What Do We Think About Climate Change

[safewalrus]

Now that sounds vaugley familiar - the 'nothing is moving' bit anyway!!

[masalai]

Perry, in your weather/climatology do you look at this weekly blog? http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/show.html

[Pericles]

Brian,

First time of viewing. The point to remember is that the AGW forecasts are computer predictions. The data is somewhat corrupted. US weather stations are being reviewed as there are significant numbers of having been placed in locations where the surroundings are affecting the measurements. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

RickyRood quotes figures that include NOAA figures for March, 1880-2008 and shows them on his graph. The second article by Andrew Watts (with another graph) links to http://www.icecap.us/ There you can find an article entitled "Even Flawed Data Can’t Hide the Cooling". NOAA reports April 2008 was a full degree (F) below normal making it the 29th coldest April out of 115 years for the United States, the coldest in 11 years.

That makes sense as even the useless Daily Telegraph (I do not read the MSM, except to gloat over their stupidity) reported that the climate will get colder.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml

Since 1998, global temperatures have dropped, yet the CO2 level has risen by 20 parts per million. I'm glad about that, as CO2 is essential for plant growth. Whilst the Chaiten volcano eruption is a local disaster, perhaps the ash will cause the end of the big dry in OZ.

Best wishes,

Perry

PS I like this.

The reason people like Al Gore and many others are in denial is explained by cognitive dissonance. This occurs when evidence increasingly contradicts a strongly held belief. Rather than accept the new evidence and change their minds, some people will become even more insistent on the "truth" of the discredited belief, and attack those who present the new evidence — again an "intelligence" failure.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2...673994116/1012

[safewalrus]

Probably -WTF????

[masalai]

Local climate change is getting dryer and warmer this winter (It is wintertime in the Southern Hemisphere at the moment - - Officially in 2 weeks or less????)

[Pericles]

http://co2science.org/video/ClimateCrisis.php

Here's a report.

May 19, 2008
Review of “Carbon Dioxide and the “Climate Crisis” - Reality or Illusion?”

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

I often am asked in talks or via emails what I would recommend for schools to present the other side of the Climate Change issue to An Inconvenient Truth. I have recommended (and continue to do so) Apocalypse? No! by Lord Christopher Monckton. There is now an excellent second choice video, ”Carbon Dioxide and the “Climate Crisis” - Reality or Illusion?” produced by Sherwood and Craig Idso of CO2 Science. It is the introductory video into what will be a series of videos that very effectively uses scientists and a heavy dose of peer review to present the case that the alarmist position presented by Gore and Hansen is not at all justified.

As the Idso’s note: “Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, calls the host of negative consequences that he predicts will accompany the on-going rise in the air’s CO2 concentration “a planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the earth.” James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, similarly claims that the earth “is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects,” and he contends that “ignoring the climate problem at this time, for even another decade, would serve to lock in future catastrophic climatic change.” Do these dire contentions reflect reality? Or do they portray but a marvelously-crafted and hugely-effective illusion?

The new DVD—Carbon Dioxide and the “Climate Crisis” - Reality or Illusion? (copyright 2008 CO2Science)—explores this perplexing problem through an insightful review of numerous (72 peer-reviewed) scientific studies that have been largely ignored by the world’s climate alarmists, and by illuminating commentary provided by a number of researchers who have spent the better parts of their careers studying the many facets of this complex subject.”
...

http://www.icecap.us/

[masalai]

Sorry Per look at Gold - higher than the clouds he he he.......

[the1much]

i dont think theres a person alive that can say what is, or isnt happening,or gonna happen,,,for every person that says their an authority on the subject,,and says we're NOT warming,,,i can find as many that say we are,,,,,,sad part is,,,all those so called smart people...cant even admit that their just guessing.

[DanishBagger]

Ah, yes, CO2science:

http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor...descripti.html

Not really a trustworhy source, frankly.

- And before you say that about "my" source: he's not the one making claims and "nudges" the facts to sit better with the audience.

Edit: I found a rather funny link, with regards to co2science.org:

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutal...ience_ipc.html

First, this neoconservative is blogging about something CO2science.org says. The only problem is, he doesn't understand the first thing. Then someone dissects the entire thing, and, guess what, CO2science is manipulating. Btw, check up on the commenters last paragraphs. I checked. Yes, it's true:

As to your "Who are they?" section, you again haven't done much homework. Didn't you notice that the executives of this group consist of a father and his two sons? That both of the two sons were at one time on the payroll of the Western Fuels Association, an energy industry group? That they have received $100,000 in funding from ExxonMobil? This is not what I would call an independent research organization. They're a propaganda outlet for the fossil fuels industry, nothing more.

[Knut Sand]

Hmm, normally I stay outa discussions like this.. But I have done the math, one night when I was under some incluence of an old often used chemical, In Wino Veritas....

I that night developed what I called the 3rd crab (cooking) theorem.

1 st Theorem; Put the crabs you intend to boil directly in cold water, increase temperature, the crabs will show minimal signs of stress or pain, while the temperature is increased, comfortably numb?

2 st therem; Crabs shall be cooked and put directly into hot boiling water, as this will cause instant death, with a minimum of pain.

That night I collected data for temperatures, internet is, well you all know... sea temperatures, during the last 30 years, I assumed that only the upper area of the sea had an 1 deg.C increase in temperature (20-30 m depth?), earth is a ball approx 12700 km in diameter, approx 70% of this is water. To increase the water temp for 1 liter/1 deg C, you'll need 4180J/kg*K okay; I admit it, it was a zillion zeros, in that amount of energy gone into that temperature increase.
I then calculated the no of sec. the last 30 years, also a lot of zeros. and divided the first result with this. This gave me the average energy input for the last 30 years (ehh; the lack of balance). Got a troublesome number there too, divided this into the no of people on this 3rd rock from the sun... If I recall correctly I ended up with approx 5000 W Per head...., not considering if the person is located in the middle of Kalahari and have never seen a electric socket or of the person is located in the west coast of the USA with (big) car, (big) boat, (big) house, AC etc. That's the misbalance of that calculation, heat input, versus output (heat loss).
No way that all that energy comes from human activities alone. But I believe its a kind of domino effect, mayby some buffer actions in the nature is also tripping over.
However:
We're painting the glass of our greenhouse, cheaper flights, more flights, bigger, better faster more... So; Nobody did see my (one man) protest march, that night, in my hometown...

0230; that same night, I came up with the
3 rd theorem: The 1 st crabcooking theorem also applies to humans.

So my preliminary decision is; can we in any way, infect the environment in a positive way, even by fractions, by our actions, or by our knowledge avoid something, that will change the (way of) life as we are used to it; We should do it, or try to do it.

However I do claim the right to a change of mind, in any direction.

[masalai]

Some Norwegians have an interesting intellectual capacity, Thank You Sir....recognition awarded

[DanishBagger]

Originally Posted by masalai

recognition awarded

Haha, you too? I did too, and we almost quadroupled his reps


Edit: I completely forgot: The problem with the calculation is (of course) that it's not just about how much "heat" humans produce. No, it's about how much of a "lid" we produce, so all the Gigawatts the sun produces and sends to earth cannot escape again. It's like gaffataping a pig sty, for want of a better picture.

[the1much]

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERNATIONAL MEDIA CONTACTS (IN 16 COUNTRIES) FOR THE DECLARATION - CLICK HERE

TO VIEW ENDORSERS OF THE DECLARATION - CLICK HERE

TO ENDORSE THE DECLARATION - CLICK HERE
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.


That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.



Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
and who are these people?,,,every day yahoo's,,,,but their name makes em sound like thy're something special,,hehe,,,,thats why i say,,,,there are very FEW "experts",,the rest are bored people who wanna sound smart,,hehe
heres who these people are,,,hehe<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Science Advisory Board

Professor William Alexander (South Africa)

Professor Scott Armstrong (United States)

Dr Tim Ball (Canada)

Dr David Bellamy (United Kingdom)

Andre Bijkerk (Netherlands)

Professor Bob Carter (Australia)

Hans Erren (Netherlands)

Dr Vincent Gray (New Zealand)

Dr Kesten Green (New Zealand)

Dr J. Herold (Germany)

Albert Jacobs (Canada)

Dr Madhav L Khandekar (Canada)

Dr William Kinninmonth (Australia)

Professor R.W.J. (Rob) Kouffeld (Netherlands)

Hans Labohm (Netherlands)

Dr Jay Lehr (United States)

Professor Marcel Leroux (France)

Professor Fred Michel (Canada)

Dr Nils-Axel Mörner (Sweden)

Professor Peter Stilbs (Sweden)

Dr Gerrit van der Lingen (New Zealand)

[DanishBagger]

Yup, the one. They ARE actually saying that because plants need co2, let's make even more, as it benefits the plant.
Hell, even taking a look at their dvd-section, they're selling videos produced by western fuels association saying the same thing. Plus, WFA is linking to them constantly.

Btw, the Idso's are all agricultural "scientists" (I hesitate to call them that, as that would imply they actually knew what "scientific methods" are).
What a bunch of tossers.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by DanishBagger

The problem with the calculation is (of course) that it's not just about how much "heat" humans produce. No, it's about how much of a "lid" we produce, so all the Gigawatts the sun produces and sends to earth cannot escape again. It's like gaffataping a pig sty, for want of a better picture.

That's what i meant by "painting the greenhouse"..
1 m3 of co2 weight about 1,9 kg/m3, while air weight 1,3 kg/m3, so; eventually, it will fall down to earth, where plants can do their job, but the time it spends in the atmosphere is probably the problem.

Another idea; Can we put all planes on the ground for 1-2 months, can we measure any improvement? I wouldn't miss a second of my time spent on planes or airports, so the personal cost would be minimal...