It’s only $97,500, and already indexed for inflation.

I make that, but I am NOT RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Three kids, a dog, a cat, two car garage, three cars, one braces, two in college (KU ROCK CHALK).

I am far, far from rich. And I PAY ENOUGH!!!

“You seem to think that man made co2 drives everything in climate.”

Again (SIGH) you prove you do NOT read what I post: “Land and oceans are warming as projected by the combined natural and human-caused forcings.”

See the “natural” there? Those are the blue-shaded bands on the graphs on page 11 of http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

And my “human-added GHG’s” does NOT = only “man made co2″.

Republican: “Which is larger in area on the globe Cosmos, land or water?”

Water, and it’s WARMING, just like land, but slower. Oceans are gaining a huge heat content.

Does Republican have a explanation for the oceans and land warming? NOPE, because he denies the science that supports AGW.

So instead, he just babbles on about ocean oscillations, previous ice ages, Mammoths, volcanoes… or whatever he can think of.

I think there is more to the Oscillations than meets the initial examinations or measurements.

Let us know what you find out about the matter.

I’m sure it’s more than steam escaping out of the bath house. :D

Since you’re the frikking google king, I expect you to find where you admitted it and repost it now.

Also, for those of you who still labor under the misapprehension that our guys are over in Iraq to help the common Iraqis, maybe this visual proof of contractors shooting the hell out of passing cars with machine guns will dissuade you of that ridiculous myth.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/fallujah/contract/

Maybe GMC should bring up the reason why you changed your name.

I noticed how you can’t let things go, you keep repeating the smallest of errors that people do. And btw I already admitted to the NOVA error.

Must be in your nature to be mean eh Capn?

You provide nothing to the conversation. This is a BLOG, not your personal opinion station.

Get over it.

Peat bogs in Russia, El Nino, salinity, Larson B ice shelves, northern and southern oscillations. . . all this from a guy who can’t figure out the difference between “it’s” (a contraction) and “its” (a possessive pronoun).

The same guy who gets NOVA (as in a star blowing up) confused with ANOVA (a statistical analysis of variance of means) . . . and then claims that the old stats books called it NOVA.

Republican thinks the BS degree he earned in college means he majored in Bull Sh*t.

I don’t have all the answers about Global Warming. But the one thing I’m sure about is that Republican doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about . . .

You seem to think that man made co2 drives everything in climate.

Which is larger in area on the globe Cosmos, land or water?

So you’re saying the Northern and Southern Oscillations are caused by man. How come these existed before men did if what you say is true?

Why are you ignoring the facts of how the last ice age ended and began?

I posted: “the northern latitudes are warming the fastest.”

You asked: “but this effect is caused by what?”

I gave the correct answer: “Land warms faster than the oceans, and the large majority of land is in the Northern hemisphere.”

Land and oceans are warming as projected by the combined natural and human-caused forcings.

Just because you refuse to believe that human-added GHG’s are causing GW does NOT mean that you’re correct.

Look at a globe if you don’t want to click my link.

What does that have to do with what I was talking about?

Without your hyperlinks you can’t discuss it, can you Cosmos? :)

Land warms faster than the oceans, and the large majority of land is in the Northern hemisphere.

Look at the global maps at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Also, the warmest anomalies occur during the cold seasons.

What drives the North Atlantic Oscillation? Is it perhaps “pushed” by another effect? How about the El Niño–Southern Oscillation?

El Niño is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for weather around the globe. This condition results in redistribution of rains with flooding and droughts.

How does Global Warming affect El Ninjo? Some scientist say surface sea temperatures. But really, this is only part of the process.

Perhaps Cosmos, you would like to explain the warming period when Mammoths roamed the earth. How did warming and thawing of permafrosts occur way back then?

Was it from some emission? Where did the emissions come from? Volcanoes and thermal anomalies above ground and below sea level?

Are these thermal anomalies static Cosmos? Have they never shifted?

There is no one explanation on how El Nino and La Ninja works. There are theories, but nothing there that follows conclusively.

And you want to hang your hat on the permafrost in Russia exactly by what means? What caused that heat rise? El nino which is inherently larger in it’s climate change impact that all of the history of man combined.

Climate change, you bet Cosmos. I suspect there are causes that have been with us all along that have yet to be explained.

I wonder if snow continues in latter spring months like it has recently, what will be the Albedo effect on that region? Global Warming Cosmos?

:)

The permafrost is thawing, because the northern latitudes are warming the fastest.

Thawing permafrost could release significant amounts of CO2 and CH4 — a postive feedback for AGW.

A quick response before I press on to other matters…

Some of the IPCC point to the melting permafrost as evidence of man-made Global Warming. They made this assumption without establishing baselines of what permafrost layers are actually supposed to be.

The Russian peat stores are so enormous that they account for one-third of all the carbon reserves in the world and a huge amount of contributory methane releases.

Do you know what happens when peat stores of permafrost areas expand? It creates an acidic environment where live plants affected by the expansion do not decay. In effect, it becomes one enormous carbon sink. If you wait around long enough Cosmos, you find find some coal formations in these areas. Got a few million years to spare?

I’m somewhat suspicious of the super-interglacial theory. One reason is that during the last interglacial period the temperatures were higher than they are now. As the GW Warmers claim there is a proportionality that now exist whereas the cycle exchanges to the various spheres (atmos, tropos, etc.) are seen to be as accelerating.

This in of itself is not helpful as we cannot compare rates of accelerated sphere recycling of oceanic heat loss or gain with any degree of accuracy. Oh yes, we are more accurate today with measurements, but we don’t have the luxury to measure the past in the same way.

Accelerated trends is not a corollary I would want to hang my hat on.

I think there lies confusion with the Conveyor Belt feedback mechanism. This feedback will only reduce the heat flux into Arctic. Which will lead to restoration of the ice cover. Which will lead to increase of the salinity. Which could restore the thermohaline circulation and complete the feedback loop.

For one the salinity of oceans in the feedback loop are very small in their variability. This accounts for the polar region ice to be pretty much self contained in the feedback loop. There are for sure some influences of Gulf stream warming, but it is diluted in its effects by the time it reaches the Arctic regions.

With all of that mumbo-jumbo just stated, it is wise to plan for the impacts of Climate Change.

My thoughts on the matter is that the U.N. IPCC method is not the only method to do so. That is, Carbon Taxes without representation.

Extracting pounds of flesh (revenue) without alternative methods is asking for innovation to be stifled. We cannot simply hold our wet fingers up in the air and state that the wind has changed direction and we must strengthen the affected wall of our tent. We must accurately and carefully plan for a structure that will not be affected by the direction of wind.

Oops, be back later and my apologies for the wind analogy on the tent, I had chili last night, it affects my synapses. :)

And he AVOIDS answering the simple, obvious questions:1) WHY wouldn’t human-added GHG’s cause GW?2) WHAT has caused the recent observed warming, if it’s NOT human-added GHG’s?

Republican doesn’t use hyperlinks because he doesn’t want you the know the date, context, etc.

His IPCC quote, “atmosphere is the most unstable” is from the old 2001 report, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/040.htm

The new 2007 SPM says:”Since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.”

You are, of course, correct if we had a significant nuclear exchange. We would have MUCH bigger problems – cooling first then warming as the particulate clears from the atmosphere. Not to mention radiation, famine, etc. The four horsemen would rule the earth.

Notice how Cosmos answers one of my questions with questions.

I’m beginning to believe Cosmos has zero scientific background and is winging it.

By the way Cosmos, if humans had a nuclear war, what humans that were left would be struggling to survive and most of those surviving would be more worried about the effects of fallout and contaminated water and food sources than climate change.

“Explain to me how climate change occurred before there were any humans.”

Are you claiming that humans are too INSIGNIFICANT to impact climate? Do you believe that if humans had a major nuclear war, the dust would NOT cool Earth’s climate?

Do you believe that humans causing an ~ 40% increase in CO2, ~ 150% increase in methane, plus human-made CFC’s, SF’s, etc = ZERO effect on Earth’s climate???

You are UNABLE to explain how human-added GHG’s would NOT cause the results graphed on page 11 of http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Answer me this:(in your own words, not hyperlinks)”

This is not a serious request and I suspect you know this. There is no reason whatsoever when having a debate about the reality of phenomenea to request that someone not use hyperlinks to relevant information, except to put restrictions on the information that one’s opponent can use.

Stop wasting our time.

Answer me this:(in your own words, not hyperlinks)

What is the average delay (in years) of Climate Change Cycles between cooling or heating and CO2?

Explain how measuring temperature with vertical structure methods which rely heavily on latitudinal position can be used in climate cycle modeling programs when modelers disagree on methods and post-analysis methods.

Explain to me how climate change occurred before there were any humans.

Explain why the IPCC used in its report,”atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the system” and then try to program climate models that simulate rapid changing instability into static model interpretations.

Explain why fingerprint measurement is used by IPCC to portray climate change in an ever changing dynamic cycle of climate change.

That should get you started on some homework. :)

Perhaps the best thing about wind and solar energy is that the “fuel costs” NEVER, ever increase.

That’s unlike fossil-fuel and uranium costs, which have risen, and will continue to rise, due to supply-demand, and rises in transport costs.

And the cost of cutting energy demand with higher efficiency, our cheapest “fuel”, will decrease even more with new technologies, and more mass production.

“Do you know the Editorial Writer who wrote that WSJ article? Guess what? I’m not him. :)”

That’s irrelevant. Are YOU impotent to explain WHAT IS causing dramatic changes to our ONLY Earth? You’ve admitted “yes”, by posting “I’m not him”.

Now… please prove me wrong.

Explain how human-added GHG’s would NOT cause our Earth to warm, AND explain what IS causing our Earth to warm.

I’ll study them and give them the appropriate file space.