedback: less phytoplankton = less CO2 absorbed by ocean.
I’ll wait with great anticipation on how IPCC wants me to help pay their salaries by passing a Carbon tax.
JM,
Run out of your bogus anti-AGW BS?
And carbon taxes are not the only solution.
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/techrepI/economic.html“This section describes measures to control GHG emissions from more than one sector. The measures discussed include subsidies, taxes, tradable quotas and permits, and joint implementation.”
‘Feebates’, described in Oil-Endgame, are tax-neutral, and very effective. They’re already used in some U.S. states,
Boulder CO passed a carbon tax for people using fossil-fueled electicity (wind-farm, etc exempt). For average home, costs only a few $’s/month, but funds energy audits that can greatly reduce monthly bills.
Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent …