Extreme winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year — including snow in Baghdad and returning sea ice in the Arctic — have prompted a predictable “told-you-so†response from climate skeptics: “See? The Earth is actually cooling.â€
Not so fast, say many scientists. Climate isn’t short-term weather — it’s the long view. “The current downturn is not very unusual,†said Carl Mears, a climate scientist who tracks satellite temperature data. He points out that, despite similar cold spots in 1988, 1991-92 and 1998, the long-term trend continued to be higher global temperatures.
“Climate skeptics typically take a few small pieces of the puzzle to debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science community sees by looking at all the pieces,†said another climate scientist, Ignatius G. Rigor of the University of Washington.
In short, don’t be misled by the global-cooling hype.
237 Comments
Here we go with the Newspeak. Can we just agree with the fact that there is “climate change”? And we have little to do with that.
The keynote dinner speaker at the Heartland Institute convention in New York proclaimed that global warming is indeed occurring. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist, who is paid by the Cato Institute, predicted a global rise of 3 degrees in 90 years.
He just does not think reducing greenhouse gases will make any difference.
Sooooo… even the global warming denier’s top scientist agrees that that the earth’s temperature is rising.
In a much shorter view, I just wish this damn winter would get over with..am so tired of cold, snow, and ice!!!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/28/cold_water_on_global_warming
Soo. . .
How long will the current cooling trend have to last before we all realize that GW was the greatest scientific hoax ever?
“How long will the current cooling trend have to last before we all realize that GW was the greatest scientific hoax ever?”
Many, many years. Or at least, as long as someone is making money off of GW.
Hey Hank! How’s that shoulder doing? Hope everything is good and you are on the mend. Be praying for your healing. :)
Gotta be tough to be one of the ever dwindling, gasoline swilling, reality ignoring, deniers.
They have no candidate for President.
“How long will the current cooling trend have to last before we all realize that GW was the greatest scientific hoax ever?”
Long enough for the Arctic ice to recover to levels of a couple dcades ago:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
Also note the January 2008 Anomalies map and the fact that while there are large areas of blue (cooler) there is still more red (warmer). Interesting thing is how much red there is in the Arctic.
Within the downward trend in Arctic ice there are variations; however each peak is lower than the last peak and each throgh is lower than the last trough.
Hank – I’ll go with a professional meterological site before a strictly right-wing political site.
Randy
Look at the sun. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.
But it is perfectly fine to be misled by the global warming scare.
Question ANY other possibilities. But do NOT question anything related to GW.
Baaah-Baaaaaah! Sheep.
Isn’t global warming inevitable, dosen’t the earth slowly draw closer to the sun with each revolution? Like in so many millions of years won’t the sun swallow up the earth?
I wonder howmuch Limbaugh pays these GW deniers?? They all sound like El-Rushbo clones!!
And then watch, as they say, “Oh I never listen to talk radio, or Limbaugh” Happens every time, and yet they mimick almost word for word whast LImbaugh says almost every day about GW!! LOL What a farce!!
Whast Sci Fi fantasy you been reading Buck??
I do think however we affect the climate, but a super volcano can do much worse than we do. But who knows, we might help a super volcano to erupt by screwing with things too much.
o.k. chas, I looked it up, the sun will swallow the earth in 7.6 billion years, not millions like I said.
Man is not the all-powerful influence in the universe and on this Earth some GW hysterics credit him with.
The Earth will take care of itself, in its own time and way, and will do so without asking man’s, especially the AGW proponents, permission.
Off topic but important none the less, please entertain signing.
Please consider signing KS Rep. Todd Tiahrt’s online petition expressing disappointment (outrage) that the contract for the military refueling tanker would be given to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and primarily built in France. There are so many reasons this is a terrible idea I won’t take your time to elaborate but our national pride, security and economy are all at stake.
This is easy….just click on the link, sign and send.
Link to petition: http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/tanker_petition.htm
“Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005,” said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.
According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of “solar” impact on changes in the Earth’s climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html
—————–
Will we soon be trying to figure out ways to warm the earth?
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The earth is warming and we must all submit our choices and freedoms to those who are “truly” concerned about the environment. Let the submission begin. (Anyone have a blanket I can borrow? It’s a bit chilly in here.)
Why don’t you evironmentalist stop just talking the walk. Buy a fuel efficient car NOW. Sell your gas guzzling pickup truck and SUV’s.
Start walking the talk.
Global warming, cooling and climate changes is beyond our control. It’s just like taxes that will come in an effort to change that we can’t control.
Is it possible that had some extreme right winger been the one to make a movie about GW that all the libs would be denying it? I don’t really know the answer to that, just a rhetorical question.
It is a shame that this scientific debate has become so partisan. Yes, the earth goes thru periodic periods of warming/cooling (historical evidence of different Ice Ages proves that without a doubt). Does man significantly contribute to the current trend? Lots of debate there…I just can’t help but think that the intensity of the debate would be less harsh if it were not such a politicized issue.
Point to consider:
Before Bush’s Iraq Adventure, I recall oil was $35 a barrel. Middle East sources of oil are sure to become more unstable, and they will someday be tapped dry.
Global warming accepted by the scientific community.
New technologies are on the cusp of providing cost-competitive cleaner energy sources.
Great technologies for energy conservation are on the market now.
America needs a new impetus for our future economic health, and a renewed sense of purpose.
An Apollo program-like new energy policy sounds like like our ticket to the future.
Which we should have had 20 to 30 years ago, david. Don’t forget who subtituted market forces for long term planning and good sense.
Hey Regular,
Shoulder is doing great! Only hurts when I breathe or hold my breath!
Really, I’m pretty lucky. The surgeon X-rayed me again yesterday and I won’t need to get it pinned. Just need to keep it immobilized for a while.
We own all the rehab machines and I’ve already started certain rehab I can stand. Should be two-handed-BLOGing before you know it!
Hank – didn’t realize you had a broken wing? Hope things come out OK!
“Before Bush’s Iraq Adventure, I recall oil was $35 a barrel.”
What does the Iraq “adventure” have to do with the price of oil?
I thought the price of oil was so high due to our refusal to go green and cut consumption?
Hank,
Don’t know if the link will post correctly, but this one is for you.
See if you can use this new product………
Helpful tips and tricks. :-)
Screen Cleaner Sale
https://emp.ucsd.edu/swf/screenclean.swf
“It is a shame that this scientific debate has become so partisan.”
Taz, not all partisan:
Republicans for Environmental Protection
http://www.rep.org/
AmWay – aren’t they on the endangered species list?
“It is a shame that this scientific debate has become so partisan.”
I see some people need a collective slap to the side of the head.
It was political from the BEGINNING!!!
It started from a POLITICAL idea and science was moulded to fit. It started from the heads of anticapitalists who hated “consumptionism”.
Look at the ideology of the people who started it and look at where the research dollars have flowed.
Wake up people.
Good one Ben. But they better experience a population explosion if they want to survive as a species.
Of course the tree huggars, greens, PETA, and environmentalists began as a political movement. That’s what democracy is all about.
It is important we have politicians concerned about the environment on both sides, or we will be stuck with one sided science. We need a balance when it comes to the needs of people. We need to hear from all sides and ensure common sense does not get thrown out the window whether it is saving a protected frog – or CO2 tax credits.
Debate is healthy when all are still willing to listen and more than one side can be presented.
What’s Al Gore going to do when he has to face the fact that global warming is hype and his carbon credit program is an utter sham?
I heard recently that NASA planned to launch sattelites that will help with the measurement issues surrounding global warming. This link is from the NASA site which raises questions about the accuracy of warming models:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Now, the question I have on the above, is this a Bush/mole planted bit of misinformation or is it accurate? I don’t think there has been any president who has waged such a war on science as the current one has. I look forward to the day when we can trust science info from our government again.
I can answer that Steven Davis.
cosmos will declare water vapor is a positive feed back and doesn’t have the influence that co2 has.
However, the assumption is ridiculous as scientist don’t have an inkling how water vapor and cloud physics affect the climate.
Hint: It’s the reason why sophisticated models for water vapor and clouds have not been incorporated into the Climate Computer Models.
Think of it this way. Heavy Water vapor would be analogous to rubbing a thick layer of vasoline on yourself before you went out on a 10 mile run. Of course, this would prevent your body from cooling because your skin couldn’t breathe because the lack of evaporative cooling on your skin.
Spend some time in a desert at night and notice the lack of clouds. It gets bitterly cold when there is no cloud cover/water vapor.
The alarmists claiming that water vapor is unimportant is ludicrous and an indication of their willingness to rush a science into the mainstream without including all the facts.
BTW that Science.NASA Website is considered the red-headed stepchild of the Alarmist Scientists, because they counter the GW scare with common sense science. :)
Actually Heckler it started over a century ago as we tried to understand all of the factors that make up climate. Milankovitch moved this forward as he found the relationships of recent (a few million years) past climate with regular orbital fluctuations (Milankovitch cycles). Interestingly he did a lot of this while he was a POW in Germany during WW 1 (he was a Serb).
More recently we have been able to put together the various forcers including CO2/heat; Ice/albedo and others. Water vapor is interesting – it is a positive feedback; however as clouds it can be either positive or negative dependign on altitude and other factors.
Now, with what we have learned about the past and the present we can understand what is happening as we move OUTSIDE the bounds of the cycles of the past. This is where things get particularly interesting. Earth has had two meta-stable climate regimes: glacial and inter-glacial. We are now leaving that pair and entering what is called a super-interglacial. For axample – the CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 and 270 ppm for millions of years – they are now over 370 ppm. In other words; CO2 is now as much greater than an inter-glacial as an inter-glacial is higher than a glacial. And, while the initial temperature move preceeded CO2 in past climate cycles (and then the feedback loop took over) today it is CO2 that is preceeding temperature.
Yeah Ben, all those satellites and gas measuring devices they had thousands of years made those accurate measurements. :D
Yeah, those proxy measurements dug out of ice cores – where are the ice cores in deserts? :)
We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and begin to fight against the government. Repubs and Dems are not fighting against each other, they are fighting against the American people.
We have become so accustomed to choosing a political party without realizing what that is doing to our country.
Until a Majority of Americans stand up, they will never change their ways.
Regular,
One of the reasons I was suspicious of the info from that NASA site was how closely it mirrored your comments here. That and the widely publicized cases of Bush appointees altering scientific information also made me wonder about these data.
My sense is that common sense is not real common among people with an agenda such as your own. An agenda that is clearly political and not scientific. If by some mistake you are making truthful comments, I apologize for my doubts.
Well Steven Davis, thanks for calling me a liar in advance then qualifying it with a future apology.
I’ve probably done more environmentally protective in past jobs and in my life than cosmos will have or could have done in 10 life times.
But whatever pulls your pickle…
Randy S.,
The hype has always been “man-made global warming”. Since man hasn’t changed any of the so-called damaging practices we are doing recently then how can the Earth take even a dip in temperature? The colder numbers indicate that the influence of man on the climate is less than what the hysterics have claimed.
Also don’t be misled by Global Warming hype. Scientists are getting paid to say exactly what they are saying.
That said, we all need to drive smaller cars and recycle. If you only have 2 kids, you don’t need a Suburban. Period. If you don’t work construction or haul things all the time, you don’t need a full size truck. Period.
“We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and begin to fight against the government.Repubs and Dems are not fighting against each other..”
Jason, good post. The politicians NEED us to be on two different and opposing teams. It could be the Chiefs and Bronco’s, but it’s really the RED and BLUE teams.
As long as each team is controlled by fanatics who no longer reason nor question their teams actions – we are doomed.
Regular – the ice core measurements give us a good picture of the composition of the atmosphere. That atmosphere tends to mefairly well mixed. Ocean sediments also give pretty good info.
Blah – when do I get my chack?
You always have to love the irony…
A couple of years ago when cities were posting record highs and even now when that still happens it is proof of Global Warming!
When it is getting colder and cooler, that is not proof against Global Warming though.
LOL
Typical.
Everything, anything, all things, are proof of Global Warming to the fanatics who worship at the altar of belief in man made Global Warming.
I see that JimmyMac is again lying about what I’ve posted about water vapor, and about climate models.
He does not have the facts and science to support his false opinions, so he lies.
‘Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
“Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmosphere’s total moisture content.”
7.2.1.1 Water vapour feedback
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm
Ice is melting! Global Warming!
Ummm, whats that you say? Ice is getting larger in other areas?
Doesn’t prove anything.
Nathan posted March 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“When it is getting colder and cooler, that is not proof against Global Warming though.
LOL”
It seems that Nathan is unable to understand very simple concepts. I’ll type slowly.
Global warming is a slow, long-term trend. ENSO and other factors cause short-term fluctuations.
El Nino causes warming. La Nina causes cooling.
January 2007 was an El Nino (warmer) month, January 2008 was a La Nina (cooler) month.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/ENSO_DD_archive.shtml
AGW deniers are “cherry-picking”, and comparing an warm El Nino January (’07) to a cold La Nina January (’08).
And ignoring the long-term trend.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
“Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. “
“You seem to hate “libs”. So what is your opinion of Ronald Reagan, who rolled back CAFE standards in 1985?”
Cosmos where do you get that?? I don’t hate anyone.
If you READ my comments: I blasted BOTH parties on CAFE and their support for the big three despite the impact on the environment.
I am equal opportunity blaster. Reagan’s CAFE treatment, and big business in general sucked.
As did his amnesty program.
Read a few of my posts unrelated to the environment sometime and you will see that. Republicans are all screwed up. The party is about lost. And I’m too conservative to agree with the libs on most (not all) issues.
You are correct though. I’m passionate which comes across as “angry” on the fuel economy issue.
I’m living energywise in my home and with my car.
My reasons are directly related to my pocketbook. This just happens to coincide with the environmentalist views, so it is mutually beneficial.
If everyone did the same, we would see an abundance of gas and less need for coal NOW.
I think everyone is familiar with the potential of alternatives as it is pounded at us via the media and from people like yourself. I never said hybrid was the ultimate solution. They ARE available NOW and are the only choice I see at the dealership NOW. They are a good transitional alternative until you scientists get with the business people and get something better on the car lots.
It is frustrating to hear all the dreamers preach, when we can all: help ourselves ($), help the country, and help the environment NOW.
American automakers are being dragged kicking and screaming into the hybrid market. They don’t want to, but like a deer in the headlights – they realize the hybrids are selling and their cars are not. Because we support the employees and don’t want the big three to fold: we kiss their as-s and grant liberal CAFE standards instead of bumping it up a notch.
Stop sending money overseas, whiners: buy a fuel efficient car TODAY!
(sorry I didn’t respond sooner to you yesterday.)
Ben,
Fairly well mixed could mean fairly well diluted as well.
You do know that snow that creates those proxy ice samples only falls regionally? :)
That’s why I put in the desert reference.
One does realize that there have been deserts and the same deserts as long as man has been on this planet.
Hannibal crossing the mountains had to deal with snow, the same type of weather and climate conditions that still exists today.
The problem with ice core samples is that they reflect a time when colder climate prevailed to cause the samples to be formed (i.e. less co2 in the atmosphere) This is basic precipitation science – understanding that detection of gases is only reflective of what the current climate is giving up and what the prevailing winds are giving.
The other problem is that regional atmospheric gases caught up in precipitation residue (ice core) maintains priority over atmospheric drift of gases from the other side of the world.
Yet another problem is the storage device itself, frozen water. I don’t know about you, but water is the last method I would use to preserve co2 for a long period of time to maintain precision the sample for precision testing. Cold water absorbs co2 rapidly and water generally absorbs co2. Relying on trapped bubbles in between ice crystals is dubious at best. CO2 has much higher solubility than oxygen, thusly more susceptible to error when stored in permeable state.
Of course the obvious, the was no direct observational measurement of co2 prior to modern times.
Sign, Regular, the non-scientist, is lecturing Ben, the holder of a doctorate, on science.
War is peace, slavery is freedom, yada, yada…..
American Way posted March 5, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“Cosmos where do you get that?? I don’t hate anyone.”
Your post,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/open-thread-34/#comment-307096
JimmyMac does more arm flailing, since he has no science to support the bogus claims from E. G. Beck.
‘More Nonsense about CO2′
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
‘Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories’
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3
“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.”
Cosmos sarcasm toward another poster who got his feelings ruffled by an earlier post. I didn’t say I hate anyone.
Clark,
Part of my career was spent in Research where it was my job to point out errors to Scientists, PhDs, MD’s and others where they had gone wrong in their predictions while performing experiments.
Predictive science will never trump observational science. That’s a basic fact and will never change.
ODD Story: One scientist (physiology type) was getting odd blood results (fractured red blood cells (RBC’s) and thought the conditions of the experiment was proving something that it wasn’t.
The reason the RBC’s were being fractured was basic engineering science and the use of passing structures through flow. That is, the scientist was using too small of a gauge needle when drawing blood, thus fracturing the RBC’s. Additionally, he was injecting the blood into EDTA tubes and a rather high rate of velocity which caused additional damage.
The results, an experiment that cost tens of thousands of dollars was squandered because of poor method and even worse technique.
cosmos attacking me as usual. Too bad he can’t debate science, because cosmos is not a scientist. :)
Time will tell, but as a layman, I find the evidence of solar cycles’ relationship to the warming and cooling of the earth to be compelling. Now, scientist in that field tell us we are seeing the waning of the solar activity cycle, and that we may expect to see overall cooling. Certainly sun activity is a simpler explanation as compared to the complex greenhouse gas models that we are told don’t consider this factor or that factor. Not that global cooling would be a good thing at all. In fact, it would probably be much worse than warming.
Moderation is always the best course in the face of uncertainty.
“Predictive science will never trump observational science. That’s a basic fact and will never change.”
OBVIOUSLY. That is not even a debatable point – the point is that we NEED to be able to predict at this point, since the failure to predict correctly could result in serious and/or irreversible damage to the planet.
Let me rephrase that slightly – the planet will survive just fine – humans may not.
I will take the word of Dr. Ben Huie over that of the GW-deniers every time.
The argument for me at least, is not whether climate change is occurring, it’s the causal relationship.
In my view,to blame climate change on a single parameter (co2) is absolutely foolish.
Climate is much more complex than a single gas.
My earlier post on what we should be doing and where we should spend our money (R&D, energy savings, new energy sources) is on a multitude of one hundred more important than daggering a predictive science that “may” has some sort of accuracy.
I have no argument that there is climate change, the cause in my mind is irrelevant if we don’t address the problems we can address immediately.
One gas Climate science is almost laughable.
Cosmos, As the target of the sarcasm, I felt no hate towards me.
Cosmos, As the target of the sarcasm from AM Way, I felt no hate towards me
“Too bad he can’t debate science, because cosmos is not a scientist.”
Neither are you, McCreepy.
Dear Hank Price,
Re your post with the column by Thomas Sowell,
‘National Review’s Breathless (but unsurprising) International Climate Conference Booster’
http://www.desmogblog.com/national-reviews-breathless-but-unsurprising-international-climate-conference-booster
That all you got Clark, come in a thread to attack me?
You don’t have anything else do you Clark?
Can you contribute something to the thread that shows your prowess or lack thereof on the debate?
(chortles)
ROTF ANTI. LMAO!
The other day there were some posters here who were defending child abuse (sex with young girls). I wonder if any of them got caught in the worldwide sting:
Extensive global porn ring allegedly promoted ‘horrific exploitation of children’
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/517247.html
“Can you contribute something to the thread that shows your prowess or lack thereof on the debate?”
Unlike you, I don’t PRETEND to be an expert on science or global warming.
But it is interesting that you daily attack Cosmos, yet you whine, like a Jr. High School girl that didn’t get asked to the dance, whenever anyone remotely comes close to attacking you.
What happened to your new and improved “cleaner and friendlier” Regular?
That lasted for what, ten minutes?
Sorry posted last under wrong thread.
Thanks Reg for your contribution to this thread. I am very doubtful of the GW alarmists. When we passed Algore’s first 10 year prediction and were well into the second 10 year deadline I realized we had been duped. He made lots of money and got the public recognition he craved. In his wake he has left a muddle of scientists arguing among themselves over GW.
I think we will find the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Actually Clark,
Cosmos attacked me first.
Ben and I were having a cogent discussion before the rude and crude cosmos popped in along with his gang of blog terrorists, including yourself.
So you still have nothing eh Clark?
Come on Clark, put forth some knowledge on the topic of Climate Science.
Or you can carry on with your henchman activities and become known for your nothingness on any issue that requires thinking. :)
JummyMac posted March 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“In my view,to blame climate change on a single parameter (co2) is absolutely foolish.
Climate is much more complex than a single gas.”
Yes, JimmyMac, you do look very “foolish” making the false claim that it’s a “One gas Climate science”.
Climate science includes other GHG’s, solar, albedo, etc.
Climate science includes other GHG’s, solar, albedo, etc.
—————
That’s very true cosmos, but the GORACLE is not selling other GHG credits, Solar Credits or Albedo Credits in his ponzi scheme of which the GORACLE is becoming a multi-millionaire doing. :)
GORACLE is in it for the money cosmos, you just haven’t realized it yet.
“Or you can carry on with your henchman activities and become known for your nothingness on any issue that requires thinking”
Yada, yada, yada – you attack Cosmos EVERY SINGLE DAY and yet you are whining because I slapped YOU for it?
Dang, grow a spine, McCreepy.
JimmyMac started by posting a lie at 11:12 am about what I’d “declare”, and an ad hominem at 12:16 pm. I hadn’t even posted here yet.
My point Clark, you contribute zero to the thread.
zip – zilch – nada
But it’s expected because who you are.
(chortles)
And of course, since JimmyMac has no science or facts to support his (false) GW opinions, he does an ad hominem at Al Gore.
“But it’s expected because who you are.”
As usual, McCreepy, you prove to the world everyday that you are truly a hypocrite.
“cosmos will declare water vapor is a positive feed back and doesn’t have the influence that co2 has.
I’ve probably done more environmentally protective in past jobs and in my life than cosmos will have or could have done in 10 life times.”
There you go cosmos.
Point out the ad hominem in there and tell me what you haven’t stated in the past about feedbacks? :)
You can’t can you.
JimmyMac posted March 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
The alarmists claiming that water vapor is unimportant is ludicrous …”
Already answered,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-307404
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Carry on with your bad self cosmos.
You know that 380 parts per million of co2 affects climate in the most significant way all by itself.
For non-math folks that’s
380 parts per 1,000,000 parts
or another way of saying that is
Which will win?
A 380 pound man running at five 100 ton (1,000,000 pounds total) locomotives can affect the speed of the locomotives in a head on collision. :)
JimmyMac,
Compare the weight of a tiny amount of Ebola Virus to a human.
outlander posted March 5, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Time will tell, but as a layman, I find the evidence of solar cycles’ relationship to the warming and cooling of the earth to be compelling.”
Yes, the solar “relationship” is “compelling”.
But the “relationship” ended in the mid 1970’s — temperatures increased, when solar did not.
You know how to kill a virus cosmos?
You rub your hands together. It’s called friction, commonly used in hand washing. :)
The sun stopped shining in 1970 cosmos?
Was this reported to the Weather people?
:)
How does the relationship with the sun end? Is this that new type of “science”?
“It’s called friction…”
I suspect cosmo is familiar with friction.
fap fap fap fap fap
And what is the carbon foot print of sock starch Cosmos?
cosmos, consult your web sites for the answer, I can wait.
#
ANTI
Posted March 5, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
And what is the carbon foot print of sock starch Cosmos?
————————
This is inversely proportional to the amount of toe jam and the amount of toenail fungus causing less toenail albedo. :D
OK, but of course, it didn’t end as a factor because it didn’t stop “lighting and heating the earth”. (copyright Jimmy Dean Company- all rights reserved) And there is no question that it is a variable, right? It’s my understanding that temperatures increased only slightly (less that they should have considering CO2 increase) the past decade, while the solar activity declined. Relationship re-established?
I just think it is compelling that sun activity decreased in conjunction with “The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.”
It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.”
We are approaching another period of predicted reduced solar activity. Why are you not concerned about possible global cooling, cosmos?
Envorinment Canada last fall, warned that the winter of 2007-08 hereabouts would be a very cold and snowy one. They were right, snow and cold records going back to the 1930′a were smashed. I wonder how the heck they knew, are there signals that they would gather and evaluate? I noted that the same group has nothing to say about global warming, it’s occurances or causes.
outlander posted March 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“It’s my understanding that temperatures increased only slightly (less that they should have considering CO2 increase) the past decade, while the solar activity declined. Relationship re-established?”
No.
1998 had extra warming added by a very strong El Nino.
2007 tied 1998, despite cooling from La Nina, and a solar minimum.
See upthread,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-307414
Regular – current day on-site measurements show that the CO2 concentration is the same ina desert as at the poles.
“while the solar activity declined”
Funny how the same scientist who published this nonsense thinks the greenhouse effect is fictional. I thought this solar activity causes global warming nonsense was bunked a long time ago. I suppose denialists still hold onto their religion. For the past 30 years solar output has been consistent yet global temperatures continued to rise. What has increased is the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That alone debunks this nonsense. No surprise it is often the people with the least scientific knowledge who claim to be the most skeptical.
http://www.edf.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf
If solar activity were behind global warming the upper atmosphere would be warming first. The exact opposite is true:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
”
Regular – current day on-site measurements show that the CO2 concentration is the same ina desert as at the poles.”
Oh, I somehow doubt that Ben. The soil in deserts can barely hold nitrogen, co2 doesn’t have a chance.
The absolute humidity of desert regions dictate what processes occur in that region. No clouds, no water vapor, continual columns of expanding gases.
Ever did a measurement of co2 in an office building? On a street level entry point to an office building, co2 can go up in the range from 1000 to 2000ppm.
Why do you think they put co2 scrubbers on submarines? If they didn’t the co2 would get so high, everyone would be over come.
The same with eco systems that have their own canopies, such as dense forests. Released co2 is so high it causes the recycling of bio-diverse plant life and sustains itself, through high humidity and other important gas releases. Not to mention enriched soil processes which generate nutrients as well as the release of co2 and nitrogen.
I find little credibility in a science stating that co2 doesn’t flux on a bi-daily basis. Science has known this for decades. CO2levels are /is much higher at night because the photosynthesis processes have stopped. The CO2 levels lower during the day when the sun comes out and the plants can pick up back on their ‘green’ cycle.
Do this experiment. Put a plant in a glass box that is exposed to the sun. Measure the co2. Now pass a opaque cardboard object over the glass box and take a reading in an hour. You will find a different co2 level because the plant has stopped its photosynthesis.
In the arctic,there is not much photosynthetic activity going on. In a desert there is some activity and the expanding gas rate is also higher. Elevated places have different co2 readings because of partial pressures.
You know what we call 350ppm of co2 in my field? We call it a trace gas because it is only 0.03 percent of ambient environmental gases. heh
(3/100th of a percent.)
I mean, we aren’t even including a discussion on how anaerobic and aerobic bacteria affect gas exchanges in soil. (The arctic has virtually non-existent gas from microbial sources.)
I don’t see how co2 levels can be the same globally when they can’t even be comparable from region to region.
Sorry Ben, ain’t buying it.
There is no such thing as a co2 equilibrium on planet earth, it’s a constant state of flux.
“For the past 30 years solar output has been consistent yet global temperatures continued to rise. What has increased is the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That alone debunks this nonsense.
————
Solar output is not consistent, it is cyclical. Even if it were, that is not evidence that a reduction in solar activity would not cause a reduction in global temperature. Effects of variations in solar activity on the climate have been well documented.
JimmyMac posted March 5, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“I find little credibility in a science stating that co2 doesn’t flux on a bi-daily basis.”
JimmyMac again does more stupid, wild arm flailing.
Graphs of CO2 data from towers at different heights in North Carolina and Wisconsin. Higher heights show less diurnal changes.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/diurnal.html
“I don’t see how co2 levels can be the same globally when they can’t even be comparable from region to region.”
CO2 measured at Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa, and the South Pole. Except for different seasonal variations, the trends are very similar.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/insitu.html
Trends are not measurements cosmos or didn’t you learn that on one of your blogs? :)
Towers cosmos?
They do have things such as Weather balloons that measure things you know, been around for awhile.
Once altitude is gained cosmos, a geographic region is no longer relevant.
Prevailing winds and streams of massive fronts affect how gases are distributed.
Or don’t you recall how China’s pollution drifts up towards North Western U.S.,Canada and Alaska.
Ever hear of gas distribution laws cosmos? It’s in all the science books.
How about atmospheric pressures at differing altitudes? That’s in science texts as well.
Why do you think pilots need oxygen at altitude?
How about the top of a very high Mountain? Think gas distribution is the same there as it is at ground level?
Do you think the Gulf Stream whips around gases? How far do you think they go on a daily basis?
:)
outlander posted March 5, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Effects of variations in solar activity on the climate have been well documented.”
Correct. There was a correlation between solar activity and temperatures.
But there’s no correlation between the warming trend since the mid 1970’s, and solar activity.
Usoskin’s 2005 paper says (emphasis added)
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
“The last 30 years [of data] are not considered however. In this time the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other.
…
Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming trend must have another source“
Graphs of recent solar activity and Southern Oscillation Index,
‘Global cooling: the new kid on the block’
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-cooling-the-new-kid-on-the-block.html
See also the “It’s the sun” skeptic argument.
cosmos: A question:
“The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005″,
“Either way, TSI needs to drop considerably to be considered the driver of 2007 cooling. ”
Which of the above contradictory statements from your quoted sources is true?
News from our statehouse. Legislative session day 52:
VOTE TODAY ON COAL PLANTS
The conference committee on coal plants has about finished its work. Representatives from the House Energy & Utilities Committee and the Senate Utilities Committee continue their work to reconcile differences between the two coal plant bills passed by their chambers. The Kansas House of Representatives passed HB 2066 on Feb. 19, following the Senate’s passage of a SB 327l a week earlier. Today an “Agree to Disagree” motion was brought to the House floor. The conference committee has 5 members, 4 Rs and 1 D, who agree on a reconciliation of the two bills, but the House Democrat member disagrees. We took a vote and the motion passed. Now the conference committee can bring their report to the floor with less than all 6 signatures. That is expected to happen this afternoon. The Rs and Ds each held a caucus at 2:30 and came to the floor at 3:00 to take a vote. The report is expected to pass both houses; but will it pass by the 84 votes required to overcome a likely veto by Governor Sebelius? Well, the lobbyists are thick in the halls, especially around the offices of the House members that have voted no so far. It passed the House with 75 votes and two absent . . . 9 votes short of what is needed for an override.
outlander,
Those two statements are not contradictory. 2007 was “cooled” by a drop in solar activity and La Nina. Without those two factors, 2007 would have been even warmer.
“During the La Niña episode of 1999, global temperatures dropped around 0.5°C.
…
La Niña peaked around January 2008 and is the strongest La Niña since 1999.”
“During the La Niña episode of 1999, global temperatures dropped around 0.5°C.
…
La Niña peaked around January 2008 and is the strongest La Niña since 1999.”
————————
Yes, Global Warming is caused by man, except when it’s not because of El Nino and La Nina.
:)
The Eagle claims that there is “Global Cooling Hype” —
But, does the Eagle believe that there is such a thing as “Global Warming Hype”???
Is “Hype” a word that the Eagle will use, ONLY when applied to groups or people that the Eagle does not agree with, at the time?
The many who started the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore.
This issue is NOT settled.
China just had its coldest winter on record.
You say “do not look at the short term” — making the correct case that you can not look at only one year.
However, what is the “base year”?? What year do you BEGIN your study?
I am willing to believe that the temperature of the Earth always changes.
I am not willing to believe that humans have ANYTHING to do with the temperature of the Earth.
We are bit players, at best or worst.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024
‘Global temperatures 2008: another Top Ten Year’
http://www.sourceuk.net/article/11/11119/global_temperatures_2008_another_top_ten_year.html
“Prof Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said:
“Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current strong La Nina will act to limit temperatures in 2008.
However mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000, when a similar strength La Nina pegged temperatures to 0.24 degree C above the 1961-90 average. Sharply renewed warming is likely once La Nina declines.”
These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying:
“The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away.
What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 degree C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 degree C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.” “
econ101,
The Heartland Institute’s 2008 International Conference on Climate Change?
LOL!
‘Denial-a-Palooza is a Media Hit
… But Not What Organizers Wanted’
http://www.desmogblog.com/ny-denial-a-palooza-is-a-media-hit
Econ the coldest year in China history and don’t forget the two snowstorms in Israel. How long had it been since Jerusleum had seen snow?
ksgrm,
Short-term weather events are not the same as long-term climate.
econ101,
You should also compare “regular scientific conferences” to Heartlands PR event.
‘What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/
Econ,
I, as well, believe the earths climate changes. I am not totally convinced man is causing this current change in the earths climate, but there is a change going on none the less. The evidence is too compelling to ignore: the earth is warming.
The changes going on in both the arctic and antarctic, shown as changes in yearly ice by weather satellites, is something that can’t be ignored. If this trend continues, changes in the political climate of every state involved, as well as countries, could lead to things we should be discussing now.
Just for a minute imagine that climate change, for whatever reason, causes dramatic changes in land suitable for growing food. The line moves further north every year, and Kansas becomes desert. Think that would start border wars? Famine? Drought?
If the warming trend continues, it is a possibility, and I would hate to see our grandkids unprepared because we decided taking sides was more important than planning for what might happen. But then, as a species, our history of being unprepared is rather glaring.
Paul, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but China has a bit of a pollution problem. The huge amount of particulate matter in the air creates a nuclear winter effect so China will end up a lot colder because of the lack of sunlight able to reach much of China.
Please try to learn up on the issue before commenting on it so I don’t have to waste time correcting you.
(and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998)
——————-
That weird weather year was caused by El Nino. :)
Funny how all these record setting years are caused by natural phenomena. :D
Recent El Niños have occurred in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.
Major El Nino events were in 1982-3 and 1997-98
1997-98:
The event temporarilly warmed air temperature by 3°F, compared to the usual increase of 0.5°F associated with El Niño events[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o#ENSO_and_global_warming
Dang cosmos, you are running out of years for Man to have caused something. El Nino and La Ninja are hogging the Climate Change spotlight. :D
Doug, I hope that was sarcasm. If not that ranks up there with some of the most ignorant crap I have read today.
The fact is that addressing global warming (decreasing/eliminating carbon emissions) is win win.
There is no downside to addressing global warming proactively and reducing or eliminating fossil fuel use. In fact we are long overdue to do so.
But say cosmos,
You hold onto that idea that 0.037 percent out of 100 is causing all this Global Warming.
that’s 3.7/100th of a percent, not even 1 percent, not even a half of a percent, not even a tenth of a percent.
fizzle sizzle blizzle – that’s the sound of a co2 gas bubble popping into nothingness. :)
And JimmyMac continues with his stupid, very unscientific, wild arm flailing…
Regular-”Funny how all these record setting years are caused by natural phenomena”
All the politically pressured scientist had to do was come up with a culprit(co2), slide show, some confusing graphs, and one disgruntle selfish mouthpiece(Gore) and Ka-Pow!! We got ourselves a movement that everyone can get behind!!
Oh and Gore doesn’t have to change HIS lifestyle, and as a side not he gets filthy stinking rich! I wish I would have thought of that :)
not=note
Econ101 posted March 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“You say “do not look at the short term” — making the correct case that you can not look at only one year.
However, what is the “base year”?? What year do you BEGIN your study?”
Duhhhh… you don’t BEGIN with ONE “base year”. That is (again) “short term”. Climate is over a longer term, and re climate today, a 30-year period is usually used.
“I am willing to believe that the temperature of the Earth always changes.”
So what? That does not prevent human-added GHG’s from causing global warming.
And scientists have used past natural climate changes to better understand AGW.
Chapter 6, ‘Palaeoclimate’, at,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
cosmos
Posted March 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
And JimmyMac continues with his stupid, very unscientific, wild arm flailing
—————————————
It means that the data I presented by the world’s foremost oceanographers and climate scientists, confirmed by NOAA and NASA have caught cosmos with his pants down and he cannot deny the truth that the warmth in the 20 years has all been natural phenomena.
So Cosmos, what about all of those years with El Ninos, were those removed from the data to demonstrate AGW? Or accidently left in the data?
Paul, the other day when I linked to an article on World Net Daily, you scoffed at it, and said it was junk… NOW, you link to it (above) and it is now supposed to be OK??? C’mon… at least be consistent — if possible??
ANTI posted March 5, 2008 at 10:03 pm
“Regular-”Funny how all these record setting years are caused by natural phenomena””
1998 had a very large El Nino (warming) + AGW.
2007 had a La Nina (cooling) + low solar irradiance (cooling) + AGW.
And 2007, with 2 cooling factors, tied 1998, which had a large warming factor.
And some people believe that is “funny”. Well… like they say, you can’t fix stupid.
ANTI,
Old (2000) but shows ENSO effects on global temperatures.
Graph is near bottom of page,
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/
“Global-mean monthly temperature for the period 1980-1999, showing the effects of El Niño (EN) and La Niña (LN). At the global scale, the effects of the Pinatubo eruption masked the warming induced by the 1991/92 El Niño event, although the regional impacts of that El Niño event did occur.”
Another graph,
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png
Cosmos, were those natural factors removed from the data sets to prove AGW, and if so how is it determined what temperature rise is man made and what is natural climate change within those years?
Cosmos, most of the “science” on your side is developed using possibilities, what if scenarios, and assumptions. I have not seen anything that specifically shows exact proof and documentation over time within the scale of Global cycles and time that warming is occurring and will proceed and that human production of CO2 is the specific cause.
You forgot these years cosmos.
1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994.
But please do quit wiggling and calling names.
Your false GW alarmist theories have been exposed for what they are:
Fraud…
The proof that natural cycles and occurrences have a great impact on warming/cooling of the earth are however verified in history.
ANTI,
You seem unable to read, and understand the graphs I posted at 10:38 pm. Sorry, but like they say, you can’t fix stupid.
I think political and finacial gain on the part of the promoters of the AWG theory(scam) are the real cause of AGW. Hitler wrote something about pushing a lie until it is seen as the truth and accepted as the truth…I think that maybe going on here. There is tremendous power at stake.
Regular
Posted March 5, 2008 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
Well Steven Davis, thanks for calling me a liar in advance then qualifying it with a future apology.
James, admit it, you are one really stinky liar. Sorry. You know it is true. I am not apologizing for the truth of my statements. Nighty, night, loser…
Considering the temperatures have only risen 1.33 ± 0.32 °F, the ENSOs pretty much have that covered all by themselves. :)
cosmos is pretty much arm flailing now as he has resorted to calling everyone stupid.
Don’t let your swollen ego interfere with your judgment Davis. :)
your source cosmos-
“The character of the Earth’s climate system is shaped by the general circulation of the atmosphere and oceans”
“So, to identify the reasons why climate varies, we must first look to the Sun”
“Change in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun is a prime candidate as a cause of climate variability”
“For many of the world’s population, El Niño and La Niña present a far more tangible threat than the possibility of long-term global warming.”
You are absolutely correct ANTI. The Alarmist side is about achieving and retaining power.
If they Alarmist were so concerned about saving the earth, they would be living in grass and mud hunts and using their electronic gear to build dams.
They aren’t serious, they want power.
ANTI, there was a wise saying by a veteran Meteorologist. He said if you have to use more than two “IF’s” in a prediction, it no longer becomes a prediction but a guess.
Was it 87 or 88 when Mt St Helens blew? I remember it was hotter then hell that summer.
One volcano just blew out more CO2 in a day, then man on the planet spewed in a year.
Exactly, when Gore and others are living in a hemp woven tent house powered by nature and doing web conferences instead of flying around the world, I will believe them. I exaggerate a bit, but you get my point.
Sorry Regular, I kinda restated your 11:13 post
Well have fun all, I’m calling it a night.
ANTI,
If you’re still in grade school, they may teach you how to read graphs soon.
If you’re an adult, ask others you know to help you. Or check with the public library, and other places to see if remedial courses are provided.
documented facts are far more useful than warped scaled graphs. Didn’t you learn anything about graphs and scales. The scales can be manipulated to exaggerate or lessen the visual effect of the data.
Cosmos, you can convince an idiot with a picture, but you need facts to convince the wise.
1998 had a very large El Nino (warming) + AGW.
2007 had a La Nina (cooling) + low solar irradiance (cooling) + AGW.
And 2007, with 2 cooling factors, tied 1998, which had a large warming factor.
And some people believe that is “funny”. Well… like they say, you can’t fix stupid.
Perhaps a local college might have a basic science course for you cosmos, so you don’t have to rely on blogs for your information.
Prediction is not science.
Observation is science.
The observed changes of natural phenomena have exceeded the temperature changes of the GW Alarmist theories.
Sure thing – there is climate change, but not caused by man.
Let’s re-run that co2 comparison.
385 parts per million co2 changed to a percent is:
0.0385 percent out of 100/parts/co2
That’s 3.85/100th of the value or we can call that 2/50ths of a percent rounded up.
As I told Ben, we co2 is sampled in office areas at the street level offices, it is not unusual to see 1000-2000 parts per million(ppm)
People in the personal protection business view 385 ppm as a trace amount, not even worth of a data point on a chart.
You are in over your head cosmos, face it.
You relied so much on blogs for your information and propagandized information, you have lost your way to what true science demands before it draws conclusion – observational data that has been tested.
Even the name Global Warming is a misnomer as only the Northern Hemisphere are being considered as the main thrust of the hype. Aren’t you forgetting about those people in Australia and South America, etc.?
As I said before, I’m as concerned about Climate Change as the next guy.
Let’s do it properly. Renewable energy, control of pollutants, self-regulating monitoring systems.
Let’s not ram a speculative science down people’s throat when a huge portion is untested, unobserved and non-verifiable.
“Doug, I hope that was sarcasm. If not that ranks up there with some of the most ignorant crap I have read today.” -Anti
Yeah, you’re right, there’s no pollution in China.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70107
Max queries >>>>
Max
Posted March 5, 2008 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
Was it 87 or 88 when Mt St Helens blew? I remember it was hotter then hell that summer.
========================================
Max, it was more like ‘78 or ‘79… I was in Nebraska then, the first time… :-)
And predictably, more stupid, unscientific, wild arm flailing from JimmyMac. He’s going to damage his shoulders and elbows.
Plus more ad hominems.
Compare the weight of a tiny amount of Ebola virus, to the weight of human, who might become infected with that tiny amount of Ebola virus.
cosmos you do realize that high levels of co2 are needed for life on earth to exist.
1000ppm/co2 or greater is needed for healthy plant growth.
If as you purport, 385ppm was the norm around the planet, then most plants would literally ’starve’ as they couldn’t chemically produce enough energy through the photosynthesis process to produce ’sugars’ to stay alive.
I realize that 385ppm/co2 is an atmospheric reading, but it is an expected norm for distributed gases under ever increasing altitude and pressure.
I forgot exactly what is toxic to humans, it’s something in the order of 10,000ppm/co2 or greater.
Again cosmos, the ebola virus. :D
You do realize cosmos, that most RNA Viruses need to replicate before they do any damage. In early development, viruses are killed quite easily by just about anything.
“Prediction is not science.
“Observation is science.”
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
What part of hypothesis testing do you not get?
Cosmos is not the one who has been over his head here.
I know, it was soup, but I just could not resist here.
What part of making wild guesses don’t you get ksagnostic?
To keep making predictive assumptions from compiled data that is incomplete is not science, it’s Tarot cards.
In layman terms, they call that speculation, which isn’t science either.
Randy, you should have quoted the rest of Ignatius Rigor’s remarks as reported by the NY Times: “‘I will admit that we do not have all the pieces,’ Dr. Rigor said, ‘but as the I.P.C.C. reports, the preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming is real.’”
When a scientist uses words like “preponderance of evidence” and “suggests” is should tip you off that he is hedging his bets. Rigor is NOT saying “Man-made global warming is indisputable truth”. Only a bonehead like Al Gore would make that statement.
Chuck – we scientists have been trained to use such language even when the evidence is overwhelming. It is simply the way we describe our results.
We know that we will never know 100% about everything – and we acknowledge that fact.
And Regular – that IS science; not tarot.
“1000ppm/co2 or greater is needed for healthy plant growth” ABSOLUTELY a false statement! If that were true than all plant life would have gone extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.
“Sure thing – there is climate change, but not caused by man” ALSO FALSE!
“Global Warming is a misnomer as only the Northern Hemisphere are being considered as the main thrust of the hype. Aren’t you forgetting about those people in Australia and South America, etc.?”
Wrong again! Both north and south are being considered and warming is occuring on both hemispheres.
Hey, I know. Maybe, given the kansas legislature’s obsession with coal, we need a new state motto?
“Kansas… doing our part to prevent global cooling since 2008…”
Ben,
I’m guessing that Botany wasn’t your strong suit. :)
Watsa matter Ben? You don’t want to give all those anaerobic bacteria a place to live in co2 enriched soil?
Ben, do you think co2 productions starts and stop in the atmosphere?
Ben, did you know that soil is the second largest co2 sink after oceans?
Ben, did you know that soil is a great releaser of co2?
Do you know the effects of fertilizer on soil Ben?
How about decaying matter Ben? Does that stuff just drift up into the atmosphere levitating above the soil during the process?
:)
Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants
There are marked variations in response to CO2 among plant species. The biggest differences are among three broad categories of plants–C3, C4, and Crassulacean Acid Metabolism or CAM–each with a different pathway for photosynthetic fixation of carbon dioxide.
Corn, sugarcane, sorghum, millet, and some tropical grasses use the C4 pathway, so named because the first products of photosynthesis have four carbon atoms per molecule. C4 plants also experience a boost in photosynthetic efficiency in response to higher carbon dioxide levels, but because there is little photo-respiration in C4 plants, the improvement is smaller than in C3 plants. Instead, the largest benefit C4 plants receive from higher CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf pores declines by about 33 percent in C4 plants with a doubling of the CO2 concentration from its current atmospheric level. Since corn and other C4 plants are frequently grown under drought conditions of high temperatures and limited soil moisture, this superior efficiency in water use may improve yields when rainfall is even lower than normal.
Thousands of scientific experiments have been conducted to measure the effects of carbon dioxide enrichment on specific plants. In most green plants, productivity continues to rise up to CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm and above. For rice, the optimal CO2 level is between 1,500 and 2,000 ppm. For unicellular algae, the optimal level is 10,000 to 50,000 ppm.
* SYLVAN H. WITTWER, professor emeritus of horticulture at Michigan State University, directed the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for 20 years, and chaired the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council. He is the author of the world’s leading textbook on greenhouse vegetables, and is co-author, most recently, of Feeding a Billion: Frontiers in Chinese Agriculture.
Soils and Global Change
Rattan Lai
Gaseous carbon dioxide is 1.5 times denser than air. Therefore, it will be found in greater concentrations at low levels.
page 335:
Forest Floor and Soil Measures:
During a static incubation with NaOH, the CO2 concentration while in chambers placed over soils producing high levels of co2 efflux, the headspace concentration of co2 increased above the ambient concentrations while in chambers placed over soils of co2 efflux the headspace concentration fell below ambient concentrations (Figure 2).
Ambient co2 concentrations (i.e., in the absence of chamgers) in the air just above the floor ranged from 600 to 1800ppm. With the dimensions of the chamber and jars used in this study. CO2, effluxes from the soil in the range of 1.6gC m^2d^2 were approximately balanced by the rate of absorption by NaOH and is consistent with the pattern shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. Effect of CO2
concentrations on people.
Concentration
Effect
350-450 ppm
Typical atmospheric
600-800 ppm
Acceptable indoor air quality
1000 ppm
5000 ppm
Tolerable indoor air quality
Average exposure limit over 8 hours
600-30 000 ppm
3-8%
Concern, short exposure only
Increased respiration and headache
above 10%
above 20%
Nausea, vomiting, unconsciousness
Rapid unconsciousness, death
1. Vaisala Carbocap: Carbon Dioxide Sensors
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:dxCByStQEf8J:www.vaisala.com/instruments/products/carbondioxide/what%2520is%2520co2.pdf+co2+readings+plants&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=144&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Benefits of Organic Farming:
# Converting the U.S.’s 160 million corn and soybean acres to organic production would sequester enough carbon to satisfy 73 percent of the Kyoto targets for CO2 reduction in the U.S.
# U.S. agriculture as currently practiced emits a total of 1.5 trillion pounds of CO2 annually into the atmosphere. Converting all U.S. cropland to organic would not only wipe out agriculture’s massive emission problem. By eliminating energy-costly chemical fertilizers, it would actually give us a net increase in soil carbon of 734 billion pounds.
JimmyMac posted March 6, 2008 at 12:08 am
“You do realize cosmos, that most RNA Viruses need to replicate before they do any damage.
More stupid, wild arm flailing from JimmyMac.
You do realize JimmyMac, that humans have died after being infected with a tiny, insignificant amount of Ebola virus.
My point, which JimmyMac cannot refute, is that the “greenhouse” effect of CO2 is not insignicant.
Also, the radiative efficiency of the gas is important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride#Greenhouse_gas
A good debunking of the “global cooling hype” from Dr. Jim Hansen.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
H/T to
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/stop_me_if_youve_reard_this_be.php
Actually regular, I did quite well in botany. They would not have let me get my Masters Degree otherwise.
My issue with CO2 concentrations is in the overall atmosphere – not in soil gases which are of course much higher. As for plants doing so well you are making a very bad assumption: that CO2 is the limiting nutrient. Ususlly it is not; and if rainfall patterns are disrupted plants will have much bigger worries than getting enough CO2.
And yes – I also already know those other things – we went into depth in Soil Science (another part of the MS curriculum). In fact, one of the feedback loops of serious concerns is that as soils dry out they release carbon. This process is now underway.
The old trick of enhancing plant growth with CO2 is well known – in greenhouses and under controlled conditions. In fact, it is a part on an energy idea of mine: Set up large inflatable greenhouses filled with power plant effluent (approaching 10,000 ppm CO2) and grow biomass – kudzu and the like. Harvest that as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol and/or direct combustion energy. You could also grow food crops but I would be concerned with possible contamination from the effluent.
BTW – the reason the C4 plants lose less water in CO2 enriched is that they have to ‘breath’ less. This is very well known and is not at all new to me.
One of JimmyMac’s “science”(sic) references. His copy/paste at 11:15 am upthread is inside [...]’s
http://www.airspill.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=110&Category_Code=BooksVideo
“CO2 – Denser Than Air
[Gaseous carbon dioxide is 1.5 times denser than air. Therefore, it will be found in greater concentrations at low levels.] In the bulletin, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns that high concentrations of CO2 can displace oxygen, and can subsequently cause death especially if allowed to accumulate in open pits and other areas below grade.
…
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is known as a “greenhouse” gas. …”
Speaking of kudzu, more CO2 is great for vines — maybe they can wipe out some forests?
‘Pumped-up Poison Ivy: Carbon dioxide boosts plant’s size, toxicity’
Susan Milius
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/fob1.asp
” “Other studies have suggested that vines may be big winners in a high–carbon dioxide future, says Mohan. Vines don’t spend much of their carbon harvest on trunks or other supports, so the carbon windfall can go directly into new leaves, which collect yet more carbon and sunlight.
An increased abundance of vines, which can choke out trees, could change forest dynamics, Mohan says.”
cosmos – that would be a great choice for my mega-greenhouses.
I will also note the very high CO2 tolerance of unicellular algae. IF Sunflower is serious let’s see them make that work – engineering and all that. They have power plants in place to use.
My point Ben, is that the Atmosphere is not the limiting factor for all accumulation of co2.
There are soil sinks, ocean sinks, forestation and etc.
Why is it that these “towers” sample at several levels? (base, middle, top) Could it be there are various measured levels of co2?
Do you want to exclude co2 levels in manufacture and in buildings as well?
The assumption of 380 ppm of co2 affecting the biosphere more than any other element I find ludicrous. Especially, when the constituent parts of the atmosphere consists of more than just co2.
The energies in water vapor and clouds is just not about being wet. There are actual physics going on.
Then there is wind and oscillations.
Radiant energy reflected back is not equal at all locations either.
Averages or means look great on a chart, but they are meaningless as the total sum parts of planet earth are constantly changing, evolving.
Average temperature is meaningless at the extreme ends of the poles. There are many other factors to consider, the least being co2.
1.6 degrees over a century? Phew, I’m breaking out in a sweat! That’s something to panic about and charge out the kazoo for carbon credits? You must be kidding me.
Especially when considering one ENSO El Ninjo can affect weather in one year by 0.5 degrees and as in the 97/98 ENSO affect climate 3 degrees!
That one El Nino killed 16 percent of the planets Coral Reefs!
I have lived almost six decades as have you and I can find very little change in the local climate of the places I have lived.
Crops raised are similar, same trees, same grasses and the same basic biosphere.
All of this reminds me of the three blind and the elephant story. Amusing…
A good debunking of the “global cooling hype” from Dr. Jim Hansen.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
Regular – I am EXTREMELY FAMILIAR with the sinks. I am also familiar with the fact that as things warm the equilibrium shifts; releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Regular – in case you didn’t realize it, we scientists already look at these factors.
“I can find very little change in the local climate of the places I have lived.”
I find quite a bit of change. The drying of the Southeast is probably the largest one but i would also add Lake Superior being ice-free for much larger periods than before as another change.
All of this reminds me of the three blind and the elephant story. Amusing …
Actually it does me as well. Scientists are NOT blind; however the non-scientists trying to contradict the scientists are blind.
I wasn’t aware that you had done Climate Change research Ben, when you included the “WE Scientists” in there.
All scientists must have PhDs?
What would call some one who had the job title of Research Science Analyst?
depends om who gave the title and in what field
Why Algore won’t let GW die:
Al Gore’s Convenient IPO
CurrentTV’s parent is launching a public offering whose terms, though sweet for the company’s high-profile founder, may be inconvenient for investors.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2008/tc2008035_855093.htm
So you’re saying a Mathematician employed by NASA couldn’t be a Scientist even though the Mathematician is crunching numbers for an Aerospace Physiology study or Aeronautics?
What about a Physicist working on Computer Climate Models?
Can a M.D. be a scientist?
Can Engineers be Scientists?
Did Leonardo Da Vinci have his PhD?
How about Thomas Edison?
Are those anthropologists who just have their Master’s Degrees that spend time in meso-American jungles examining ruins and collecting data not scientists?
Would a place that houses three hundred people of all kinds entitled Research Science Division not be a place where scientific research take place employ scientists? Especially, when entities such as NASA and NSF depend on their results for interpretive data? By the way, that’s where I worked and participated in Research Science all in peer-reviewed process on about three dozen or more scientific research projects.
Does cosmos’s mantra, “he is not a Climatologist, apply to you as well? Therefore, you are not qualified to speak out on the subject.
Anyway Ben, injecting your “We Scientists” mantra I find arrogant and your unwillingness to listen to other ideas as a very large limiting and politically driven factors in our discussions.
So Ben, name the last Climate Research project you have worked on.
Curious minds want to know.
Or is it as cosmos states, you’re not a Climatologist, therefore not qualified.
Perhaps we better call up all those doing research on flora and fauna figuring out reactions to Climate as hoaxes?
Maybe those satellite engineers working for NASA are putting up fraudulent data up on the Web, because they are not Climatologists?
Those Chemists analyzing data can’t speak, because they are not Climatologists, correct?
When is the last science project you worked on that was peer reviewed? Did it have anything to do with Climate?
You know my point, don’t you? :)
JimmyMac posted March 6, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“The assumption of 380 ppm of co2 affecting the biosphere more than any other element I find ludicrous.”
Of course it’s “ludicrous” — it’s a false, inaccurate claim made by (words omitted to be “civil”) JimmyMac.
And the reason for his making that, and other false, inaccurate climate science claims? Probably his hate of one of the many solutions to AGW.
“That’s something to panic about and charge out the kazoo for carbon credits?“
JimmyMac posted March 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“Or is it as cosmos states, you’re not a Climatologist, therefore not qualified.”
JimmyMac misquotes me yet again.
Actually, I said that you’re not qualifed to say that the peer-reviewed science is wrong, unless you do peer-reviewed science to back up your claim.
For example, E.G. Beck is not qualified to make his bogus CO2 claims.
And scientists like Bob Carter, who do peer-reviewed work in one field, are not qualified to say that the science in other fields is wrong — until they do peer-reviewed science to back up their claim(s).
Scientists often rely on other scientists, when the issue is outside their own field of expertise.
In short cosmos,
All others be silent.
Doesn’t that violate the First Amendment? :)
Obervations:
1. Preponderance of evidence means more than 50%. Not a very descriptive or precise phrase for a scientist.
2. Intelligent folks who are laymen can become very knowledgeable in a narrow field by simply studying. Lawyers learn medicine, for instance in medical liability cases. Enough that they can tear apart so called experts on the stand and expose their weak points.
3. Therefore, claims that a layperson has no standing to criticize peer reviewed published scientists without being one is pure BS. And finally…
4. If you squint, the photo of the iceberg at the top looks like a polar bear crying because his icy playground is melting.
point #4 outlander – heh
outlander posted March 6, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Therefore, claims that a layperson has no standing to criticize peer reviewed published scientists without being one is pure BS.”
Mere opinions are not “science”.
The way to “criticize” peer reviewed science is to refute it with your own science.
Form your hypothesis, do your research, write your paper, and submit it to a credible journal in that field.
You mean like this cosmos? :)
“A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance; 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.”
outlander,
Perhaps you would like to test your #2 and 3 claims, by refuting the USGS’s polar bear studies?
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1773
“Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world’s polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey.
…
Scientists characterize their conclusions as conservative because even the best available models are believed to underestimate the actual decline in Arctic sea ice. “
If there WERE any credible peer-reviewed scientists who opposed the human-caused global warming consensus, WHY would Avery use deceptions???
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are not global warming.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
Past D-O events do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Dr. Hans Oeschger is NOT a GW “skeptic”
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
“The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change to a range with more absorbable negative consequences.”
And past solar and temperature correlations do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Avery takes scientists who studied D-O events, and past solar, and then says:
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,…”
Why doesn’t Avery give a number, and list their names?
Because the number is ZERO. If there WERE any credible scientists, Avery would list their names.
Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
Those weren’t Climatologists counting those polar bears were they cosmos?
How can those non-Climatologists dare make a correlation like that?
Aren’t they just speaking outside of their expertise? :)
Regular,
Why do you bother?
Cosmos has a fancy computer model which says we are going to die if we don’t act now! I mean yesterday! I mean it might already be too late! We have to act now!
Meanwhile, be sure to use one sheet of toilet paper when wiping and change your light bulbs.
Oh yeah, be sure to support some wierd scheme of control over energy which will take a decade or more to implement all for your own protection at a huge cost to the economy.
Because if we don’t act now! It might be too late…
We can use more than one sheet of toliet paper?
I’ve had the same roll for over a year now. :)
Nope, don’t have the time or the interest cosmos. But I would have every expectation that I could do so and produce valid results by researching all the science, including opposing opinions and data, and applying logical interpretations and assumptions. Maybe my conclusions would agree with them.
But that wasn’t my point. Please see above.
“Because if we don’t act now! It might be too late…”
What if the GW scientists are correct, Price? What if the global climate change is caused by human activity and it turns out that we COULD have done something about it?
Would it really “kill” us to be more responsible stewards of the Earth?
WS Clark,
The issue is not about being, simply put, “more responsible stewards of the Earth.”
The so called solutions to this problem involve the typical governmental power control and manipulation schemes.
On top of that, everyone should be a Christian too, I mean, what would it hurt for you to accept Christ as your savior and worship him. The alternative if you are wrong is eternal damnation…
Regular
Posted March 6, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
We can use more than one sheet of toliet paper?
I’ve had the same roll for over a year now.
Think about that — he probably goes through tons of kleenex because he craps from his mouth —
“On top of that, everyone should be a Christian too, I mean, what would it hurt for you to accept Christ as your savior and worship him.”
I choose a different path – why would I accept what I do not believe?
“The so called solutions to this problem involve the typical governmental power control and manipulation schemes.”
No they don’t – they require reasonable controls on pollution, responsible energy use and the development of alternate fuel sources and green energy.
The anti’s claim that drilling in ANWAR would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil, failing to realize that there is only about six months worth of oil in all of ANWAR – hardly enough to make a small (3%) dent in our consumption.
That is just one example of the opposition – we could do far more by driving more responsibly.
That is hardly a “typical governmental power control.”
WS Clark,
I’m talking about the Kyoto type schemes and the much larger proposals they want to enact now to replace that even.
If you listen to the Cosmos types, they are already preching that it might be too late. The measures they want to enact are far more restrictive and harmful to the economy than Kyoto could even dream of.
“The measures they want to enact are far more restrictive and harmful to the economy than Kyoto could even dream of.”
If the United States, through the Bush Administration, is opposed to Kyoto, then they should propose an alternative, not continually push the “more research” meme.
And I am unaware of much larger proposals than Kyoto – perhaps you could enlighten us?
The “economy” will be meaningless if the GW-deniers are wrong on this one.
Nathan posted March 6, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Cosmos has a fancy computer model which says we are going to die if we don’t act now! I mean yesterday! I mean it might already be too late! We have to act now!”
Actually, there are multiple computer models, and they all show similar warming.
And the basic temperature rise caused by added GHG’s doesn’t even require “fancy” computer models.
Delaying reducing GHG’s means that cuts in the future will have to be even sharper.
Nathan posted March 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“If you listen to the Cosmos types, they are already preching that it might be too late.”
Okay Nathan, give me some data that proves that natural positive warming feedbacks in the future will not be a major problem.
For example:
How much of the Arctic sea ice will melt in summer, during the next few decades?
How much GHG’s will be released from thawing permafrost, and when?
How fast will carbon sinks like the oceans slow down?
WS Clark,
Everything for you will be meaningless when you find out you are wrong about Christ.
“Everything for you will be meaningless when you find out you are wrong about Christ.”
And my lack of faith in your religion will be meaningless if I am right.
I believe in God, but I don’t believe in religion.
I guess I am betting that I am correct in my beliefs.
Nathan posted March 6, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“Everything for you will be meaningless when you find out you are wrong about Christ.”
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
– Albert Einstein
WS Clark,
Well, I’m betting that I’m right when it comes to Global Warming too.
Meanwhile, 5 years from now, Cosmos and Al Gore will still be crying about how it is TOO LATE! WE MUST ACT NOW!
Right….
As the degree of alramism goes up so does my thinking they are wrong.
“Well, I’m betting that I’m right when it comes to Global Warming too.”
The difference is I am betting my soul, you are wanting to bet the future of of all of us.
Nathan – I agree with the models that we need to act expeditiously. And ALL countries need to be on board – that includes China and India who are catching up with the US on GHGs.
The positive feedback loops – not unlike those that magnified Milankovitch cycles – are already being observed. Note, for example, that Arctic sea ice is lower in this decade than in hundreds of thousands of years. The loss of that ice results in a lowered albedo which is a positive loop.
More ominous IMO is the disruption of vegetation. In the face of all that wonderful CO2 that (according to some) should be spurring growth drought-stricken forests are dying. In Europe in the summer forests are becoming carbon SOURCES; not carbon sinks. In the southeast forest fires are becoming much more frequent and widespread as forest health suffers in drought conditions. The same is true in Australia, South America, and southern Europe as the Hadley-Ferrell cell boundary mogrates to higher latitude.
Drying soils lose their stored carbon to oxidation and become another source. Permafrost melts releasing both methane and CO2.
I should never have taken graduate paleoclimatology at WSU. While it was fascinating studying climate disasters of the geological past and the mechanisms behind them it is also very frightening to watch what is happening today. The changes are occurring more rapidly than at the P-T boundary 250 million years ago. Species are disappearing at a faster rate. The P-T eliminated 96% of species; the time immediately afterwards is referred to in the literature as the Scythian Epoch (geology borrowing from anthropology) due to the desolation.
It was in interesting time however: the survival of some primitive mammels led to the eventual rise of Homo sapiens.
http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Triassic/EarlyTrias.htm
Nathan posted March 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“As the degree of alramism goes up so does my thinking they are wrong.”
Nathan’s “thinking” seems to consist on relying on deceptions from Avery, Milloy, et al.
And claiming the science is wrong because he hates Kyoto, and other solutions.
Meanwhile, as Ben pointed out, the natural postive feedbacks are starting to kick in.
Nathan,
Are you going to provide the data?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-308400
The debate on global warming/climate change in not over.
There should be a serious poll to decide if it is the greatest scam in the history of mankind or not. I vote yes.
Science is not a democracy, Ken.
Say it with me.
Science is not a democracy.
If we used polls to determine what is and isn’t science, than “evolution is a lie and God created everything as it is” would be taught in schools as fact in Kansas.
Take a majors-level college intro-bio course to see how science works. And maybe read some papers on Pub-Med. This “raise your hands if you don’t like this idea” method doesn’t work in this field, sorry.
The global warming hot air again. The global warmers are really annoying. Take your global warming fantasy and restrict it to your bedroom!
Keith F and john_s,
If AGW is a “scam” and a “fantasy”, why does your side use deceptions and lies to try to refute it?
Like JimmyMac’s use of Avery and Singer, re Dansgaard-Oeschger events, at
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-308370
which I debunked 2 posts later.
cosmos is not qualified to debunk a climatologist.
Neither are you, Regular, so drop the usual meme – you are really getting BORING.
JimmyMac,
Thank you for the reminder — I should’ve included ad hominems with “deceptions and lies”, in my 2:41 pm post.
From another thread, posted by Regular………
“You are always wanting to dig under people’s skin to find out something so you can do a “gotcha.””
So exactly what is it that you do everyday, Regular?
Cross posting from other threads Clark?
To do what?
Here’s something you can post Clark.
Up your ass, sideways.
“Up your ass, sideways.”
Typical McCreepy – always looking to attack someone, but cries whenever he is attacked, like a little girl that can’t get tickets to the Hannah Montana concert.
Boo hoo, Regular. Stock up on the kleenex.
Typical Clark,
Always wanting to start a fight so he can post more of his insults and personal attacks.
Congratulations Clark, you have a reputation of doing only that on this blog, attacks and insults.
You are not known as an intelligent blogger, just a blog thug who sits in his underwear at his computer, punching in insults for self amusement.
No one likes you or has any respect for you Clark.
You are a world class loser.
Poor JimmyMac is not even smart enough to understand that a book is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
The source of his March 6, 6:03 pm copy/past post,
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE
Author,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
cosmos attempts to attribute specific urls thatI have never referenced fails again.
Keep on cosmos, some day, someone may actually listen to your “chicken little” speeches, then burst out laughing.
“No one likes you or has any respect for you Clark.”
You one funny man, McCreepy – how much are the dues for your fan club?
Loser.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22A+new+analysis+of+peer-reviewed+literature+reveals+that+more+than+500+scientists+have+published+evidence+refuting+at+least+one+%22
JimmyMac has also added a false, fictional paragraph to a copy/paste from a source, to suppport his invalid opinion.
JimmyMac posted March 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“cosmos attempts to attribute specific urls thatI have never referenced fails again.”
Okay, post the source of your March 6, 6:03 pm copy/past post, and then show that this is not the original source.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE
And you’re still not smart enough to understand that Avery & Singer’s book is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
And speaking of global-cooling hype,
‘The global cooling mole’ (as in the game, Whack-a-mole)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/
“Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):
* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing.
The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.”
The term “deniers” is as pathetic as it is predictable. Is that the best that the AGW congregation have? Comparing sceptics to Holocaust deniers? Making out that even saying “AGW is nonsense” is somehow evil and unacceptable? Attempting to suppress all debate?
Debate, and people proving other people wrong, is the very essence of science. Anyone who tries to silence the opposition clearly doesn’t fancy their chances of winning the debate, or understand science. But I suppose it’s hardly surprising that the AGW faithful aren’t the most scientific types.
So tell me, unscientific debate suppressors: how many of you have a vested interest in maintaining the AGW lie, how many of you enjoy the controlling and/or holier-than-thou element of AGW, how many of you are ignorant of the facts, and how many of you are just too arrogant to admit that you’ve been wrong all this time?
Face it, because you’re going to have to eventually and it’s not going to get any easier: AGW is a lie, and maintaining the lie will only make things worse and worse for mankind. You may have a romanticised view of what it will be like for us all to regress to a medieval lifestyle, but that view is very much wide of the mark, and it’s best that you don’t find that out the hard way.
David Trent,
If you don’t like being called a “denier”, then find some credible science to support your opinion.
‘BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Find some real science, not lies and deceptions like the Avery & Singer book JimmyMac posted.
And nobody suggested regressing “to a medieval lifestyle”. Higher energy efficiency, passive and active solar, etc can maintain the same lifestyle we have now. Or even improve it.
JimmyMac,
Are you going to post the link of your source?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-309536
Or should we just assume that my link was the original source of your copy/paste post?
How funny it is for someone to say that a short anomaly in a weather pattern should not be viewed as anything than an just that…an anomaly…exactly what the counter GW crowd has been saying to you knuckleheads about the last few decades compared to thousands and/or millions of years! How ironic that 1998 happens to be the hottest year on record also but has continued to decline since then and now this year is an short term now…ten years. That is 1/3 of the total time that you guy have been screaming and it was only after the beginning of the 70’s that the was global cooling predicted…TEN YEARS later you guy starting screaming global warming and thirty years ago there was devastation around the corner…we certainly weren’t going to make to now!
However, sun spot activity not showing up on the sun is cause for concern and that is happening now so you might has to get use to the taste of shoe leather before you get your foot out of your mouth.
AP; April 6, 2029, 12:07PM EST; In order to counteract the impact of global cooling, congress passed a series of sweeping measures to increase greenhouse gases. They include a series of tax credits to spur investments in smokestack industries; decreased mpg requirements for all automobiles in the US; individual tax credits of up to $5000 per family for the purchase of SUV and other gas guzzling vehicles; approval for 18 new refineries as well as new drilling initiatives throughout Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida and the coast of California. President Chelsea Clinton, with two ex-presidents by her side——her mother and father-—signed the bill today saying, “We are confident these measures will counteract the cooling effects brought by decreased sunspot activity that resulted from the failed and discredited policies of the Reagan administration from the 1980’s” –BlackBeauty
Here, look at this link.
don,
Thank you. You’re an excellent example of the “counter GW crowd”. You seem to be misinformed, and unable to understand science, statistics, and logic.
1) 2007 tied 1998.
1998 had AGW, plus a natural warming factor — a record El Nino.
2007 had AGW, plus natural cooling factors — La Nina and a solar minimum.
Again, 2007 tied 1998. Think about that.
In short there has been a long-term AGW trend since the mid-1970’s, and also natural fluctuations caused by ENSO, Mt. Pinatubo, etc.
2) Scientists were not predicting global cooling in the 1970’s.
And thank you for proving that you didn’t read the thread.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-307414
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-309562
Why has the global temperature remained constant (prior to the past year’s steep decline) despite the continued increase in carbon emissions over the same period?
Fred,
The global temperatures are the result of AGW and natural factors.
2007 had AGW, plus natural cooling factors — La Nina and a solar minimum.
1998 had AGW, plus a natural warming factor — a record El Nino.
Remove the 2007 solar minimum, the strong 2007 La Nina, the record 1998 El Nino, etc, and you’ve got a steadily rising AGW trend.
Which is basically what you get, if you look at the long-term trend since the 1970’s.
A good debunking of the “global cooling hype” from Dr. Jim Hansen,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
Hat tip to,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/stop_me_if_youve_reard_this_be.php
New research, from scientists now state with clarity It does not matter if we are warming or cooling
what matters is that more “funding” will be required!
show pharmacy – best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
sorry if i mistake this field