Every week, it seems, brings new reports that make it harder for global warming skeptics to deny that huge, destructive climate shifts are under way. Recently, scientists reported that a 41-square-mile chunk of the Canadian Arctic had broken off and drifted out to sea, an event that one scientist called “dramatic and disturbing,” adding, “it shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years.”
Another recent eye-opener is the disappearance of an inhabited island, Lohachara off the coast of India, due to rising sea levels — apparently a first. (Several uninhabited islands already have been lost.)
Scientists such as Jim Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies fear we’re seeing a world very close to the tipping point of unstoppable changes that, unless we act soon, could create a “different planet” for coming generations.
If we wait to act until the skeptics are convinced, it likely will be too late.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
281 Comments
ExxonMobil will just spend a few million more to continue to create the “controversy”
Remember, nicotine is NOT addictive and cigarettes are good for you!
As long as Rush Limbaugh and the rest of his ilk sit and make fun of global warming and anyone trying to persuade it is true, the more controversy will be created.
I wonder, is Rush being paid by the big oil companies also? Probably so, Rush has made it a career to scam as many people as possible.
Very informative,’Scientists’ Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming ScienceOil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion’http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Randy: “If we wait to act until the skeptics are convinced, it likely will be too late.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” (Upton Sinclair)
The column interviewing NASA’s Dr. Hansen (link in header) is a must read.
‘If we fail to act, we will end up with a different planet’—Positive feedbacks in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere are already starting.One is the loss of sea ice, which means less sunlight and heat is reflected back into space, making the Arctic even warmer.Another is the release of methane from the frozen tundra. Methane gas is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, Dr Hansen said.
“The greatest concern is that positive feedbacks at high latitudes do in fact seem to be coming into play. We can’t just let those feedbacks get out of control or we will have passed a tipping point,” he said.
“President Bush told reporters he won’t see Al Gore’s documentary about the threat of global warming.He will not see it.On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he’s seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up.”–Conan O’Brien
“According to a survey in this week’s Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening.The other 15% work for the White House.”–Jay Leno
“They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out.”–Jay Leno
Yeah got my check last week. $200.00 per skeptical post I make. (rolls eyes)
an event that one scientist called “dramatic and disturbing,”
One scientist, wowsir!
Guess he hasn’t how the earth geo-cyclines cycle the rising and falling of mountains and how landscape is changed by an ever evolving earth.
Of course you know, ice never breaks, it’s supposed to stay there forever. I mean that stuff can break your teeth if you chew on it!
JM, it’s very likely that the cyclical changes in the climate are happening IN CONJUNCTION to man-made warming.Please consider this possibility.Thank you.
Not “A” scientist JM – virtually all scientists:
“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
I’ll consider that possibility and always have.
It’s smooks that promote Carbon taxes and other ways to get in my wallet that get under my skin.
Sure, I can afford $10.00 or even $20.00 per gallon. Not sure the rest of the country would like it though.
Global warming from the Gore Camp was basically junk science with charts made to deceive the public.
Even the so-called Global Warming Scientists can’t predict what will happen ten years from now climate wise or weather wise.
If they could, they would put every meteorologist/climatologist out of job. I haven’t seen that happening.
The one scientist remark was in Scholfield’s opening statement, not mind.
And this topic has already been discussed in spades under the Polar Bear category.
This is a link to an interesting article about the first known inhabited island to disappear. Other islands have sunk below seas level, but this one was inhabited by 10,000 people.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece
Civilizations disappearing! Oh my!
Someone should have warned the Mayans and the Anastasi!
Deep sigh………… No one said anything about a civilization disappearing, JM. I just post a link about an island that has now dropped below sea level.
Let’s not start the flaming this early.
And let’s stop the trolling – it’s really juvenile.
JM,
You seem to believe that this graph http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htmof CO2 and temperatures over the last 400,000 years is irrelevant — because CO2 levels were higher 450 MILLION years ago?
Please provide the amounts of water vapor, sun’s heat, orbit, continents, ice/snow cover, etc for 450 MILLION years ago. Those ALSO impact climate.
Much colder = more ice/snow, and less water vapor.
You also seem to believe that GLOBAL CO2 baseline measurements should be taken in polluted cities in Europe, instead of isolated mid-Pacific, and/or Antarctica sites?
I wont waste my time on the very obvious error of that.
And you believe that the scientists at Scripps, NOAA, and worldwide do sloppy CO2, etc work? Whatever…
Scholfield said “scientistS such as Jim Hanson”, not “one scientist”.
As for your Gore being “junk science” bullshit:
“The presentation of the science is good, but not great–I rate it B minus. The excessive details on Al Gore’s life make the movie too long, and his insistence on using the movie as something of a campaign ad detracts from its message.
The science of An Inconvenient TruthThe science presented is mostly good, and at times compelling, but there are a few errors and one major distortion of the truth. Gore does an excellent job focusing on the most important issues, and usually presents them with a minimum of hype and distortion. The only exception to this comes in his treatment of global warming and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.
Basic global warming scienceGore begins the science part of his talk with a very easy to understand presentation on the basics of how the greenhouse effect works. His speech is clear, the graphics top notch, and he spices it up with a hilarious two-minute cartoon depicting roughneck global warming gases preventing poor Mr. Sunbeam from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Gore addresses the argument of skeptics who claim that the Earth is too big for humans to affect by showing Space Shuttle photos of how thin the atmosphere really is compared to the vast bulk of our planet. “The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide,” he asserts, which is not correct. The build-up of CO2 has virtually no effect on the density or thickness of Earth’s atmosphere. The correct thing to say would have been, “The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being made more opaque to the transmission of infrared radiation (heat) by huge quantities of carbon dioxide.”
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meterologist for the Weather Underground ”
In other words, Gore over-simplified a bit but was basically accurate.
TROLL IS THE LEFTIST! I SAID SO AND THAT MAKES IT TRUE!
An easy way to tell scientistic (sic)propaganda from science: looks at the notes. They’re invariably from media articles, commentaries (opinion) or oil-industry proponents like the George C. Marshall Institute.
Golfnuts posted a perfect example of this worthless crap a few weeks back, from the homepage of some hydrologist.
Another comment from Dr. Masters about the Gore film:
Other scienceGore presents many other important aspects of climate change, including the threat of abrupt climate change leading to a shut-off of the Gulf Stream current, the increase in damaging insect infestations and tropical diseases, loss of coral reefs, loss of ice in the polar ice cap, and melting of permafrost in the Arctic. All of these issues were presented with sound science.
So far a couple of villages in Alaska have had to relocate because of rising water. The effect is nugatory, but if a large city has to relocate then it will be noticeable. Even if Manhattan goes underwater denies like JM will still say global warming is a myth and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is cyclical. If that’s the case, when in human history has so much pollution been put in the air?
Also, if global warming is a myth then why is it so hot on Venus?
Cosmos,
And your whole group of Global Warming lovers exclude the entire Medieval Warming period from their data, because the temperatures were hotter than they are today!
Yes I do find the Scripts data suspect as they launder their data. That is, they are sitting right next door to an active volcano spewing tons of CO2, Sulfites, etc and they simply just launder it out of their flask samples. Ask all the parents of children and Island Health Care providers on the Island why asthma has increased in incidence and they can conclusively prove it was the volcano spewing that stands right next to Mauna Loa!
Yeah, the Mauna Loa people scrub their data to make it clean. For some reason it’s not the same for people actually breathing the air.
Doug,
You are misinformed.
I never said Global Warming was a myth. I am in a position that the effects of man-made carbon contributors is trivial when compared to the naturally occurring climate cycles that have been known to occur for millions of years.
Is there Global Warming? Yeah there is a trend. Is it caused by man? I see no evidence that man has influenced the climate.
Ice floes has melted in the past. Islands have disappeared in the past. Heck, according to the evolutionists, some sort of climate change killed off the dinosaurs. Must have been all those SUV’s back then huh?
no JM, Midieval Warming is NOT excluded. And the VAST majority of scientists disagree with you than anthropogenic effects are minor.
Doug – Venus is not really relevant.
And no, the Mauna Loa data is not faked – I’m not sure what you mean by “scrubbed”. The fact that it captures the natural annual (seasonal) cycle demonstrates its reliability. Also the fact that it tracks with Antarctic data so well (but with seasonal ‘reversed’ and subdued)
“Heck, according to the evolutionists, some sort of climate change killed off the dinosaurs.”
Who exactly is claiming that, JM? First I’ve heard of it.
It’s fairly well established that the dinosaurs went extinct due to an asteroid collision called the K-T event. They’ve even found a plausible candidate for the crater, in Mexico.
If you’re going to diss the scientific community you might at least try to learn some real science first.
P.S. Yes, the ensuing Earth-wide catastrophe could be considered as “climate change.”
A bullet in the head is also a bad headache.
Sure is warm out there for January.
Rage,Easy to believe what you want isn’t it? That meteor crash is just the latest and greatest in the hundreds of theories why the dinosaurs went extinct. Wait a few years it will change. And I do have science degrees, two of them.
For all you Global Warming Topic talking heads, just found this video by someone called the Internet Skeptic. In addition to the film, he has a huge slide file on the research used which can be downloaded so you can check and/or verify the information used in the lecture.
As he says, before you go making comments, look at the slides which are connected to a link on the research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
Another YouTube …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm19gUWUaXA&mode=related&search=
So some guy who can make a youtube trumps the vast majority of professional scientists …
As I expected, people like you hmmm will make a comment without even viewing it.
Press on, be a sheep.
If you had any doubt that catastrophic global warming was occuring, look no further than the fact that JM THINKS IT’S NOT.
JM, the man who thinks that when I say something incorrect about him, it’s a lie, but when Bush says something incorrect and USES IT TO LAUNCH A WAR, it is not a lie.
If the willing idiots weren’t against global warming like they were all for invading Iraq and supporting Worst President Ever, you couldn’t be sure that global warming really IS a huge problem.
Since they ridicule it, you know it’s bad . . .
I viewed it … and also checked out the other one.
By the way, who CARES about the Buckeyes beating the Wolverines. I wish he had gotten to his so-called points faster. Some of us don’t have unlimited time to listen to someone like him drone on.
Yep, just as I suspected. Can’t take the time to learn something. So what you don’t understand, you just baah.
Typical.
I did listen to the guy. Did you read the links I posted? I realize that they tended to use bigger words and didn’t update you on football scores …
hmmm
You didn’t view the whole movie, you admitted to it. I would also guess that the powerpoint slides provided by him on the movie would be beyond your ADD attention span as well.
Believe what you want to believe.
Don’t you have to get your wool shorn soon? Need some more hay, a brushing?
your whole sheep thing is all worn out.can you get some new insults?
“For all you Global Warming Topic talking heads, just found this video by someone called the Internet Skeptic.”
Wow, I’m in awe of your prestigious sources, JM.
You never answered my question. Who is pushing the theory that climate change killed the dinosaurs?
And what are your “two science degrees” in (danger, Will Robinson!)?
tracy,
You’re odd, mostly off-topic comments in all the threads are getting old as well. Try and discuss what is mentioned in the thread topic header.
A sharp tongue does not mean you have a keen mind,as evidenced in the fact that you thoroughly disregard evidence and conclusions from the finest minds of out times.
Rage,
I am guessing you have never taken a collegiate paleotology, genology or any sort of earth science course at the collegiate level or you would have never asked about theories on how the dinosaurs went extinct.
Safety and Industrial Hygiene. I’m the guy that goes out (used to, retired now) and did checks on Industrial Sites where hazards like Chemical, Physical, Biological and Radiological may affect workers and their health.
I don’t think you are a nincompoop,but what’s my opinion compared to that of thousands of others.
bad spelling today :|
JM–
Some old geezer who goes to a fundamentalist church that thinks they’re all going get raptured tomorrow is lecturing US on what conclusions scientific evidence leads to . . .
Unbelievable.
I may not know much on the issue.
But the one thing I do know without a shadow of a doubt is that JM doesn’t have a clue.
JM, I think this list of links sums up the technical competence of your awesome source, hehehe!:
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/index_files/Page957.htm
Now that is a LAUGH!The expert scientist. HAIndustrial hygeine?P-shah.
When in doubt use CaptAmerikansi’s method of attacking the writer not the subject.
Works for him, you don’t even have to use your brain.
This guy wanders all over the place. I’m not going to get into DDT (which has nothing to do with this) but here is what scientists say about ozone (another area where he is wrong:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/holefaq.asp
And his much-beloved Michael Crighton’s book:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
Some of the climate scientists that Crichton consulted during his research for the book have published a detailed analysis of the many errors in the book at realclimate.org. For one of the more balanced and up-to-date views of the controversies surrounding the Global Warming issue, see Dr. Stephen Schneider’s web site. Dr. Schneider, one of the world’s foremost climate experts, has testified frequently before Congress on environmental issues and is one of the lead authors of the IPCC scientific reports. He has criticized both industry-funded skeptics and environmental groups on their biased treatment of the Global Warming issue.
Skeptics have routinely called global warming “a hoax”, and attacked the credibility of scientists promoting the idea. Are the skeptics right? To shed light on the issue, it is helpful to review how the same skeptics treated the ozone hole issue. Read the Weather Underground opinion feature, The Skeptics vs. The Ozone Hole.
The latest IPCC summary has an excellent summary of what the best scientists in the field figure we know and don’t know about Global Warming.
Okay, I’m out of here for today. Since you can’t discuss the topic but would rather attack me,
just go enjoy yourself.
That’s all you liberals are good for, attacking people instead of discussing.
Go away you asshat.Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live.
Not my ADD JM, his. When he never gets down to discussing what he advertises, wandering instead all over the place with ddt etc he just got to be too long-winded. I am downloading his PP now; I’ll see if it is any better.
What little he did say about climate has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
“Some old geezer who goes to a fundamentalist church that thinks they’re all going get raptured tomorrow is lecturing US on what conclusions scientific evidence leads to . . .”
Hee hee hee hee hee Cap’n.
Damn, that was right on the money!
To put the whole thing in perspective:
The earth IS warming. Of that there is little doubt. Whether or not man is influencing the warming is the basic question, or so it seems.
Since the earth is warming, the changes coming about will be in some parts detrimental to mans existance. Whether through climate changes effecting crops, and/or rising sea levels reducing coastal areas and increasing population growth inland.
If man is any part of the problem associated with the changes, we owe it to the earth to reduce our “carbon footprint” as much as possible. If that means something other than the Kyoto protocal, and it includes all countries observing carbon limits, as well as other greenhouse gasses, I would be for it.
Jim Hansen is Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. His opinions are expressed here, he writes, “as personal views under the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
In the Earth’s history, during periods when average global temperatures increased by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit, there have been several “mass extinctions,” when between 50 and 90 percent of the species on Earth disappeared forever. In each case, life survived and new species developed over hundreds of thousands of years. The most recent of these mass extinctions defines the boundary, 55 million years ago, between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs. The evolutionary turmoil associated with that climate change gave rise to a host of modern mammals, from rodents to primates, which appear in fossil records for the first time in the early Eocene.
If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions. Life will survive, but it will do so on a transformed planet. For all foreseeable human generations, it will be a far more desolate world than the one in which civilization developed and flourished during the past several thousand years.
. . . . .
Why are the same scientists and political forces that succeeded in controlling the threat to the ozone layer now failing miserably to deal with the global warming crisis? Though we depend on fossil fuels far more than we ever did on CFCs, there is plenty of blame to go around. Scientists present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as-usual will transform the planet. The press and television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to fringe “contrarians” supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears to be strongly influenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested.
*****
But have no fear folks, a confirmed drug abusers (Rush Limbaugh) and retired sewer inspector (JM) say that “global warming” is just a myth.
I mean who are you going to believe, the rapture right guy or the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies?
Sheesh . . .
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131
JM, you could have just answered my question.
Or maybe you couldn’t. I don’t know.
JM doesn’t answer questions put to him.
He’s made that clear to me in the past.
He knows that once he starts answering questions, he is going to get caught in a logic contradiction.
Like the President that he worships is really a son of a b*tch.
And then his head will explode.
Capn – But Hansen doesn’t have a cool video out on youtube!
Yeah, hehe, that peer reviewed scientific journal, “youtube.”
Well, it is peer reviewed.
Tracy, you better copy and paste something else into the blog. Capn is challenging you for the lead in the daily contest.
And I think that JM’s position, Capn, is that global warming is happening but is largely a natural phenomenon. As if you didn’t know. Which is all that has been proven.
So what would you do about it Capn?
Let’s suppose you’re a nut case and that you get your way and all these draconian measures to reduce global warming are brought to bear. The US is brought down and we are reduced to living in a commune. Then a nuke or ten goes off in the Middle East (anyone confident that won’t happen) throwing crap into the air and cooling the planet (nuclear winter)? Or the giant volcanic eruption that they say we are overdue for goes off with the same result?
Bottom line is that moderation is the best course. Common sense reductions in greenhouse gases that don’t strain the economy. Develop “green” technologies and alternative energy sources. These are common sense steps. And don’t make stupid, unfair agreements like Kyoto. Because no one knows what the future holds.
If you people hadn’t cried wolf so many times, we may listen to you. Humbug!When you moan that everything is going to hell, from the economy, to the war, to the education system, Bush lied people died, Saddam was treated poorly, if only we had Universal health care old folks would stop dieing, and on and on, it is difficult to believe you.
I wish that for once, someone on the “it’s not man-made warming” would identify why respected scientists would jepordize their reputations by promoting a theory of global warming that is completely false, as accused by the right wing.
In other words, what is the motivation of the 90% of climate scientists for lying about global warming?
WS, as I am one who believes there is a human activity component to the current climate change, it hurts me to post this, but here goes:
They (the 90%) are merely interested in receiving more grant money for their research, and will exaggerate things in their efforts to obtain it (or something along those lines).
WSC – the respected scientsts are jealous because they can’t get away with a long-winded apparently drunken ramble on youtube.
VT – most of them are not grant-dependent.
I saw yesterday a new planting guide map reflecting changed climate zones. Even the seed companies see this happening!
By the way, they would make a whole lot money joing the few working for ExxonMobil.
Well, hmmm, I am proof then of what happens when one makes an assumption…
Saw the changed zones myself; interesting,isn’t it? And, yes, the climate change may just be a natural occurrence, but it is my opinion that human activity is adding to it.
VT – when you get the time go to
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
and then just browse around. They are a good portal to other links. Also, step to another page and you can get current ski conditions …
Oh, hell, you’re right, Fleettwood.
The war is just going swimmingly.
It’s been a huge success from day one.
Yeah, we lefties sure messed up there, didn’t we?
What a maroon . . .
Outlander–
I don’t want to live in a “commune,” and you’re an idiot for saying that I do.
We could be developing green technology that would be a huge growth economy — we would lead the world with the right mix of research funding, tax credits, and start up low interest loans.
But when you’re massaging the gonads of big oil like Reagan-Bush-Bush have done for decades, it’s hard to get out of bad habits.
Cheney still draws a paycheck from the oil refining company Halliburton. Bush ridiculed the idea of solar power during his 2000 campaign.
You don’t look to welfare-for-the-rich crony capitalists to think your way of a problem that they created.
New ideas mean new leadership.
Another trick I’ve noticed that you tighty-righties like to pull is to first deny there’s a problem.
Like with the war in Iraq. First, they’re definitely WERE weapons of mass destruction. That hydrogen trailer was really a weapons lab.
When it was PROVEN to be a hydrogen generator, you shift to, “well, everybody THOUGHT Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”
When it is proven that a lot of people DIDN’T think Saddam had WMD’s like Inspection Team Leader Hans Blix who was on the ground for three months before the invasion, then you say, “well, Iraq is better off without Saddam.”
When four years go by, and Iraq turns into a charnel house with dead bodies in the street everyday and several million refugees fleeing the country, you say, “stay the course. If you don’t stay the course, you’re a Defeatocrat.”
Finally, it’s gotten so bad that even a die-hard CONservative like Outlander has to admit that the war was a mistake.
But instead of admitting the war was a mistake, he takes his cue from Rush and asks, “so what’s YOUR plan?”
See how it works–ignore, deny, resist any suggestion that there is a problem.
Until it can’t be denied, then switch to “so, what’s your solution?”
*****
Since global warming is getting harder and harder to ignore, Outie is already to the “what’s your plan” stage.
I guess that’s a good sign.
At least the right-wing is having to abandon it’s ridiculous “there is no problem” stance . . .
“it hurts me to post this, but here goes:”
Vaughn: Why would it hurt you to post that? hmmmm?
Easy, fleet; thought I’d explained why in the prefatory remarks. But, put it down to making an assumption that wasn’t true and then publicizing it.
fleet – I’ll hazard a guess at his answer. Most of us instinctively prefer to believe that we are looking at honest differences rather than corruption. The issue he raised would be corruption. And, it tends to ‘hurt’ to raise that sort of thing with professionals.
JM: “Don’t you have to get your wool shorn soon? Need some more hay, a brushing?…JM: “Okay, I’m out of here for today. Since you can’t discuss the topic but would rather attack me,”
It looks like you don’t want to “discuss the topic”.
What were ALL of the climate conditions on Earth 450 MILLION years ago?
JM: “And your whole group of Global Warming lovers exclude the entire Medieval Warming period from their data, because the temperatures were hotter than they are today!”
That’s another “skeptic” myth. It’s not excluded, but it was only regional, NOT global.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
JM: “Yes I do find the Scripts data suspect as they launder their data.”
Your proof? Mauna Loa takes 4 air samples each hour, and they monitor for contamination.Do those children with asthma live at 11,155 ft altitude?
Since you claim the CO2 measurements are wrong, please explain what caused errors(sic) at ALL of these sites:
Barrow, American Samoa, South Pole, Alert, Cape Kumukahi, Christmas Island, Baring Head, Kermadec Island, and La Jolla Pier.http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
Note the seasonal swings are larger at more northern latitudes (vegetation).
JM: ” I am in a position that the effects of man-made carbon contributors is trivial when compared to the naturally occurring climate cycles that have been known to occur for millions of years.”
So the huge amount of CO2 from the oil, coal, etc humans have burned is “trivial” in Earth’s atmosphere?
The only observed + “natural” forcing = solar (and IIRC, it dropped recently). An increase of only 0.5 Watts/meter squared (including uncertainties), for 2000, relative to 1750.
Man-made GHG’s = CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons. An increase of 2.5 W/m2, same interval.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Man-made GHG’s FIVE times greater impact = “trivial”?
Nothing personal JM, but you seem unable to support your opinions.
Some fun from wunderground – hunting hurricane Hugo:
“She looks wide-eyed and excited. No doubt, though, she is wondering about the wisdom of hopping a ride with a band of nuts that would deliberately fly into nature’s most ferocious storms.
“Where are the parachutes?” she asks, when Lowell finishes the briefing and asks her if she has any questions.
Lowell and Jim and I look at each other, and smile. Same old question.
“We don’t carry parachutes,” Lowell answers. “Where we’re going, a parachute won’t do you any good.”"
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hugo1.asp
Capn,
Another rightist comeback is to say that the CIA said there probably were WMDs in Iraq. Therefore, the U.S. had every right to invade.
Go figure.
Anyone who continues to deny global warming is sticking their heads in the sand, and probably has some nice investments in the companies causing the problems.
Looks like no one told the right side of the blog they better bring their “A” game to this discussion.
another good line from the Hugo flight …
“I take the time to talk to our guest from Barbados. Today’s victim is Janice Griffith, a reporter with the Barbados Sun newspaper. My boss, Jim McFadden, along for the ride today as an observer, walks over to join in the conversation. Janice has just received her pre-flight safety briefing from Lowell, the Aircraft Commander. The briefing covered important items like how to use the life preservers and life rafts, how to fasten the heavy duty lap and shoulder belts needed during turbulent flight, and where the barf bags are located.”
Would YOU fly into a hurricane with those nuts?
hmmm, in answer to your question: NO.
Heheh Cap’n
And given their documented history of denying the problem, resisting solutions, shifting blame, denial, rinse and repeat, they wonder why we aren’t biting on Iran this time around?
Talk about crying wolf too many times. That is the republican MO.
And has anyone noticed today that there has been a real effort in the MSM today to scare the hell out of everyone?
Pat predicts tragedy, there are dead birds in Austin, strange smells in NY/NJ, security scares at the Port of Miami and even warm weather portends doom?
I wonder if there is an effort to scare us and soften us up for the big speech by the decider on Wednesday?
Oh, say it isnt so.
hmmm, I’d love to fly with the hurricane hunters.
A friend of mine flew with them — very strong aircraft, and the pilots are experienced, and careful.
I’d do it. Of course, I have been told I have a few screws loose!
;^)
Capn: I didn’t say that you wanted to live in a commune. I said that “if you were a nut job…” and you took it from there. Chuckle…
But anyway, please don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve never said that global warming isn’t happening. I’ve always been for common sense measures, just in case human activity is contributing to the natural warming cycle we are encountering.
But money is far better spent adapting to the changes rather than embarking on windmill tilts that have no guarantee of working. Especially since it could all be undone with a few nukes going off or a big volcanic eruption.
Funny KFG, that you should mention the MSM trying to scare the heck out of folks; on this global warming thread. Good call.
outlander,
“But money is far better spent adapting to the changes rather than embarking on windmill tilts that have no guarantee of working.”
But we have no way of knowing how bad the “changes” will be, or how soon they’d occur.Positive feedbacks, like methane released from thawing permafrost could cause fairly rapid, and unstoppable changes.
A few nukes, or a volcano eruption would cool for only a few years. Probably cause more damage, with warm-cool-warm swings.
Higher efficiency is guaranteed — we proved it works in the early 1980’s with CAFE standards.
COSOMS you are misleading here. It is not ALL CO2 as JM pointed out. IT includes water vapor and Methane in that forcing.
JM was talking CO2 natural to CO2 man produced. Pretty clear. And you spun like a top.
“So the huge amount of CO2 from the oil, coal, etc humans have burned is “trivial” in Earth’s atmosphere?
The only observed + “natural” forcing = solar (and IIRC, it dropped recently). An increase of only 0.5 Watts/meter squared (including uncertainties), for 2000, relative to 1750.
Man-made GHG’s = CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons. An increase of 2.5 W/m2, same interval.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Man-made GHG’s FIVE times greater impact = “trivial”?”
WHOOPS!
You are no scientist and cannot read and review scientific papers.
What a dunce!
Native Americans talked of a “northwest passage” around North America with early explorers. Guess what, what is happening now probably happened before, and had nothing to do with CAFE standards.
The righties will deny deny and then when it’s too late say “Oh, Shit! They were right!”
asbestos,
Do you NOT understand the meaning of “anthropogenic”? That’s what the GHG’s in IPCC’s graph are. I included methane, it’s CH4.
Halocarbons are CFC’s, HFC’s, etchttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm
Water vapor is a feedback, not a “forcing”.
If humans were somehow able to noticeably (and quickly) increase water vapor, it’d precip out within a few weeks. Same for reducing water vapor, faster evap would quickly restore balance.
Heckler – the NW passage in lore was the river transit coupled with portages; pretty much what Lewis and clark did. My people would have had no need for the far north Arctic route.
Geologists and anthropoligists have studies the region extensively; no evidence for what you suggest for at least a million years.
heckler,
In addition to Ben’s points — did they warn them about a 3,000 to 4,500 year old, 41 square mile, broken ice shelf that was drifting around?
Did they tell the “early explorers”, that in about 35 years, during the summer, they might be able to sail straight to Siberia without seeing ANY ice? Or polar bears?
No?? Then maybe something on our (one and only) Earth is changing…?
“NASA finds Warming Relative to Humidity”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity_prt.htm
Again, this is not my data, this is NASA’s data.
JM,
I agree with paragraph 2 of your NASA link, but # 4 is kinda wimpy: ” “Our study confirms the existence of a POSITIVE water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we expected,” Minschwaner said.”
Any updates from NASA, since March 2004?
Here’s one on a another “problem”,’Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’ (Dec. 2006)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….Phytoplankton are microscopic plants living in the upper sunlit layer of the ocean. They are responsible for approximately the same amount of photosynthesis each year as all land plants combined.”
That’s also a POSITIVE feedback: less phytoplankton = less CO2 absorbed by the ocean.
Heh, cosmos . . . JM only cites evidence that seems to AGREE with his preconceived conclusion, even when it doesn’t.
If he started with the evidence first and THEN drew the conclusion, he couldn’t be a CONservative anymore. He’d be a normal thinking human being.
*****
outlander writes, “I said that ‘if you were a nut job…’ and you took it from there. Chuckle… ”
Right. I forgot the other scam the right-wing loves to pull: the “I did NOT either say that” scam.
Check out Bush’s using the phrase “stay the course” about five hundred times until a few weeks ago when he told George Snuffleupagus, “we’ve never been about ’stay the course,’ George.”
Uh, okay, sure . . .
Turns out that outlander thinks that global warming IS a problem, kinda, except that the media is making too big of a thing out of it and Reagan-Bush-Bush’s ridiculing of the problem (if there is one, and he’s not saying there isn’t) is just fine, and the Kyoto Treaty is a stupid piece of trash.
But he’s not against the idea that global warming may or may not be a problem.
Okay, outie, thanks for clearing that up.
Heh, Captain AmeriKanski. . . Cosmos only cites evidence that seems to AGREE with his preconceived conclusion, even when it doesn’t.
And your proof of that is that . . . that . . . you say so.
Go back to your right-wing hate radio now, JM.
Or stop off in a hissy fit like last time . . .
Hey capn, could you give me a list of the left-wing stupidity radio shows you listen to? I can only find right leaning shows. Maybe USSR radio Europe or something?
cosmos
There used to be a sheet of ice hundreds of feet thick where Chicago now sits.
SOMETHING CHANGED. Big time. And CAFE standards had nothing to do with it……
About the damage that fundamentalist religious beliefs about evolution do to attempts to save the environment, and indeed do to democracy itself.
It seems to me, the more I think about it, that a belief in the biblical account(s) of creation, and an age of the world of 6000 years, reveal such a failure of intellect that people with such beliefs should not be able to vote in a democracy.
This goes beyond merely odd beliefs, or casual eccentricities, into an area where the mental processes are so flawed as to render believers incapable of forming rational judgements in the real world.
And not just flawed, but voting in a way that is so irrational as to distort the democratic process. These are people who can be whipped into a frenzy by two words ‘gay marriage’, or just one word ‘evolution’. They can be brought out onto the streets to have some rather odd laws (three thousand years old) put into their courthouses. The thought of abortion will send them to the polling booths. Candidates who carry a bible under the arm and walk through the doors of a church will be worshipped in turn. A single preacher can prevent his flock voting one way and demand they vote another way.
It is said that the economy functions best when consumers acting with perfect information in their best interests combine in millions of individual decisions to refine supply and demand, select the best goods, respond rationally to advertising. The same could be said of a democracy – ideally voters have perfect information and then vote in their best interests. A combination of people with concerns about health, education, security, pensions, the environment, who know what the policies of the candidates on those issues are, result in a vote that expresses the will and concerns of all the people. This is not what the religious fundamentalists are doing, these one issue religious voters, and the more of them who are voting, for irrational reasons, the more distorted an election will become.
Hard to stop all fundamentalists voting of course, more’s the pity. Hard in practice to draw the line. But if people with other serious mental problems can’t vote, and if there is a constant push to disqualify former as well as current criminals from electoral roles, then creationism is a far more important reason for disenfranchisement. Perhaps we should add another question at the polling booth – do you believe the world was created 6000 years ago? You do? Sorry, you won’t be voting in this election. Come back when you are prepared to join real electors in the real world.
Tracy,
Would it be fair to summarize your position like this:
“If you don’t agree with me, you are too stupid to be allowed equal rights”
CapnAmerica: Sorry to say this, but by deliberately misrepresenting what others say and mean, you demonstrate that you put pride and ideology before truth and honor.
I will keep that in mind in any future dealings with you.
Democrat Party = Party of doom and gloom we are all going to die except by the terrorists everything sucks Bush lied people died raise taxes pander to people too stupid to know better
“Water vapor is a feedback, not a “forcing”.”
Wrong cosoms, it is a GHG as in the IPCC. Your opoint was sepcific to Co2, not lumping all the GHG’s together.
Do you know the meaning of coherent?
Heckler – the Chicago ice shett disappearence has been fully explained – it is called Milankovitch. In fact, it was by studying that that we have developed our understanding of all this.
Proudman, NO.That was the cutnpaste that outie requested.I guess he wants me to try and keep up with capn.
What’s wrong?Don’t like “the truthiness” of what he’s saying?
You don’t have to agree with me.But if you are stew-pud,don’t expect me to agree with you.Fair nuff?
TRACY raises an interesting point. Since the observations that we have used to understand climate mechanisms go back millions of years it is inherently impossible to apply that knowledge to a 6000-year-old earth. If the earth is that young then all the data we use was somehow fabricated.
Yeah, the devil did it when he buried those dino bones.Now, I personally believe that if you believe that, you need your head examined.And don’t vote until reality sinks in! HA
When global warming is ignored to the point it is irreversible, I have a plan.
I shall gather Republicans together. I’ll wave a dollar in the wind or something.
When I have enough Republicans, I will lash them together. Face down of course so I do not have to look at them. Then I shall have my raft to sail upon the flood they made. Can’t think of a better use for them.
Tracy,
There are good measures that can be taken to restrict the ability to vote which would improve our republic. However I do not support only allowing individuals with the proper viewpoint to vote. The concept that only the proper people (or elite) should control things is a hallmark of dictatorships or big government. After all, they know what’s best so the rest of you sub-intellect so-called people should just deal with it.
So I suppose I continue to disagree with ‘CapnAmerica’ and his desire to institute a new feudal system of government.
“The concept that only the proper people (or elite) should control things is a hallmark of dictatorships.”
Proudman, you are entirely correct. And the most egregious examples of this come from the CONservatives.
They’re the ones who lied us into Iraq “for our own good.” They’re the ones who told us that the “bottom line” was that Saddam had WMD’s on one day and that “regime change was essential” the next until they contradicted even that by saying that if Saddam fled the country, we’d still invade.
CONservatives are the ones who manipulated public opinion (i. e. you and me and used the media to spread their propaganda and damn lies). Remember how Iraq was an “imminent threat” — Iraq, this little pissant country that had been crushed by ten years of sanctions and “no fly zones.” Iraq the country that was tied to Al Qaeda (lie) and 9-11 (not) and was so scary that we occupied the entire country in like three weeks.
THEY’RE the ELITE who say and do anything to thwart the will of the majority.
But you’re apparently to brainwashed by their propaganda to even realize what the propaganda is . . .
The feudalism you worry about is happening right now under the neo-CON gov’t.
Corporations moved their lobbyists into the White House. Halliburton is writing energy policy.
And they want you and me to work for them for nothing, like slaves.
My point is that if you believe Genesis is literal history,then you’ll believe any sound bite.
There are many supposedly intelligent people that insist that God literally scooped up mud and breathed life into it.
If you wanna call me elitist for accepting Genesis as analogy,then OK, I’m elitist.
Besides, it’s not a serious point of view.It’s a facetious example meant to stimulate discussion.
From a website run by those evil environmental scientists, Entitled “Water Vapour: Feedback or Forcing?”
“Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. ‘Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?’, ‘Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?’, ‘Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?’, ‘Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?’ etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response.”
The rest HERE:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
P.S. Cosmos nicely summed it up in lay terms upthread, but it was predictably ignored.
Tracy,
You can do better than to imitate someone else to stilulate discussion.
Uh, me ’speeling’ no good. . .
“CapnAmerica: Sorry to say this, but by deliberately misrepresenting what others say and mean, you demonstrate that you put pride and ideology before truth and honor. I will keep that in mind in any future dealings with you.” Posted by: outlander | January 09, 2007 at 07:20 AM
Well put outlander, CaptainAmerica always distorts the words that others write. He will then throw in a couple of Bushisms even if the topic has nothing to do with Bush.
He is so full of loathing and hate he can’t even discuss a simple topic in a civil manner.
That’s why I generally choose to ignore him.
Your assessment is correct, JM.
Not to mention it JM, but he (CapnAmerica) called me a dumbass!
Takes one to know one! Takes one to know one! Takes one to know one!
Why thank you proudman.I’ll just go back to being my usual obnoxious arrogant self!
JM, Proudman–
Heh, not even a good try.
You don’t argue with my points because you can’t.
I’ve got my evidence and my conclusions.
Feel free to refute them if you can.
If you can’t, don’t hide behind “he misrepresents what I say and he’s so mean” boo hoo sob sob.
You’re embarassing yourselves.
JM,
We’re still waiting for you to describe climate conditions on Earth 450 MILLION years ago — water vapor, dust, sun output, etc.
Are you going to describe the “errors”(sic) made by all those CO2 sites I listed?
Do you have ANY credible evidence to support your claim:”the effects of man-made carbon contributors is trivial when compared to the naturally occurring climate cycles that have been known to occur for millions of years.”
Do you also believe that human-added methane and halocarbons have “trivial” impact?
JM still hasn’t explained how it’s a “lie” when I say something that I don’t know about him, but it’s not a lie when George Bush says something about WMD’s that he clearly doesn’t know and starts a war over it.
He can’t resolve that logical contradiction because it can’t be resolved without admitting Bush lied us into a war.
So he walks away in high dudgeon and calls me “hateful.”
Yeah . . . nobody’s buying that shit anymore.
“JM still hasn’t explained how it’s a “lie” when I say something that I don’t know about him.”
That’s very sad CapnAmerica. Have you had a mental health check lately?
Quit dicking around, JM, I mean if it’s possible for you to quit doing that.
Can you explain how Bush can say something that can’t be known as if it is known and that not be a lie?
Go ahead, try answering it without the cheap shots.
I dare you.
Seek help CaptainAmerica, it’s not too late. You might be endangering others with your mental health status.
HOnestly you ask a question that is a paradox? And we are supposed to take this intellectual dishonesty seriously???
“Can you explain how Bush can say something that can’t be known as if it is known and that not be a lie?”
WHAT???!!?!?!!??! Talk about a preconceived notion! YOU are an IDIOT cap’n drolley baby. F-ing idiot!
Actually Capn, anyone who promotes a big government agenda is guilty of the ’someone should control life for the ignorant masses’ philosophy. That is feudalism. The elite rule.
You would not complain about the government setting energy policy if the right people had been doing the work. Just wait until the next Democrat hits the White House. Same policies, same result. Except you will be cheering, not jeering.
Stop being a partisan, you are believing your own propaganda.
Well, if it’s so idiotic, then it should be easy to refute.
Calling me an idiot doesn’t refute it.
If you’re not an idiot, you would know that.
BTW, neither you nor JM nor any other righties have refuted Cosmos’s points either.
You don’t even try.
Stop wiggling around CapnAmerica, you are going to stroke out. And why are you calling yourself an idiot?
P_Man–
’someone should control life for the ignorant masses’ philosophy is of course what I am against just as much as you.
However, I also believe in democracy or rule by the people. If the people want social security for instance, they should have it.
That’s not rule by the elite–that’s rule by the majority.
I’m old anyway. If the Earth does warm up it will be good for my bunions. Til then I like my big SUV.
We’ll let the readers decide this one.
JM,
I’m still waiting for your answers…
Ohhh, JM. . .this was just posted upthread:http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27447155
How about it, JM? I guess it’s easier to taunt the Cap’n that respond to cosmos, ain’t it?
JM,
“I’m old anyway. If the Earth does warm up it will be good for my bunions. Til then I like my big SUV.”
Are these the reasons JM ignores science, and reality?
* He’s old, and doesn’t care what happens to future generations?
Henrik Tikkanen: “Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.”
* He wants a warmer climate, because his bunions bother him?
* He doesn’t know that we could greatly improve the mpg of our vehicles? Ford Explorer sized, get equivalent of 99 mpg gasoline. http://www.hypercar.com/
I believe that already has been asked and answered. Cosmos came up with a reply that the scientist I referenced on that theory who was a paleoclimatologist was not correct. So Cosmos referenced a scientist who was not a PaleoClimatologist and refuted the point in his own terms.
To me that was a question of he said,she said. Just because Cosmos referenced another scientist who says something ‘different’ that what I entered, doesn’t make his claim anymore correct just because it is a counterpoint.
Cosmos has a tendency to do this. He will counter a point by either saying something or quoting something opposite of what I say and then expect me to challenge someone else’s research I can’t even gain access to.
He then goes further trying to discredit me by telling all that I have not answered the question. When in fact it is merely opposing views by different scientists.
I don’t think I can state all this ‘hoohaa’ by the left that I won’t answer questions posed by Cosmos.
He knows better and is trying to argue by false proxy using a counter argument as proof when all it is, is just another point of view.
He has his point of view, I have mine.
He brings his scientists his point of view, I bring my scientists with their point of view.
If Cosmos can’t get over people having their own point of view, then that is his short-coming not mine.
JM,
“I’m old anyway. If the Earth does warm up it will be good for my bunions. Til then I like my big SUV.”
Cosmos, I did not write that. It’s probably one of CaptainAmerica’s many troll identities.
Besides, I don’t own a SUV.
One more time, big government is an elitist position. It’s na?Øve at best to think that you will always be able to control the government monster. Using such an all-powerful tool for every problem will end with the government telling you what you need/what to do. For instance:
SS death benefit being less than $500Forfiture of unused SS ‘contributions’No guarantee of SS retirement benefitsNo control of SS fundsNo border securityYou can’t have weaponsWhat you do with your body is not your businessYou must pay for everyone to get the same lack-luster educationYou must report all of your economic activity to the government each year
Alas, I never called you an idiot. If you want to start name-calling then feel free to go have your own private circle jerk.
Finally, I’m not discussing global warming, hence I’m not concerned with what Cosmos is writing.
“He brings his scientists his point of view, I bring my scientists with their point of view.”
That’s a pretty interesting claim, JM. Who are your scientists? One will search this thread in vain for any citation of them (the NASA link makes a modest claim that doesn’t support any of your more sweeping statements).
JM,
“He then goes further trying to discredit me by telling all that I have not answered the question. When in fact it is merely opposing views by different scientists.”
It’s not merely “opposing views”.You claimed that CO2 being higher when Earth was colder 450 MILLION years ago proves that CO2 vs temperatures the last 400,000 years are irrelevant.
I pointed out that Earth was very different 450 MILLION years ago, and that climate is determined by other factors besides CO2 — sun’s heat, orbit, continents, dust, water vapor, etc.
You have refused to provide those other factors.
You claimed that CO2 measurements from ice cores and scientific sites were/are wrong, because Beck found higher readings in polluted European cities.That’s a joke, scientifically. Beck’s work not only wasn’t peer-reviewed, it was a draft.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf“This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck’s comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing”
Medieval Warming? You can’t find a credible scientist that says it was global.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
You’re responsible for your own opinions. If you want to base them on a vague 450 MILLION years ago, and jokes like Beck… whatever.I’ll side with the IPCC, NOAA, et al — and reality, like the growing evidence that our climate is quickly warming.
Cosmos,
AgainPayVeryCloseAttention
Those are views of Scientist that I put on this blog.
If you want to argue their findings, then do so.
BUT DO NOT ATTRIBUTE THOSE FINDINGS TO ME OR THE INTERPRETATIONS BY SCIENTISTS WHO YOU OPPOSE THEIR VIEW.
If you are such an authority, write the scientists I quoted.
What is your Science Degree in?
Or are you afraid to answer that?
You are argueing to make yourself look good instead of of a cause.
I could care less about this.
Quit being a hard-headed fool and accept that people have different views.
No matter what you say, not matter what you write, I’ll not accept what Cosmos has to say in this blog because he has not shown me any credentials to say that he is of any authority or expertise to do so.
Just another Blog blowhard that results to attacking the poster rather than the science.
If you have a problem with the Scientist that made their studies? Then write the scientists and quit bothering me.
It is, really that simple.
Oh and get over yourself.
So, did you answer their question JM, or just ask another one?
Tracy
I have answered the question many times now.
It is the opinion of the scientists which I quoted. They are not my research.
If Cosmos has the degrees or brainpowerd to dispute the science using scientific methods, then go for it.
But to keep pointing the finger at me as if the Science reported on this blog is mine is just beyond stupid.
This is a BLOG. Note the OPINION part in BLOG.
Get over it.
People are entitled to their opinion.
Jm you really are an old kook aren’t you. Perhaps that is why your wife abandoned you?
Rage,
JM’s NASA link only says that water vapor may be less of a positive feedback than earlier thought.
And it contradicts JM’s opinion:”In response to human emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, the Earth warms,…”
JM,
Okay, I understand — you prefer to believe people like Beck, instead of all the highly credentialed scientists at IPCC, NOAA, NASA, et al.
Like I said earlier, “You’re responsible for your own opinions.” And get over yourself.
JM says, “I did not write that. It’s probably one of CaptainAmerica’s many troll identities.”
I don’t troll people. Period.
Your saying so is a lie, the same kind of lie Bush lied when he insisted that Saddam had WMD’s and it turned out that Saddam had none.
P_Man–You confused the response I made to ASBESTOS with what I was saying to you.
You may not like Social Security, but that’s tough.
The vast majority of people in the United States DO like it and they want to keep it pretty much the way it is.
That’s not elitism. That’s democracy, people using gov’t for what they see as the benefit of all.
You are free to disagree. You can try to convince people that Social Security is a bad deal and maybe shift popular thinking if you can.
But you are not allowed to call something that the vast majority of Americans want as “elitist.”
Capn, minor troll info in your email.
Cosmos,
Yes I am incline to believe scientist like Beck who are an expert in their field (PaleoClimatology.)
If you can name any PaleoClimatologists at NASA, IPCC or NOAA that dispute what Beck say, then by all means post it and I’ll read it.
Remember PaleoClimatologist comparison, not any other Scientific discipline.
I think they have a few paleos in the memberships of these groups:
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)
Links to their statements can be found here:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
Ice-free Arctic – Geophysical Research Letters:
Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice
Marika M. Holland
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Cecilia M. Bitz
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Bruno Tremblay
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
AbstractWe examine the trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model and find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One event exhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice-free September conditions by 2040. In the simulations, ice retreat accelerates as thinning increases the open water formation efficiency for a given melt rate and the ice-albedo feedback increases shortwave absorption. The retreat is abrupt when ocean heat transport to the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Analysis from multiple climate models and three forcing scenarios indicates that abrupt reductions occur in simulations from over 50% of the models and suggests that reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions moderate the likelihood of these events.
Received 30 August 2006; accepted 19 October 2006; published 12 December 2006.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL028024.shtml
Re: CO2 450 MILLION years ago,
‘Study Bolsters Greenhouse Effect Theory, Solves Ice Age Mystery’http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128223438.htm“With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.
Critics have pointed to the inconsistency as a flaw in scientists’ theories of climate change. Scientists have argued that today’s global climate change has been caused in part by buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel emissions.
But, critics have countered, if CO2 truly raises global temperatures, how could an ice age have occurred when a greenhouse effect much greater than today’s was in full swing?
The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak — it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.
“Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate.”
Well, I skimmed through JM’s link.
Yup, it’s thought provoking.
Bottom line is this Beck fellow found that CO2 readings using a variety of methodologies and at a many locations showed lots of peaks and valleys as opposed to a steady increase (that one would expect if CO2 was a result of burning coal and gasoline, say).
Trouble is, a lot of the data he used was all over the place. One researcher in 1900 finds 10 ppm of CO2 and somebody else finds 1000.
This doesn’t lead to confidence that those old timers were using reliable testing apparatuses.
Nothing would make me happier than to discover that 1. global warming was not occuring or 2. it was occuring but not because of anything we are doing.
But when you’ve got islands disappearing and 40 mile ice sheets breaking off and floating away, the burden of proof is on the nay-sayers.
It was 72 degrees in New York City the other Saturday, the warmest day in January they’ve ever had.
That’s not normal.
JM – I tried to find your beck link above – can you repost it? I watched that video – he said nothing about either warming or about ozone that has not been thoroughly discredited – AND his Buckeyes got thrashed last night.
“You may not like Social Security, but that’s tough”
That is an elitist statement, as in you are going to force me to do it regardless of what I think. Which is my point, proponents of big government are elitists.
I’m curious, did the ‘vast majority of the people’ come from a quick survey of the teacher’s lounge?
Do you approve or disapprove of George W. Bush’s plans for reforming Social Security?
http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm
Jan ‘06 Approve 35 Disapprove 60 percent
“On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government’s responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?”
June ‘05 Should 80 percent Should not 16
Congratulations, P_Man, you’ve got a solid 16 percent behind you.
Proudman, that would be the government schools teacher’s lounge, wouldn’t it?
hmmm,
A link to JM’s Beck “draft” report, and debunking at,’Amateur night…..’http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html
It’s also been nominated for ‘S. Fred Singer award’http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/01/s.html
“”On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government’s responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?”
June ‘05 Should 80 percent Should not 16
Congratulations, P_Man, you’ve got a solid 16 percent behind you.”
What commie drivel. Why should we provide anything other than a safety net for anyone?Why not ask the American people if the goverment should provide new cars to everyone? I bet that would be a majority, also.Commie bastards seem to be everywhere on this blog!
Two links that debunk Zbigniew Jaworowski’s piece, which was similar to Beck’s bogus claim re CO2.http://timlambert.org/2005/05/jaworowski/
Cosmos and hmmmm,
I ask for PaleoClimatologist and you give me a laundry list of organizations and blogs. Where are your PaleoClimatologists backing your claims?
That’s not Beck Hmm. The dude doing the speaking is nicked-named the Internet Skeptic, a science major from Ohio State.
As he says, before you go making comments, look at the slides which are connected to a link on the research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
Beck is a PaleoClimatologist in the field for many years and not the same as the Internet Skeptic.
And again, if you don’t watch the whole video, get the powerpoint slides, download them and make a study of each of the slides, then you are simply not doing your homework.
If you want to do a half-ass study and remark, then feel free to do so.
Doesn’t mean I have to acknowledge anyone’s attempt if they don’t take the time to study the counter claims of man-made global warming.
Anyone can say, “Boo. that’s trash they don’t study something carefully.”
I repeat anyone can say stuff like that. Doesn’t mean a thing, because they are writing/speaking from ignorance.
JM – the paleoclimatologists are in the organizations rather than by themselves. Now, I viewed the video and the slides – nothing there – what I am looking for is the link to Beck’s scientific research.
JM,
Why should I waste time responding to you?
I posted the “450 MILLION year ago” explanation in case anyone else wanted to read it.I thought hmmm asked for a link to Beck’s “draft” report, so I posted it.
German biologist E-G Beck?
Biologist? Paleoclimatologist? Am I looking up the wrong back?
Beck’s “draft” report is herehttp://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf
Links debunking it here,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27468186http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27469222
Trying to Google Beck …
“Dr. Horst W. Beck, to name a few.
As a theologian and engineer, Dr. Beck was competent to reach other theologians, and has lectured at many evangelical theological conferences. Some theologians have changed their position, but biblical criticism is still a great problem among evangelicals today.”
http://www.icr.org/article/249/
So, he is a biologist, NOT a paleoclimatologist as JM claims.
I wonder of Wichita State will re-offer the paleoclimatology class they had a couple of years ago. It is a good introduction to the subject.
Some guy in a football jersey talking about sports isn’t exactly a great source of information now his he? Perhaps you ought to get your science information from some actual scientific journals and reports rather than some guy on youtube sandwiched between a guy falling off a skateboard and somebody blowing up a trailer.
Especially today after his Buckeyes got thrashed!
Yeah, Fleettwood, you’re right.
80 percent of Americans are “commie bastards.”
FYI, a poll result is a fact, it can’t be ideology.
It’s a fact that the American people overwhelmingly support Social Security the way it is.
Maybe you and your rugged individualist pals can seceed from the union or something. But until then, majority rules.
Apparently he has written some upper high school biology textbooks:
Herr Becks Onlinekurs Biologie Klasse 11, 12 and 13 – Mr. Beck’s Online Biology Course for the German 11th, 12th and 13th Grade
Inspired by the EDUVINET Project Mr. Beck developed some content for online and offline teaching in the subjects biology and chemistry. Mr. Beck is a teacher for biology, chemistry and computer science at Merian-School Freiburg.
These materials sent to us by:
Herrn Ernst-Georg Beck of Merian-School Freiburg, GermanyE-Mail: egbeck@t-online.de
http://www.eduvinet.de/eduvinet/bioen.htm
Still don’t see him referred to as any sort of climatologist.
E.G. Beck’s complaint was that old CO2 data that did not fit the curves from the ice cores was not used.
The reasons the IPCC dropped some data, and a graph of raw CO2 data taken since the 1800’s is at,http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/“The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million. It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year – the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”
I can’t believe someone would argue a position just because it’s popular. Like some high school freshman who is going to do what is ‘cool’ verses what they think should be done.
You don’t govern by polls.
And let’s be clear about my position on SS. If you want it go knock yourself out. However the use of force to have me support a ponzi scheme is objectionable and wrong.
Such is the case when you advocate government solutions. You are in the end going to force those who disagree to do it anyway. That is why such actions should be very limited.
I get a little chuckle everytime someone who doesn’t want us to force democracy on Iraq has not problem with forcing things on those of us in the US.
So Cosmos, you didn’t answer.
What is your science degree(s) in?
So Cosmos, you didn’t answer.
What is your science degree(s) in?
JM. what scientist(s) are claiming that climate change killed the dinosaurs?
And how is a self-promoting biologist a paleoclimatologist?
JM. what scientist(s) are claiming that climate change killed the dinosaurs?
And how is a self-promoting biologist a paleoclimatologist?
Years ago when I lived in Pittsburgh there was a problem with non-attainment under air quality rules. The situation was that the sampling device was located too close to a location where transit buses idled. Beck has done something similar – his sampling points are too close to areas where CO2 gets produced directly. His large diurnal variations and ‘few-day’ variations are indicative of this.
The reason they like to use islands is to eliminate such effects. One indicator of good data in that sense is that the annual (seasonal) variations should be reasonable at the hemispheric level. CO2 goes down a bit in the summer and up a bit in winter. (that variation is less in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere due to less land mass) Beck’s data is flawed. And, dispite your claims, he is NOT a climatologist.
So Cosmos, you didn’t answer.
What is your science degree(s) in?
So Cosmos, you didn’t answer.
What is your science degree(s) in?
Years ago when I lived in Pittsburgh there was a problem with non-attainment under air quality rules. The situation was that the sampling device was located too close to a location where transit buses idled. Beck has done something similar – his sampling points are too close to areas where CO2 gets produced directly. His large diurnal variations and ‘few-day’ variations are indicative of this.
The reason they like to use islands is to eliminate such effects. One indicator of good data in that sense is that the annual (seasonal) variations should be reasonable at the hemispheric level. CO2 goes down a bit in the summer and up a bit in winter. (that variation is less in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere due to less land mass) Beck’s data is flawed. And, dispite your claims, he is NOT a climatologist.
“Boniface: Good evening. Tonight on ‘It’s the Mind’, we examine the phenomenon of deja vu. That strange feeling we sometimes get that we’ve lived through something before, that what is happening now has already happened. ”
“Tonight on ‘It’s the Mind’ we examine the phenomenon of deja vu, that strange feeling we sometimes get that we’ve …”
Beck is a chemist, you are correct. And what are your qualifications to dispute a Chemist’s data?
Can you precisely describe under what condition the data was taken. The time period? Controls that were set up? Methods employed?
What is your science degree in?
The climatologist is not beck it is someone else I have previously written about.
A fairly apropos quote from Wallace Boecker (if not exactly on-point):
“To strengthen their case, corporate spokespersons, avid consumers, and plenty of other people and institutions inclined to dismiss the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 as inconsequential may be happy to latch on to the paleoclimatic reconstruction presented here. This would be unfortunate. Unless all the work done on climate simulations and fossil-fuel-use projections is seriously flawed, one thing is certain: our planet will indeed experience a major human-induced warming during this century.
We have learned that Holocene temperatures have undergone natural fluctuations, but the causes of these changes are so subtle that we have yet to figure them out. Apparently, our climate system responds to even tiny nudges. This being the case, the potential effects of human activities should not be underestimated. If we continue along a business-as-usual energy course, we’ll be giving the climate a large shove.”
To strengthen their case, corporate spokespersons, avid consumers, and plenty of other people and institutions inclined to dismiss the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 as inconsequential may be happy to latch on to the paleoclimatic reconstruction presented here. This would be unfortunate. Unless all the work done on climate simulations and fossil-fuel-use projections is seriously flawed, one thing is certain: our planet will indeed experience a major human-induced warming during this century.
We have learned that Holocene temperatures have undergone natural fluctuations, but the causes of these changes are so subtle that we have yet to figure them out. Apparently, our climate system responds to even tiny nudges. This being the case, the potential effects of human activities should not be underestimated. If we continue along a business-as-usual energy course, we’ll be giving the climate a large shove.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1001/1001_feature.html
I believe you’ve heard of him, JM. . .
Typepad appears to still be acting weird. . .
Interesting article by Broecker (who is not Becker btw.)
He was interesting up until the point he went off on a tangent on man-made CO2 influences without giving a background chronology like he did in the rest of the article.
If he would have spent more time on how he thinks man-made CO2 influences what instead of making a quantum leap of faith, I would have enjoyed the article even more.
But, Broecker did not.
hmmm,
Keeling also noticed the CO2 variation problem while taking measurements at La Jolla Pier CA — winds from inland caused swings in readings.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/hmm.html has interesting comparison of CO2 seasonal variations at Mauna Loa, Barrow Alaska, and New Zealand.
It’s hard for me to understand how anyone with as little as a junior high-school science education could believe Beck’s (and Jaworowski’s) claim of large global CO2 swings in a few years time.
It’d take huge vegetation burns, volcanoes, etc to get the rises, and massive plant growth, etc to get the drops.
But, I guess those who are in very deep denial about our climate crisis will believe anything…?
So Cosmos, what are your science degrees?
I have 2 degrees.
I got them at the Casa del pomme de terre apartments in Moutain Home Idaho.
My professor was named buddy. Or maybe it was junior.
No it was Bubba! Bubba Wohlenberg. And bubba knew that I knew everything there was to know!
Actually, Mr. JM Troll one of my Professor’s had a nick-name of Junior. But he was a football addict at the University and he preferred being called Junior rather than Professor when around players. heh
Rage,
The Boecker column makes the very important point about Earth’s climate being non-linear, and how a “tiny nudge” can cause major changes.
Human-added GHG’s, plus huge amounts of methane released from thawing permafrost, etc = ???
If you didn’t see upthread, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128223438.htm debunks the claim about CO2 being high during cold period 450 MILLION years ago.
JM,
Your ignorance is very tiresome. Please list all the science degrees of your “credible”(sic) source at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
Cosmos,
What are your science degrees in?
P_Man writes, “I get a little chuckle everytime someone who doesn’t want us to force democracy on Iraq has not problem with forcing things on those of us in the US.”
Well, you are easily amused.
If there was a true democracy in Iraq, the United States would have left six months after the invasion because that’s what the people want.
Your lack of appreciation of “rule by popularity” is wholly irrelevant. That’s what democracy is.
You can’t have democracy without the will of the majority being forced on to the will of the minority to some extent.
For instance, I assume that you are in favor of laws outlawing drugs, outlawing drunk driving, outlawing speeding in a school zone.
What about the people who use drugs and drive drunk and speed?
Their rights are curtailed for the rights of the general welfare.
Like I say, if you don’t like living in a democracy, you’re free to leave.
As for me, I trust the people, not elitists like you that think they know better than the people.
Ah, found my missing scientist. :)
Patterson has proven to be a difficult target for climate change alarmist activists for three reasons: 1) He is a well respected internationally known research scientist with 118 peer-reviewed research publications as of late 2006 2) He is a research scientist who goes where the science takes him and not where climate change alarmist activists want him to go; and 3) He has been exclusively funded by governmental research agencies such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) as well as the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS). Much to his chagrine (especially as he runs a large lab) he has been unable to attract a single dollar from industry or any public relations firms.http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/
The above URL is his Universities web site that lists all of his Peer Reviewed publications.
JM/StillJM,
“Ah, found my missing scientist. :)”
I’ve already debunked his old CO2 re 450 MILLION years ago, twice, upthread,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128223438.htm
And if you have science degree(s), please list them, the dates, and the college(s) that gave them to you.
I’d like to ask them why one of their “science” graduates believes that average global CO2 amounts can vary wildly over a few years time period.
On Cosmos latest link, which I carefully read and digested.
Dr. Saltzman and doctoral student Seth Young found that large deposits of quartz sand in Nevada and two sites in Europe — Norway and Estonia — formed around the same time, 440 million years ago. The scientists suspect that the sand formed when water levels fell low enough to expose quartz rock, so that wind and rain could weather the rock into sand.
Saltzman’s conclusion after examining these sites:
“If sea level is dropping globally at the same time, it can’t be a local tectonic feature,” Saltzman said. “It’s got to be the result of a global ice buildup.”
My Comment: So Dr. Saltzman says that retreating oceans is due to global ice buildup?
“How can you have ice when CO2 levels are through the roof?
Saltzman’s Answer: That was the dilemma that we were faced with. I think that now we have good evidence that resolves this mismatch,” Saltzman said. “Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrationsdrive climate.” “”
My Comment: He made the conclusion that receding seas and quartz sand generation is corrolated with CO2 driving climate? How, I dunno, it’s his article and he didn’t bother explaining it.
My Comment: [from Dr. Patterson] Correlation indicates that as one might expect as temperatures warm biological productivity increases resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere.
My Comment: Note Dr. Patterson makes this comment in reference to the time before there were any man-made CO2 emissions. In other words, TEMPERATURE RISES FIRST, THEN CO2 INCREASES. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. heh heh
Salzman article also stated”
“But, critics have countered, if CO2 truly raises global temperatures, how could an ice age have occurred when a greenhouse effect much greater than today’s was in full swing?
Saltzman’s answer: This PARTICULAR ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak — it began 10 million years earlier (re; 440 million years ago), when CO2 levels were at a low.”
That is basically what Salzman is baseing his theory on about climate and CO2 effects.
Now for disassembly:
My comment on that temperature increase drives CO2 increase.
Dr. Patterson writes this:”The lag between CO2 and rising or falling CO2 levels is something like 800 years.”
My Comment: So it takes 800 years in Climate Change for CO2 to affect the rising and falling of CO2 levels. Good good.
So, I ask myself what could affecting the increase of Temperature and the increased of CO2 that Cosmos argues?
Dr. Patterson says:
“The very close correlation between sunspot number and temperature is very clear. At present there have been literally hundreds of studies carried out showing a similar correlation.
In the 19th century, when the world was relatively unindustrialized the level of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at around 285 ppm. By 2003 the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, primarily the result of industrialization and land use changes, stood at 376 ppm. The resultant influence on climate has been minimal. Computer models say that this increase in CO2 should have heated the Earth up significantly by this stage. However, very little warming that can be attributed to CO2 has actually occurred.”"
My Comment:
You are probably saying, “Where are you going with this garbage?I’m heading to the dramatic effect Water Vapor has on Global Temperature.
Dr. Patterson States:
“Now lets have a look at what happened during 1997-98. There was a major El Nio on in the equatorial Pacific, that many of you may recall had a significant influence on global weather. However, it also a major influence on global temperatures. They started to go up in response to the enormous amount of water vapor that was pumped up into the atmosphere. In just a few months global temperatures spiked by nearly 1 degree Celsius above what they had been before. If you watched any television at the time you would have heard newsreaders on all networks, almost gleefully exclaiming that we were seeing the major global warming that was supposed to occur. Much to their disappointment temperatures QUICKLY DROPPED OFF again, within a few months, as the El Nio ebbed. That collapse in global temperatures didn’t get any coverage by the media though. And, so, there we were, right back to normal. This example of El Nio fueled injection of water vapor into the atmosphere provides a very good example of the relative impact of CO2 and water vapor as greenhouse gases.”
My Comment: Note Dr. Patterson’s assertion that temperatures dropped off, not increased after El Ninjo and THERE WAS NO PRESS COVERAGE BY THE CO2 GW CHEERLEADERS.
Why is that?
They simply don’t like facts that get in the way of their theory? :)
Cosmos,I have already given what degrees I have several times. B.S. in Safety, Masters in Industrial Hygiene. Both which include a nauseating amount of Science courses, albeit more on the Chemisty and Biological Sciences than other sciences.
As far as giving the locations and years of graduation, that’s a little personal isn’t it? I mean with identity theft and all.
Now, it’s your turn,
Cosmos,
What are your science degrees in?
JM, why are so allergic to cites and links? Maybe because people might actually read the original, unedited and uncommented, in context, and draw different conclusions?
Wss this so hard?
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
I suspect I’ll have plenty to say about your method of argument later, but this late at night, discretion is the better part of valor.
P.S. I am familiar with Tech Central Station and. . damn, back to that late-night discretion thing. . .
Continuing with Dr. Patterson’s comments:
“Earth’s climate has varied considerably during the past 2 million years or so as indicated by the more than 33 glacial major advances and retreats that have occurred through this interval. Based on geologic paleoclimatic data it is obvious that climate is and has been very variable.”
My Comment: Imagine that, there have glacial advances and retreats. So, the glacial retreats in our time are different from those in the past in what way?
If you want to read the entire discussion by Dr. Patterson, you can find it here:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
Note: This is just a website that hosted his comments, his peer reviewed articles attesting to his scientific competence can be found in my previous posts.
Now you are probably wondering why current CO2 levels are increasing and the current temperature is increasing.
Okay, it appears from Dr. Patterson’s article and many other articles I have read that the 800 year cycle is generally considered part of a 5000 year cycle where temperature increases first, then CO2.
You are saying okay, but why?
It has to do with Ficke’s Law of Diffusion. (take a Chemistry course) :D
Oceans are considered a sink. That is, they absorb/reflect a lot of things, carbon, heat, etc.
An 800 year delay is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. CO2 stored in the deep ocean during ice ages gets released when the climate warms and then when have rising CO2 levels (natural CO2 rises.) This also applies to ice trapped C02 (you’ll see later.)
But which comes first, temperature raise or CO2 coming out of the ocean?
From what we learned at the Ice Age Samples is that CO2 levels were lower as stated by Cosmos referenced Dr. Saltzman clearly stated.
So the ice age is winding down and temperatures are starting to increase. Remember the 5000 year cycle and the 800 years it takes CO2 to “bubble out” by diffusion. All of this occurs during a warming up period. In other words, temperatures increase firstthen CO2 rises
…because temperature increases cause increased diffusion activities in liquids and there is an increase of plant life. (plant life expels CO2 gases.)
Now back to our Scientist’s debate between Patterson and Saltzman.
Patterson’s assertion is that the earth’s temperature increase is directly correlated between Solar activity.
Saltzman states that CO2 declines during Ice Age eras.
Remember? I’ll quote it again:
“This PARTICULAR ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak — it began 10 million years earlier (re; 440 million years ago), when CO2 levels were at a low.”
Aha! CO2 levels were low, when the Ice Age began!
Cold temps > Low CO2 levels
Get it yet?
How does earth create CO2? It comes from the oceans and plants.
Let’s see, do we see lots and lots of plants in an Ice age? Ummm, no.
Do we see free flowing oceans in an Ice Age? Ummm no.
Do we see lots of plants and free flowing oceans when the temperatures are higher? ummm Yes!!!
And an increase in temperature causes CO2 to diffuse out of liquids? Ummm Yes!!!!
Do plants spit out CO2 like a bad piece of gum? Ummm YESSSSSS !!!!!
And what causes all that increase in CO2 activity?
TEMPERATURE INCREASE!!!! (crowd roars)
But but but, what about ice and those ice core samples.
Well peoples, ice is lower in density than water. Sorry, but it’s true. It’s a hydrogen bonding thing. Ask Ben Huie, he will point you to the nearest Elementary Chemistry class. heh heh
When oceans absorb water it does so in a process known as a biological pump. It is estimated that 90 percent of the earth’s produced carbon is absorbed by the oceans.
Energy escapes the ocean in forms of heat and water vapor. As the temperature increases, this drives the formation of water vapor clouds, rain storms and etc.
How do we get an increase in energy?
For one the increase can be heat. What is the biggest producer of heat for the earth?
The sun. :)
So, as the sun temperature increases, the global pumps starts working, the plants start growing, water vapor is expelled from bodies of liquid like our oceans, clouds are formed and gases like CO2 are expelled from tropical forest, land use (farmers)
Let’s see, how do we get CO2 gas out of things? We freeze it right? buzzz! wrong!
We get CO2 out of things by increasing the molecular activity of what it is solute in (dissolved.) That is, we HEAT it up. This is a basic Endothermic law (I won’t get into that here.)
What the man-made CO2 Global Warming folks say that CO2 keeps the heat of earth from escaping our top levels of atmosphere because of it radiant properties and other factors.
The effect of oceans and its complex cycles affect how temperatures affect areas. Toronto is much colder than London, England even though London is closer to the North Pole. Why you ask? Because the circulation of all this wind, water vapor, escaping gases cause heat and the closer land is to the ocean, the warmer it is.
Now, back to our friends water vapor and CO2.
C02 (Carbon dioxide) absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers
It has been shown that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15micrometer peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it’s going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There’s no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.
Humans could not double the CO2, because they only put 3% of the CO2 in the air. If they put twice as much in, it would do whatever it does in 9.7m instead of 10m. If humans stopped putting any CO2 in the air, it would do whatever it does in 10.3m instead of 10m. In other words, nothing humans do with CO2 could be of the slightest relevance to global warming, even if oceans were not regulating it.
The assumption of the promoters of the concern is that shorter distances mean the heat stays in the atmosphere longer before escaping into space. Supposedly, the radiation will be emitted and absorbed more often, when distances are shorter. But they err in not taking into account the convection which removes the relevance of short distances.
If the radiation were re-emitted and re-absorbed so rapidly that convection was not significant, the heat would escape into space so fast that there would be little greenhouse effect.
continued,,,
As CO2 is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second). The heat is distributed over all molecules in the atmosphere, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. After some time (probably about 10 hours), an equivalent amount of black body radiation is emitted from everything in the atmosphere, and about 3% of it is absorbed by CO2 as fingerprint radiation.
This means wind has about 10 hours to redistribute the heat before it is re-emitted as IR. It doesn’t make significant difference whether the heat was distributed over 10 meters or 7 meters, while wind acts upon it to redistribute it. Over such short distances, it would normally take less than ten seconds to mix the air by convection.
The time interval of a cycle should not be short, in theory, because nonhot matter does not emit very much IR. And if it were short, the energy would escape into space too fast. There is about a four week lag between maximum sunshine and maximum temperatures, which means there is a lot of lag between absorption and emission cycles in the atmosphere.
But all matter absorbs and emits IR in proportion to its temperature. This is called “black body” radiation. Physicists say all matter has the same characteristics in absorbing and emitting black body radiation, except that the quantitative proportions vary, mostly due to reflection.
Carbon dioxide has fingerprint peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15micrometers, which are all within the black body radiation curve.
The only reason why there is IR in the air is because the surface of the earth emits black body radiation in proportion to its temperature.
The question then is, in what quantity is the atmosphere absorbing and emitting black body radiation. The emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen gasses should be closed to 100%, since they do not reflect IR significantly. But the larger question is how does the quantity of black body absorption compare to the fingerprint absorption of CO2. Actual measurements and numbers do not seem to exist. So promoters use computer models to divide up the heat of the atmosphere between pollutants such as CO2 and everything else. They then pull such numbers out of the hat which say increases in CO2 levels will create a global temperature increase of about 6¬?C. This is about 20% of the 33¬?C which the atmosphere is said to contribute to the temperature of the globe.
Water is about a hundred times more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2, and it has a more effective fingerprint spectrum. It is also much more variable. This means water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does.
continued…
So, we now know that heat must occur first before CO2 increases occur.
We have the sun to thank for the solar flare activity for that.
We now know that the radiate forcing of CO2 is not of a great concern that the Man-made GW experts claim, because CO2 has a level which it can’t escape forcing 10m before it dispersed by natural forces (wind, etc.) We even know that if CO2 generated radiate heat levels become too great, they will simply escape into space beyond our atmospheric envelope.
We also know, the most abundant Greenhouse Gas there is, is water vapor. You know that drinkie stuff, clouds, evaporated water from oceans, etc.
And we know how Water Vapor pounds CO2 into submission when it gets out of hand. Ocean sinks, radiant metric expansion (the 10meter thing.)
We can debunk the explosion of the GW man-made causes in the late 90s as they attached them selves to El Ninjo when the temperatures went up, but as soon as the influences of El Nino died down, the temperatures went down as well. Not one peep from the Kyoto people on that. heh heh
According to Cosmos’ own scientist he referenced, he emphatically stated that when there are cold temps, CO2 levels are low.
We have concluded through our study that when temperature increases, plants grow, ocean sinks release their gases and CO2 levels increase all by themselves without any help from SUV’s.
And we now know what drives the heat increase, our Sun. :)
Don’t believe me about the sun? Well, that’s another topic and I’m tired.
We’ll do the effects of the Sun and its effect on our planet’s temperature later.
Till next time…
As a final statement to this useless argument
Capn, you live in a republic not a democracy. (Assuming you live in KS) That is why all those hugely popular propositions in CA are always getting overturned in court. Figure out where you are. Note that you will not find the answer in your precious government schools. Those places like to foster the same false statements as you. So you will have to look elsewhere for enlightenment.
JM: “This means water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does.”
‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142By Gavin A. SchmidtBio, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46
JM: “Now you are probably wondering why current CO2 levels are increasing and the current temperature is increasing.”
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.html
‘How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87By Eric SteigBio, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=54
JM: “So, we now know that heat must occur first before CO2 increases occur.”
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.htmlhttp://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html“CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them,”
‘What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13By Jeff Severinghaus’http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Contacts/Jeff/vita.html
RealClimate won a 2005 ‘Scientific American’ Science & Technology Award.
TCS is funded by Exxon and other corporationshttp://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
Man, you guys still meltin’ ice over here?The whole damned thing’ll be melted before ya’ll agree!!
“Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial UNCERTAINITY in climate models…Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is NOT YET convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed.”
My Comment: In short IPCC doesn’t know, so they exclude Water Vapor
- Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment
“The CO2 rise question:What we have found, via the isotope signatures in the CO2 molecules can be thought of as “old” carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with “young” oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So, present day combustion of fossilized carbon deposits (ie coal and oil) are most definitely the source of the CO2 that we see accumulating, just as common sense tells us.”
My Comment:Yeah, well okay.And identifying old carbon and new carbon shows that the radiant forcing of anthropogenic carbon differs from “old” carbon how?
The fact is, it doesn’t differ that much in the way I explained of the 10m window of Carbon before it equilibriates.
Also, the CO2 purists neglect to say that the total C02 influence is about 1 percent of all greenhouse gases (because they ignore water vapor like it doesn’t exist.)
Also from NASA:
Images of the Earth, such as this one in the infrared, tell us much about the distribution of water vapor. Areas within the Earth’s atmosphere that are extremely dry, especially in the tropics, can act as large “chimneys” that allow energy to freely radiate into space, enhancing the cooling of the Earth. The effects of the tropical dry troposphere are POORLY UNDERSTOOD, and currently are NOT WELL-INCORPORATED INTO COMPUTER MODELS OF GLOBAL WARMING.”
So, there it is. They can call Water Vapor feedback or they can call it “Roy” for all I care. But the fact remains is that IPCC leaves water vapor out of their Climate Modeling.
I mean what scientists would do that and try to make a prediction about Global Warming when they leave out the a factor that is 100 times greater per volume than CO2!
Give me a break.
They (IPCC)justdon’tknow
Beck is a biologist, not a chemist.
See Merrill Teller’s little weather column in the B section of the paper today.
2006 was the hottest year on record in the United States.
That’s not theory–that’s fact.
P_Man, ah the old “republic” vs. a “democracy” shifting ground.
When the majority does what you want, we live in a democracy. When it doesn’t, we live in a republic.
Living in a republic doesn’t mean that gov’t can repudiate the will of the people . . . like YOU ELITISTS want to do.
CO2 is not the only factor in climate, that we know. In the graphs in TCS they show that there is, in fact, a lag between T and CO2. That is not denied. In the Milankovitch cycle the trigger is a change in the earth’s orbital parameters. This in turn causes a small change in temperature through a change in distribution of solar radiation. That temp change then sets in motion feedback loops including CO2. It is then CO2 that does the ‘heavy lifting’ in changing temperature.
The concern today is that we are initiating additional feedback loops that will take the planet into a “third stable state”; much warmer than anything in the holocene.
I sure wish the various journals I read were on web sites instead of just at Ablah (WSU)
Global Warming Heat trend eh?
I guess the newspapers forgot to mention that the Southern Hemisphere is showing a downward trend, that is , it is cooling.
You know they have all those huge ocean sinks down there; more water, more water vapor; more cooling.
But IPCC excludes water vapor and evidently the Southern Hemisphere from their claims.
So, I guess it’s Half of Global Warming then. (rolls eyes)
yeah, such science…
“I guess the newspapers forgot to mention that the Southern Hemisphere is showing a downward trend, that is , it is cooling.”
Oh? While the very center of the southern polar high is a bit cooler most of the southern latitudes down to about 60S is warmer (Dec 2006)
The southern hemisphere would be expected to be slower responding to changes due the the larger water-covered fraction.
And perhaps a better example, although now a year old, 2005.
Figure 1: (Top) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. The blue segments represent the uncertainty of of the measurements at the 95% level. (Bottom) Temperature anomaly for 2005 calendar year. Image credit: NASA Goddard.
The plot of 2005 temperature anomalies shows that virtually all land areas across the globe were warmer than average in 2005. More warming was observed in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, and the U.S. had its 13th warmest year on record. The Arctic had the most warming, helping make the extent of summer ice coverage over the Arctic Ocean in 2005 the lowest ever measured. It’s sobering to note that even the Antarctic showed a net warming for 2005.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/2005warmest.asp
The southern hemisphere would be expected to be slower responding to changes due the the larger water-covered fraction.
Posted by: hmmm … | January 10, 2007 at 01:41 PM
No no
Either you use water and the effects of the ocean sink and water vapor for the whole globe, or don’t use it at all.
You and the IPCC can’t exclude water vapor from their Global Warming formula and then conveniently pick and choose single source data when it conveniences them.
Science is not study by popularity nor is it a pick and choose science.
You choose to ignore water vapor on your side, you cannot pick it up and play ball with it as it is convenient for you.
Sorry, you lose.
I include water vapor as part of the feedback loops; so does IPCC. My point with the southern hemisphere is that it takes more energy to heat ocean than land and thus the temperature swings will be subdued. That is why living near the coast can be so nice sometimes.
I agree with you that my field is “not study by popularity nor is it a pick and choose science.”
I notice that WSU has GEOL 678 “Geologic Perspectives on Climate Change” in their Catalog again. That sounds like a follow-on course (or perhaps replacement) for the Paleoclimatology class I took a couple of years ago.
hmmm,
Young fellow or old fellow going back to school? Keep up the good work!
I like the University life myself, it can spoil you with all its intellectual activities. :)
looking back at old catalogs it looks like the same class (don’t have my transcript handy to check course number)
It was a very useful class.
Yes it can … and after next summer I can take (audit) classes for free!
JM,
Do you enjoy being CONNED by all the stupid BS from the AGW “deniers”?
“Also, the CO2 purists neglect to say that the total C02 influence is about 1 percent of all greenhouse gases (because they ignore water vapor like it doesn’t exist.)
…they leave out the a factor that is 100 times greater per volume than CO2!”
You didn’t even read the first link I posted less than 1/2 hour before?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27503173‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’”The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”—
Between 9 and 26% does NOT = your “about 1%”.Your “per volume” is meaningless BS — what counts is radiative forcing.Didn’t you learn that when you got your B.S. in Safety, Masters in Industrial Hygiene?
They don’t leave water vapor(WV) out — that’d plunge Earth into an ice age.Some models hold the forcing from WV CONSTANT, because the strength of the positive feedback is still uncertain. For a small temperature rise, that’s still relatively accurate.
If forcing from WV does increase when Earth warms (POSITIVE feedback) we will get even hotter.
Evidently Cosmos, you cannot read your own biased reports. The 9 to 26 percent is listed as a CAUSE of GW and not a percentage by volume.
You lose again.
Why? Because blatantly saying that CO2 is a certain percentage of the cause of GW flies in the face of many of the world’s scientist who dispute this fact.
As I said before, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts when they differ from what other scientists say.
That quote by the way is From Senator Patrick Monyihan, Democrat. “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
You are simply trying to push your opinion out as fact, when it is not widely accept.
Like I said before, you have your opinion and I have my opinion. This is the way it is world-wide.
You can’t bring your own facts and say it is true when other scientists vehemently dispute it.
JM,
Radiative forcing is the so-called “green-house” effect, not human-caused GW.
Read it again, ‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27503173
The CO2 = 9 to 26% of forcing is for *ALL* CO2 in the atmosphere, natural and human-added.
Note the table, CO2 = 23 Watt/meter squared.
IPCC calculates human-added CO2 has increased forcing ~1.5 W/m2, “year 2000, relative to 1750″.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
List some of the credible scientists who “vehemently disputes” that the total CO2 has a “radiative forcing” of 9 to 26% of all GHG’s.
btw: Sulfur hexafluoride has more than 20,000 times the global warming potential of CO2. Radiative forcing is the SIGNIFICANT point, not “% per volume”.
Like I said, you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I could continue to list ad nauseum, sources that counter everyone of you claims.
Let’s let the scientist duke it out, this discussion is getting boring.
Besides we are wasting WE’s bandwidth for two people’s personal view. That’s a bit wasteful imo.
So, JM, your “paleoclimatologist” was really not a “chemist” either, he is a biologist. Why did you claim he was a paleoclimatologist?
Probably because I had read several articles back to back and confused Patterson with Beck. It was a case of misplaced name association. heh
JM,
The “deniers” use “% per volume” to con gullible people.I doubt that you could find even one credible climate scientist with a study showing total CO2 caused insignificant “forcing”.
Another credible source,’Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget’National Center for Atmospheric Researchhttp://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
Table on page 7, CO2 = 26% contribution, clear sky.
Hang on to your co2 forcing then. I’m so happy you think I’m gullible.
I don’t feel that I’m in bad company with all the PhD scientists.
And btw,
What are your science degrees in?
Since you have insulted me and my science degrees.
You never said and probably never will because you don’t have any?
Grow a pair and tell us now.
If you don’t tell me today, then I’ll assume you have no science degrees and are just another talking “parrot” of the anthropogenic GW crowd.
The challenge is to you no.
Cough it up.
Mine include a PhD chemistry, BS Geology, MS Environmental Science …
And I am another “parrot” in your view …
BTW – NCAR is a good outfit …
is HMMM Bennie?
No hmm, your questions and responses were quite reasonable.
Environmental Sciences then PhD in Chem?
Why the switch if you don’t mind me asking?
I almost got my Masters in Env. Science at OU, but got talked out of it when employment was offered if I got Industrial Hygiene and certifiction in the same. So, I leaped on it.
I almost got a hot date with Cindy Crawford, too, JM. The only thing that prevented it was she didn’t know I existed.
But I “almost” had a date.
That doesn’t even make sense WSClark, guess we are going to be vindicative eh?
I was stating I had a career choice path, either Environmental Science or Industrial Hygien, I chose the later.
You “almost” make sense, JM, as usual.
JM,
“Hang on to your co2 forcing then.”
Translation: you cannot find any credible climate scientists who say that CO2 radiative forcing is insignificant.
The “deniers” use “% per volume”, and you seem to prefer to believe them.
I’ll assume that you would not be impressed by my credentials, since you believe that Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt wrote a “biased report”.His climate credentials are better than mine… and yours.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford UniversityPhD in Applied Mathematics from University College LondonWas a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research.(continues)
Do you believe this RealClimate column (upthread) is “biased”?’What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’
Compared your credentials to the author?http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Contacts/Jeff/vita.html
Ohhh… I forgot, you believe the scientists at Scripps do sloppy work.
End of converstation Mr. Cosmos.
I gave you my degrees and you refuse to give yours. End of discussion.
Oh yeah?Well, my lawyer can beat up your lawyer!
JM, since you love to argue by appeals to (mostly your own) authority and bald assertion, please inform me, in your erudite fashion, which of your unimpeachable sources I should regard as the most definitive: the one speech by the Canadian scientist, sponsored by the oil industry, the German biologist who hawks his own instructional videos on the Web, or the guy with the cool Youtube video?
I’m sorry if I refuse to believe, e.g., that the world’s most prominent study on climate change (IPCC), subjected to 3 rounds of peer review by hundreds of scientists, would somehow ignore the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. I’m obviously just believing what I want to believe.
Thank you, oh thank you, SO MUCH, for opening my eyes, JM!! I’m FREE!!!
cosmos – I can’t speak to your scientific abilities ‘per se’ but you definitely do good searching and present credible well-vetted data from reviewed scientific sites.
JM,
Why should I give you my degrees, when you don’t respect (or believe) the highly credentialed climate scientists I gave links to?
Science today is VERY complex. Scientists usually respect the knowledge of highly qualified scientists working in a different field.
How do your degrees (how long ago?) make you more qualified about climate than the actively working climate scientists at NOAA, Scripps, IPCC, et al?
And that wasn’t a “discussion” upthread. You posted various “skeptic” BS (Beck, Medieval Warming, Mauna Loa, water vapor, etc) and ignored the debunking.
That’s a classic DENIAL pattern… and very UNSCIENTIFIC.
I agree, hmmmm.
hmmm,
Thank you, I appreciate that.But for some reason, JM doesn’t think the data I provide is “credible and well-vetted”…?
That is because the drunk OSU guy was more fun. BTW – do you have a live email I can get?
Thank you also, Rage.
Yes Rage,
I do argue by my own appeals and don’t rest on the laurels of others to make my case for me.
Some of you argued about the credentials of the Scientists I used. For instance, Dr. Patterson, the Canadian PaleoClimatologist with 118 peer review documents online for ALL to see. But no one bothered to check them out.
The much maligned Internet Skeptic who provided 107 mb Powerpoint Slide review in addition to the video. Each powerpoint slide was linked to the website where the data was obtained. I said Each: all 107 mb of slides easily reviewable by anyone taking the time! But no one bothered. Each slide had a link!
I supplied the download site to Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski where a 5mb PDF file could be downloaded on his discussion of CO2 and Ice Core samples. Dr. Jaworoski was the Chief UN Scientist and offered in the paper his study of radio-isotopic sampling of the ice core samples which he deemed more accurate than the measurements taken.
I supplied many other websites and their URLs where PhD’s, agencies and other private institutions countered each and everyone of the assertions supplied by IPCC.
I have and always have an active email on my BLOG name, unlike some people I know. If you had a question to pose and didn’t feel like asking it here, you could have emailed me at any time.
Instead what I get in return is what the “other side” of the GW topic gets.
That is, they get pooed ignored, laughed at when they challenge the IPCC. They won’t even believe the scientist in their own country if they say anything different than the lockstep discussion IPCC has developed.
Like Dr. Mann, who created the hockey stick chart on temperature which was later discounted by the National Academy of Sciences. Guess who his sponsor is? How about the Heinz Corporation. You know Heinz, wife of Senator Kerry? No bias there huh?
Why did I question Scripps so much? It’s because I made my living doing air samples as an Industrial Hygienist. You can’t just go willy nilly and pull a sample using the flask method without doing background checks, calibrating instruments BEFORE the sample was taken (not after) and generally using good scientific method when samples are done. If you don’t do sampling properly when you get in court, the companies attorney will stomp a mudhole in you and your reputation is gone. I never failed once in a court case, at least my data never did. I gave a wrong address once. :)
I got tired of being dogpiled because I was basically alone. It’s easy to sit along the sidelines and cherry pick data and mine data to make a statement because you think no one will check.
Well, I did check and I did challenge. But it was fought back with well who is this scientist and what are your degrees and your education must not be very good.
Did anyone bother to even check out the counter claim websites? I doubt it very much or they would have seen where I was coming from.
How many of you have had to stand in court standing behind the data you collected? I have and am proud of it.
And Cosmos, the data you provided was just fine, but it is not necessarily a fact widely accepted by everyone.
It’s just like the news reports that Global Warming shows there is a warming trend. True for the Northern Hemisphere, but they don’t even mention half of the world, the Southern Hemisphere which is cooling! Alaska and Greenland are also showing cooling trends!
There have been 33 Ice Age Glacial ebbs and flows that scientists are aware of, so what makes the retreat of the ice floes now different?
The original thread about the Polar Bears was refuted by a Polar Bear researcher of which I also gave a link to. He stated that the overall Polar Bear population 12 of the 13 packs were growing in population size! What did the news report? They reported the 1 pack that was decreasing in size and attributed it to Global Warming!
Come on people wake up! You are being manipulated!
No one bothered to look at the links of the charts I supplied where it showed the sunspot activity compared to the Current Global Warming discussion and a 1 to 1 direct corrolation!
And how does my background stand up to those specializing in those fields? Probably not very well, since a lot are PhD’s in very specialized fields. But I could probably kick their collective butts on data sampling, especially air sampling. And of course ergonomic review which was not part of this topic. :)
And yes, I have been reviewed and challenged by agencies like OSHA, American Society of Safety Engineers and the Court system (in particular cases.)
Instead of me rambling, you would have seen slides, documents and boring graphs/charts and data sample renderings. Much like which most of you choose to ignore in the URLs I supplied.
So have a good time, you folks appointed yourself winners by some sort of unidentified panel.
The real debate goes on without us here amongst the many scientist.
We are merely BLOG (note the opinion part of BLOG) discussionists.
Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM.
Thanks, JM
JM – I tried to navigate that youtube guys rambling rant but he buried what little he had to say about warming under DDT, ozone etc. Everything I could find was old stuff long since debunked. I and cosmos have linked numerous peer-reviewed documents; you ignore them. You give us a rambling youtube rant with decades old debunked garbage. You give us a degree in IH; I give a PhD Chem, BS Geology, MS Env Science
I even took paleoclimatology – just for fun! Made an A. Focused particularly on recent (past million years) climate changes.
hmmm,
So an IH is a junk degree.
I’ll be sure and inform my friend with a PhD in Industrial Hygiene he has wasted his life and myself also having a Master’s degree in IH.
I did not ignore the peer reviewed documents. I read them, reviewed and even commented on them. You guys commented on mine.
Thanks for the ‘fair’ discussion and allowing people their opinion.
In the end all you wanted to do is discredit me even if it was a blog pals club.
Admit it, that was your goal.
That was your goal!
Blah, blah, blah, JM. That was your goal! Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. That was your goal! Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. That was your goal!
That was your goal!
Thanks, JM
Nothing to admit since yourstatement is false. Just that IH is not as relevant to the topic at hand as chem/geo/envsci. And with paleoclim added.
I have to tell you, that youtube guy hurt your case. He rambled incoherently. What the hell does DDT have to do with warming? His verbosity hurt him. When I taught I told my students that brevity is a virtue – cut to the chase and don’t load it down with irrelevancies. And don’t try to impress with huge volumes of nothingness (your big deal about how many MB the PP’s took up.
And, everything he had there about climate and ozone has been fully debunked.
BTW – with additional training I got my CHMM which has elements in common with IH.
There is more to IH than CHMM. heh
Most undergraduates in Safety/IH have their CHMM before they get their BS degree. You can get the Master Level certification if you have three years experience and an approved degree.
There are numerous other certifications one can get in a variety of subjects.
I think I’m being snubbed by a PhD which I find uncommon amongst all the PhD’s I have worked with.
Enjoy your victory, I concede defeat by your definitions.
Enjoy the day! Tomorrow comes quickly.
That was your goal!
Blah, blah, blah, JM. That was your goal! Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. That was your goal! Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. Blah, blah, blah, JM. That was your goal!
That was your goal!
Thanks, JM
JM,
Patterson? You cited his claim that today’s CO2 levels were irrelevant, because CO2 levels were much higher when it was much colder 450 MILLION years ago.
My link showed the “much colder” occured 10 MILLION years earlier, when CO2 levels were much LOWER. Patterson’s claim = null + void.
Internet Skeptic? EVEN he admits in his stupid video that he is NOT a scientist.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski? This person, who seems to think that global CO2 levels could change in one year by the same amount of carbon in ALL plants in the ENTIRE world?http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3
JM: “Like Dr. Mann, who created the hockey stick chart on temperature which was later discounted by the National Academy of Sciences.”
More “deniers” BS…?? NAS did NOT “discount” Dr. Mann’s, et al “hockey stick”.
JM: “Why did I question Scripps so much?”
You’re also questioning NOAA, and all the other scientists world wide who have been, and still are taking CO2 measurements in parallel.
JM: “the Southern Hemisphere which is cooling!”
Your link(s) proving that please?Not according to hmmm’s link upthread, and also the IPCC’s 1976 – 2000 trend.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.19.jpg
The Northern hemisphere warms faster, because it has more land, and land warms faster than the oceans.
JM: “sunspot activity”
Check your “facts” again. Radiative forcing from human-added GHG’s is much stronger than solar variations.
And duuuhh…. IF solar IS getting stronger, that’s an even STRONGER reason to cut our GHG’s.
You’re pretty much a bad winner aren’t you Cosmos?
I’ve conceded defeat, the victory is yours.
Cosmos – one particularly disturbing aspect of that last map is the large heating in the upper latitudes. Those are the areas where positive feedback loops – ice/albedo, CO2, and CH4 – are most likely to be large.
Are you going to be at the meetup?
JM,
You “conceded defeat” by accusing us of ignoring your “facts”(sic), and trying to discredit you.
I merely a gave few examples of why your anti-GW arguments were bogus.
hmmm,
The map in your wunderground link upthread (1:44 PM) also looks very grim in the Northern latitudes re positive feedbacks.
Considering the slowness of the world to cut emissions, and thermal inertia of oceans, we’ll probably pass the “tipping point”. Or maybe already have…?
But we are lucky that the Southern Hemisphere is NOT cooling, like JM claims. Since the global average temperature is rising, the North would have to be even hotter, to offset the cooling South ;)
Sorry, but can’t make it to the meetup.
I will be posting references where you disputed in yourhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27529124
of this blog. You seemed to be interested where the data came from.
JM: “sunspot activity”
Check your “facts” again. Radiative forcing from human-added GHG’s is
much stronger than solar variations.
And duuuhh…. IF solar IS getting stronger, that’s an even STRONGER
reason to cut our GHG’s.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html
The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) is compiling a comprehensive
solar database for use in global change models. Solar radiation drives
the weather machine. Variations in the Sun’s radiative output impact the
Earth’s climate. The NOAA Climate Analysis Center currently uses solar
cycle data in their U.S. seasonal winter forecasts. Spacecraft
observations show the Sun’s output varied by 0.1% during the past
11-year solar activity cycle, producing a climate forcing of 0.24 W/m2.
Climate forcing by increasing greenhouse gases from 1980 to 1986 was
about 0.25 W/m2. Global change models need to discern between variations
caused by anthropogenic and natural occurrences to provide a sound
scientific basis for policy making on global change issues. The NGDC
archives are part of a cross-disciplinary effort within NOAA to link
observed changes on the Sun with terrestrial climate.
The largest effect on the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth is
due to orbital changes in the Sun-Earth system. The Yugoslav
mathematician Milutin Milankovitch studied the orbital parameters that
cause seasonal variations on Earth. He calculated insolation curves for
different latitudes.
Several investigations have shown positive correlations of solar
influences on climate change. The hydrological system is a major player
in the weather system because 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by
water. Dr. George Reid, senior NOAA scientist, examined the sea surface
temperature record for the last 130 years and found an interesting
correlation with the 11 year running mean sunspot number (Reid, 1987,
1991).
Drs. Eigil Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Danish Meteorological
Institute, studied the length of the solar cycle as an indicator of
solar activity closely associated with climate change (Friis-Christensen
et al., 1991). They used the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature
during the past 130 years and found a good correlation with the length
of the solar cycle. While the temperature data do show the enhanced
greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it also shows
a departure from this trend from 1940 to 1970. This occurs
simultaneously with a decrease in solar activity as seen in the solar
cycle length database.
When solar activity is high, strong El Ninos occur farther apart than
when it’s low.
JM: “the Southern Hemisphere which is cooling!”
Your link(s) proving that please?Not according to hmmm’s link upthread, and also the IPCC’s 1976 – 2000
trend.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.19.jpg
The Northern hemisphere warms faster, because it has more land, and land warms faster than the oceans.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s468.htm
Strong and his colleagues compared the satellite-only sea surfacetemperature data to two separate datasets that are primarily based on in situ data. All three datasets consistently show a warming in the equatorial Pacific, cooling in the central North Pacific, and general cooling the Southern Hemisphere.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/07/warming.ocean.enn/index.html
Short comments by Kearns and a team of scientists led by Alan Strong of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service analyzed sea surface temperature data from the agency’s polar-orbitingsatellites from 1984 through 1996.
The oceans store an enormous amount of heat energy, and they act to buffer any rapid climate change,” said Kearns. “If there is any significant change in the amount of heat stored by the oceans, this would effect global temperatures.”
Data also showed a warming in the equatorial Pacific, cooling in thecentral North Pacific and general cooling the Southern Hemisphere.
“The oceans are not cooling or warming uniformly; there appears to be a great deal of geographic variability,” said Kearns. “When people usually speak of global warming, they think of the entire ocean warming up or cooling down. We don’t have the accuracy yet to determine the magnitudeof the average global trend, but we at least are trying to point out the signs of these trends.”
JM: “Why did I question Scripps so much?”
You’re also questioning NOAA, and all the other scientists world wide who have been, and still are taking CO2 measurements in parallel.
From the highly acclaimed nonbias website realclimte (cough)”In June 2002 CMDL received revised numbers from Scripps for the four calibrations by them of our fifteen WMO Primaries that they had carried out from 1991 to 1999. Their revised scale was called X99A.”
So, they re-calibrated their data for what reason?
Not only were Scripps AKA Moana Loa the only collector of data, they were the only calibrator of the equipment.
If Scripps was wrong, then there was no independent check of thecalibration, because they did it themselves, and all the other later CO2 measurers presumably had their equipment calibrated from Scripps.
The following is the noaa approved source for gas cylinder calibration:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/refgases/stdgases.htmlScripps calibrated their own in violation of their Contract with NSA and NOAA?
Remember they are claiming to show accurately changes of 1.5ppmv over a year.
If they have made a mistake, or there is drift in the primarycalibration, then all the figures produce by this method may be wrong.
Science should be about independent testing and replication, but if allthe testers are using the same equipment, using the same calibration of the primary, then there is in fact no independent verification of the method or the calibration.
note: Which goes to my background training of doing calibration first by prescribed methods or by a certified calibration laboratory. Not after the data is collected.
more reading:http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:y7IPCAGmt7sJ:www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/sep05/pdf/83gong.pdf+mauna+loa+data+compromised+by+calibration&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
JM: “Like Dr. Mann, who created the hockey stick chart on temperature
which was later discounted by the National Academy of Sciences.”
More “deniers” BS…?? NAS did NOT “discount” Dr. Mann’s, et al “hockey
stick”.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
The Research Council committee found the Mann team’s conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidencethat the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies — infewer locations — provide temperatures for periods before then.
Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions fordecades and individual years, and because not all proxies recordtemperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team’s conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski? This person, who seems to think that global CO2 levels could change in one year by the same amount of carbon in ALL
plants in the ENTIRE world?http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3
I read this article by William Connelly. William Connelly is amathemetician not a Global Warming Specialist. He basically re-cooked Jaworoski chart to fit his purposes.
Who is RealClimate.org?
A WHOIS search done on who owns the website for realclimate.orgnote: anyone can search whois to find out who is who.Name: Betsy EnsleyOrganization: Environmental Media ServicesAddress 1: 1320 18th St, NWAddress 2: 5th FloorCity: WashingtonState: DCZip: 20036Country: USPhone: +1.2024636670Email: betsy@ems.org
Betsy Ensley started realclimate and also has other sites like
bushgreenwatch.org & womenagainstbush.org. She appears to be some sort of paid political activist for all things green and all things anti-bush… hmmmm who would pay her for those types of activities?
Also:
womenagainstbush press kit:
“Betsy A. Ensley, vice president for website and outreach development, creates content for the website and coordinates outreach campaigns for WAB members. Betsy currently works for a non-profit media organizationdedicated to expanding coverage of environmental topics.”
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HV3hApimkkEJ:www.womenagainstbush.o
rg/presskit.pdf+who+is+betsy+ensley&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=fire
fox-a
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/journalists_only.phpContact information for experts on today’s Greenwatch issue is available
by contacting Betsy Ensley.
Patterson? You cited his claim that today’s CO2 levels were irrelevant, because CO2 levels were much higher when it was much colder 450 MILLION years ago.
My link showed the “much colder” occured 10 MILLION years earlier, when CO2 levels were much LOWER. Patterson’s claim = null + void.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/never_mind_that.html#comment-27480023
This is the local link where I discussed the Salztman link Cosmos provided.
I supplied the answers to the questions you posed Cosmos and you can kick them, burn them, trash them , trash me or whatever you wish to do.
I felt you deserved an answer to the question you posed.
JM,
“Sun’s output varied by 0.1% during the past 11-year solar activity cycle, producing a climate forcing of 0.24 W/m2.
Climate forcing by increasing greenhouse gases from 1980 to 1986 was about 0.25 W/m2.”
The Industrial Revolution started in the 1750’s, NOT “1980″. Study the chart I posted 3 days ago.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpgJanuary 08, 2007 at 04:28 PM—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.”
Warming at “10 times the global rate”? And that’s in year 2000. The “Great Conveyor Belt” will eventually mix N. and S. oceans.
And why, after hmmm and I had pointed out air temperatures were warming, do you NOW switch to SST’s? That’s odd, and very imprecise.—JM: “Not only were Scripps AKA Moana Loa the only collector of data, they were the only calibrator of the equipment.
If Scripps was wrong, then there was no independent check of thecalibration,…”
By what amount did the data change? Is it significant compared to the ~ 100 ppm (and still climbing) increase of CO2?
Don’t see any glitch on this graph, plus Mauna Loa matches (except for seasonal variations) 3 other CO2 sites.http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html
You don’t consider all these sites (and more) an “independent check”?Barrow, American Samoa, South Pole, Alert, Cape Kumukahi, Christmas Island, Baring Head, Kermadec Island, and La Jolla Pier.http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htmAgain, posted 3 days ago, January 08, 2007 at 04:28 PM—Hockey stick: “over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies — infewer locations — provide temperatures for periods before then.”
“Plausible” = seemingly true, trustworthy, honest, i.e. not “discounted”. “Less confidence” is only admitting that the data is not as abundant. Typical scientific ‘weasal’ words.—William Connelly isn’t the topic, Jaworoski is. The chart was not “re-cooked” — the data varied wildly, and you CANNOT explain how average global CO2 can change that fast.
Why are you supporting Jaworoski, who published in a Lyndon LaRouche’s magazine?—Who cares who pays for RealClimate’s site. Does that prove that the actively working climate scientists there are unqualified?
Do a WHOIS of ‘Scientific American’ — they awarded RC in 2005.—Patterson’s claim of high CO2 during cold times has been proven wrong. Get over it.
Just providing answers to your questions young man. No need to be irreverant or rude.
Pardon me for interrupting, but when someone uses another’s links to show how ignorant the original poster is (you following, StliiJM?), one must assume sites supporting the accuser’s points of view must be either equally biased, purport some modicum of truth or just another in the long-line of tin-hat road-kill.
So, without further ado, I give you a list of over 100 web sites calling for the complete oblivion of John Kerry:
http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.htmlYa, I know; there’s only one, but I assure you, go there and be amazed.
Point made!
Actually, I used statements supplied by Cosmos from some of the URLs he referenced, includiong Realscience.org
It’s hard to convince someone who refuses to be convinced.
I have been pointing out to him that we each have our own opinions and use the same or different web sites and my case some of my old college books to make our points.
And I will say it again, these are merely discussion page opinions.
I will quote Moynihan again.
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.” Senator Patrick Moynihan, Democrat.
Which means to me, an invigorating discussion where there are opinions far apart from each other can be discussed. And so-called facts from differing sources cannot be be construed as facts when in fact they are opinions of scientists and not established facts. They are based on their own theories.
I bring my sides opinions/theories to the discussion and Cosmos can bring his.
He seems to want to force his opinion down my throat and insults my degrees and training, even though he doesn’t offer any of his degrees or training.
I was even insulted by hmmm. saying my degrees are more or less worthless and he is somehow superior because he has taken 1 class (undergraduate level) on paleoclimatology. Which I imagine was taught by a IPCC loyal follower.
“saying my degrees are more or less worthless and he is somehow superior because he has taken 1 class (undergraduate level) on paleoclimatology. Which I imagine was taught by a IPCC loyal follower.”
FALSE! Graduate level – capstone class in WSU Geology department. I have no clue as to the professor’s politics; I know he has published a lot in paleo. And I never said your undergrad degrees were worthless; simply notin mine as requested by you.
Which was exactly my point. One cannot refute the fact there is no positive proof man is causing global warming. There is also no proof he is NOT influencing global warming. All that for the simple reason this has never happened on this planet before, ergo, we have NO firm data to extrapolate.
What we do have is conjecture based on the past. We can look back at atmospheric levels by analysis of fossils, etc. Based on those findings, we have determined that:1: Man is causing global warming.2: Man is not causing global warming.3: Man is partially responsible for global warming.4: As an existentialist, I believe there is no man.
So argue all you want, ,but the bottom line is: regardless what is causing global warming, man needs to do his part and reduce greenhouse gasses as much as possible. Simple!
JM/StillJM,
Actually, I do feel fairly “young”, considering I’m almost 55 years-old. Exercise and a good diet help.
JM: “From the highly acclaimed nonbias website realclimte (cough)”In June 2002 CMDL received revised numbers from Scripps …”
And EXACTLY how much did those “revised numbers” shift the data?
Also, Scripps (or someone) realized their calibration was off, and corrected it. Where’s the problem?
I didn’t insult your degrees — you insult them yourself, siding with that stupid YouTube guy, and Jaworoski, who published in Lyndon LaRouche’s magazine.
I only pointed out that currently active scientists with specialized degrees in their field are usually the most qualified in that field. That’s common sense.
By the way, that stupid YouTube guy says in the video, I’m am not a Global Warming Scientist.”
He also says, “But I will use my scientific background…”Cosmos writes,
“I only pointed out that currently active scientists with specialized degrees in their field are usually the most qualified in that field. That’s common sense.”
You mean common sense like acknowleding Dr. Patterson, a PaleoClimatologist with 118 peer reviewed papers who DOES NOT work for any oil companies. He even states in a report, his research lab has trouble getting funded.
And the rise in CO2 at the start of any Ice Age occurs frequently according to many scientist. The start of an Ice Age, doesn’t necessarily the earth is covered now. It could be like it is now, warming trends, increased CO2 levels for several hundreds/thousands years, after some time cooling starts, thenthe Ice Age gets really cold as the climate changes.
Calibration is done before hand and not after the fact.
It’s like saying, Babe Ruth’s home run record and statistic was done in a shorter season than is today.We are going to re-calibrate the statistics we have to match current standards.
And I never heard of Jaworoski being published in a LaRouche magazine before you brought it up. A Copy of the paper was released independently to a website I visited in a PDF format. Evidently it was a copy of a copy, as it was kind of smudgy. There were no magazine fold marks in it. It appeared to be from flat page reports. It was 5 mb is size with references.
Since you are an intelligent man Cosmos, I will leave you your due.
hmmm,
“You give us a rambling youtube rant with decades old debunked garbage. You give us a degree in IH; I give a PhD Chem, BS Geology, MS Env Science”
And what degree does Cosmos give?None!
Debunked garbage like Mann’s Hockey Stick Chart? It is what Al Gore showed to a Nation. Blame Al Gore for using old data. That’s the basis of the initial discussion. Al Gore jumping up and down crying “Global Warming is caused by man alone.”
Then the false fact about how Global Warming is killing off Polar Bears in Hudson Bay Canada. I even posted the direct link to the Scientist that researches that region and Polar Bears has told the world repeatedly that the Polar Bears’ reduction in population is totally false. Twelve of the thirthen groups are growing.
I then posted 2006 data on what the National Academy of Science had to say about it. Why? Because IPCC keeps referring to it as the basis of their theory.
I even posted the Heidelberg Conference data where 70 Nobel Prize winning Scientist among many thousands disputed most of, but not all of IPCC investigations and subsequent report. In short, they said that IPCC has a tendency to use single reports for news media results and like its an approved fact when it hasn’t even been brought forth to an unbiased committee for review.
It must be true if JM says it is….
At least I don’t make comments like “putting a 9mm in your mouth before you pull the trigger.”
You WSClark have certifiably become an official psychopath.
Okay, JM, use a .45 if you choose, they all work the same.
And no I did not get the Heidelberg Conference from Wikipedia, which under the guise of the Heidelberg Appeal totally written by Sheldon Rampton of the Center for Media & Democracy is so far out liberal that even normal liberals don’t lay claim to him.
JM,
[stupid YouTube guy] also says, “But I will use my scientific background…”
And what ARE the credentials of his “scientific background”?–Dr. Patterson… again?
‘STUDY BOLSTERS GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY, SOLVES ICE AGE MYSTERY’http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm“Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate.”
Have you checked Dr. Saltzman’s credentials, and experience?http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/faculty_bios.php?id=44
JM: “And the rise in CO2 at the start of any Ice Age occurs frequently according to many scientist.” blah blah blah…
You haven’t heard about volcanoes later causing a rapid “rise in CO2″?–JM: “Calibration is done before hand and not after the fact.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221“[Response: ... that is 0.16 ppmv, compared to an observed change since 1957 of over 60 ppmv. So less than 0.3% error...Hmm. - gavin]”
0.16 ppmv? Is that correct?If so, no wonder you did NOT want to post what Scripps “sloppy” work was. Kinda hard to see 0.16 here, http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html–JM: “And I never heard of Jaworoski being published in a LaRouche magazine before you brought it up.”
You would’ve, if you’d read http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3 I’ve posted MULTIPLE times.
You’re rabid about Scripp’s TINY 0.16 ppmv error, but you’re okay with what Jaworowski (and Beck) wanted to do to the global CO2 average? Heh, whatever…