What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

people are "popping" up right and left saying he has committed blatant errors G
that exactly the what Im trying to get you to acknowledge
its just that FM refuses to withdraw or make any corrections

unlike out beloved Naomi Oreskes who immediately acknowledged her error, printed a retraction and resubmitted her paper
like any reasonable adult would do

thing is I think FM is afraid the paper would not be accepted once real numbers were used in place of this poor use of Kerchhoff and formulas that do not add up

the point is that he has misquoted Kerchhoff's law

emission in this instance is measured in Wm^2 and is a value of ~1368 for earth depends on if we are in equilibrium or not
a rather large number

emissivity on the other hand is a ratio and in this case does not exceed 1
a relatively small number

so if FM wants to build a formula using parameters based on Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance paper ( which he has ) and there work is based on Kerchhoff's law being measured as a ratio not exceeding a value of 1 then he is going to have to justify those conversions from there original and note them within the formula

which I am not seeing in this paper

which leads me to believe he has not made the adjustments and why eq 4 does not add up

FM states that eq 4 does not add up because Kiehl-Trenberth did not use a real atmosphere ( whatever that is ) although my next letter to him will ask if he is modeling a semi gray model or a black body model how it is he is using any more of a real atmosphere than they were and how is it possible not to justify the values of the equation and still get accurate results

yes you can assign whatever measurement system you want to Kerchoff's law but that measurement system must be consistent throughout the any equation built using the new definition of Kerchhoff and that does not appear to have been done

at least there is no note of it within the body of the work

thus eq 4 does not add up as FM himself admits in his last letter to me

are you seriously still going to deny this simple fact

I think the readers can all see who is struggling to avoid acknowledging what is clearly a poorly written paper and one that failed in its review process repeatedly

cone on G
its not so hard to admit when one is wrong
its part of life

even FM is saying eq 4 does not add up and he wrote the dam thing




and no worries on the Spanish
you would be surprised how much Spanish I am able to grok
not bad with french either

cheers
B

pps

seems if I wanted to learn about Miskolczi I might talk to Miskolczi which is exactly what Im doing
even he admits that equation 4 does not add up

if you read my previous you will see that I acknowledge that you can measure Kerchhoff how you want but if you alter that parameter you must also alter all other parameters to match
Im not seeing that in this paper

[Guillermo]

Your insisting in debating if FM has misquoted or not the KL is a total and useless stupidity. I quit :(

[Boston]

we are not debating
a debate would imply there was some question
there isn't
its plain as day for any reasonable person who wants to read Kerchhoff's law and then page 5 paragraph 5 were FM misquotes it

another interesting point about this area of the paper is represented in the following correspondence I have most recently fired off to Ferenc (FM)

thanks again for your response Ferenc
I understand the process no problem its just that Im wondering if you used Wm^2 that the term emission implies in your definition of Kerchhoff's law or if you used the correct value of a ratio less than, or not exceeding 1 in this instance
if you used Wm^2 implied by your use of the term emission rather than the correct term emissivity then you would have had to convert all other parameters to the new measurement system in order to obtain even remotely accurate results

Im also curious about your last answer in that it states that eq 4 does not add up because Kiehl-Trenberth were not using a "real" atmosphere, because it looks like you are modeling either a semi gray atmosphere or a black body but neither are any more "real" and so it seems that eq 4 was never intended to add up which begs the question why use it as an example of Kerchhoff's law which you state must add up and then present an equation that does not add up but which you say represents an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium

doesnt seem to make much sence to use an equation that does not add up to represent a system that is in equilibrium according to Kerchhoff's law which by definition must be equal ( add up )

I am looking forward to his response
he has graciously admitted that eq 4 does not add up and that Kerchhoff's is not quoted verbatim

I have admitted that it is not necessary to measure Kerchhoff's in any particular measurement system as long as the system is consistent throughout the calculations ( obviously ) and so have asked to see the conversions of the other parameters of the equations throughout the paper
which I do not see noted within the paper
an important omission and potential of more errors in conversion, which is why it would be vital to include these conversions in the notes

[Guillermo]

A otra cosa, mariposa :)

An interesting work about the accuracy of IPCC's climate climate scenarios, presented to the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008, Vienna, Austria, 13‐18 April 2008

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/2/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPr_.pdf

Conclusions
• All examined long records demonstrate large overyear variability (long‐term
fluctuations) with no systematic signatures across the different locations/climates.
• GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical
locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.
• However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with
reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally,
underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the
models proves to be systematically better than the others.
• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model
predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.
• This makes future climate projections not credible.
• The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of
the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only
to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods.

[Brent Swain]

It's as clear as day if we look at the amount of open ocean in the arctic and antarctic, the much higher than normal temperatures in the prairies, the disappearance of glaciers, the droughts and wildfires, the collapse of the Larsen ice shelf, etc etc. Makes your numbers game a bit irrelevant.

[Boston]

exactly
the real world evidence is overwhelming

and for our many readers further edification
my latest correspondence with F Miskolczi did not successfully elicit a response to my specific questions so I have reworded them and sent it to FM again

I understand that you are referring to Wm^2 which is why I asked if you had converted all other associated parameters within the equations to represent the same Wm^2

also I'm still a little concerned about eq4 not adding up
if you have altered the values of the parameters could you show your work in regards to why

it seems page 5 paragraph 4 is regarding global five year average planetary equilibrium temperature and presenting the value of 235.2 Wm^2
again on page 5 paragraph 5 you mention Kerchhoff's law in regards to equilibrium and specifically

"in case the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with the surface we may write that"

and then you present a formula that does not represent equilibrium unless there are some other values being applied to the formula
my question is in regards to those values

I am looking forward to seeing how he justifies using terms differing from the long established norms presented by Kiehl-Trenberth.
Although rather than answer that directly he merely stated that his model is different than there's, I just had to ask, how? how is a semi transparent clear sky model any different than the classic gray or semi gray body model of Kiehl-Trenberth?
neither question elicited a direct answer and so I have rephrased the questions and resubmitted them to FM hoping I will get a more substantial answer.

[Guillermo]

IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ....ETC
(and also to Brent and Boston, this last still believing in the Reyes Magos :D )

http://www.naturalclimatechange.com/documents/6-23-09-naturaldriverofclimatechangeendangermentcomments.pdf

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

OVERWHELMING REALITY:

- Sea level has been and still is rising at the same steady pace of around 1.5 mm/year since around 300 years, as a consequence of the planet coming out of the LIA.
- Artic sea ice extension has been increasing and diminishing in multidecal periods. It was in a diminishing trend till 2007 and seems to be again growing.
- Antarctic sea ice has been growing at the pace of 100.000 km2 per decade since around 30 years. It roughly switches mode with Arctic.
- Polar bears populations are rapidly increasing since their hunting was regulated some 40 years ago.
- Hurricane’s activity index has been declining and it is in its lowest of the last 30 years.
- Bleached coral reefs have been recovering in the last years at a pace that surprises scientists.
- Glaciers are generally retreating after their huge advance during the LIA, to their previous state at the MWP.
- Global surface temperatures have been slowly growing at a steady state since the coming out of the LIA. Its exact amount is uncertain due to the varying conditions and diminishing number of land measuring stations, but is at its most of 0,6ºC per century.
- Tropical high troposphere is not warming but cooling with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmsphere.
- IPCC computer models’ projections totally fail to match climate reality at global scale, not to mention at regional scale for which they are totally inadequate.
- Planet is globally greening with the increasing athmosperic CO2 concentration and the mild global temperatures. This has been contrarresting inadequate man-made land use changes and permitting to produce increasing food quantities for the growing humankind.
- Malary and other mosquitoes transmitted maladies are retreating again thanks to the rising in 2006 of the the wrong banning of DDT in the seventies. Such maladies’ control have nothing to do with the control of anthropogenic CO2.
- Methane athmospheric concentration does not follow a similar pattern to the one of CO2 and has been esentially flat since around a decade now.
- Contribution of submarine volcanic activity to athmospheric CO2 and acidity of the oceans still is poorly known


Etc, etc.

Now I'm going out for a nice Galician meal with wife.
Enjoy your day.

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

The evidence that is overwhelming is the evidence of fraud, lies, deception, intimidation, and distortion by the scientists involved with the IPCC and the various govermental groups that supply it with doctored data. Never mind the obvious errors in mathematics in most of the data bases or the poorly designed computer models. Speaking of models, an acquaintance in manufacturing was telling me just how worthless the models really are. He designs models for industry where are the parameters are pretty tightly controlled. Even in those models where all the inputs are pretty much a constant, the results do not reflect a simple mathematical equation and adjustments have to be made. He laughed at Hansens attempts to predict climate using models as delusional, just too many variables and no amount of pre-programming can account for them. As we have all seen here in posts by Jimbo, unless you make up stuff, like atmospheric C02 having a lifetime of 50-200 years, as Hansen did, his models don't work at all. Back to fraud and deception though. Bostons oft claimed 97% number jumps right out there. There are more caveats attached to reaching that number than in the Health Care Reform Bill. The Hockey Stick next comes to mind, not even God is attributed the power to wipe out history as Mann did the Roman and Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age. Then there is the problem with the ice cores. Originally they claimed the cores showed C02 increasing before warming, thus a cause of warming. Of course they lied or were amazingly stupid as the inverse is true and accepted by all now, except Boston. Then there is the Antartic ice shelf that broke off. First of course attributed to warming, then correctly attributed to volcanic activity. The temperature game with the ground stations comes to mind. When they got caught putting measuring devices in highway meridians, they said ground temp didn't matter, it was atmospheric temp that counted. Then the weather balloons showed no warming and the satelites showed no warming and actually a cooling since 2000 or so. So the oceans became the agent of warming next but then those pesky measuring devices showed it wasn't happening there either for the last 4 years. Ah but, never fear, we have proof, the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. Oops, they meant to say 2350 based on a magazine article about a phone call to an Indian scientist who says he was just speculating and doesn't have any proof and didn't really do any research, just sounded good at the time. But, but, but, the polar bears are dying!!!!! Oh me, oh my, except they are not of course. They made it throught the last time the Northwest Passage was clear, they will the next time if it ever happens soon. The increase in number and intensity of storms has not happened either, damn. The Sahara is actually shrinking in size, the Sahel is becoming more verdant every year. Sea levels when actually measured instead of relying on the word of a cousin who says there is less beach area, have not risen beyond normal variation. Maybe I'll start to worry when they start to market Scottish wines again, haven't done that since a long long time ago, hmmm, what caused that warming spell, ah, I know, alien C02 generators, yea that's it! Oh ****, I almost forgot to mention the emails. Now those guys, "The Team" as they named themselves got pretty creative. Machiavelli rose from the grave to slap them on the back for their deviousness. Boston of course claimed they were forged, he was wrong again. The context is hard to misunderstand. They were quite clear in their deception and tactics. Now we know why the peer review process only spits out AGW KoolAid Club members work papers, they rigged the process, go figure. So all we have left is a bunch of babble left about the precautionary principle and good gosh golly gee, we ought to change our ways anyhow, cause, cause, .......... well just because! I mean after all it's like Al Gore said, "It's complicated"..

What often goes unmentioned however is the social agenda that all these nutcases march lockstep in pursuit of. These facists simply want to impose their social agenda of zero growth and worldwide socialism and are using AGW as a scare tactic. Boston is truly one of the dangerous ones. He favors a ban on plastics. That would kill tens of millions of people. Maybe that's his goal. Many of the alarmists favor a devolution of human society as they see the human race as a malignancy.

So what do we really have. A lot of manipulated science to exaggerate natural climate changes that are within historical patterns in order to impose a radical social agenda. If all the science was so certain, the consensus so sure, the data so perfect, why the need for all the ******** deception and fraud, lying, intimidation, and fabrication from those who claim a desire to save the planet?????

The answer is pretty obvious.

[fasteddy106]

Oh, I forgot to mention ad hominem attacks. If you want to see some examples of that, just pick any 6 or so of Bostons posts when he is not spouting irrelevent drivel.They could be a textbook definition.

[troy2000]

Eddy, anyone who calls the same people fascists in one breath and socialists in the next is mudslinging and name calling.

I'm not wading into the scientific debate here, but you're obviously trying to politicize the debate and take it out of the realm of science.

There are obviously political ramifications to the debate, but the science of it doesn't stand or fall on the names you sling at the scientists involved.

[fasteddy106]

Well Troy, I guess my whole point is that the issue is not about science, it is about a social agenda that cannot be won at the ballot box. If you look at the remarks of some of the folks who are pushing the AGW hoax down our throats you will see that calling them socialists and facists is a compliment.

[Boston]

G what did you guys have
Im all about food and although I've many Roman dish's
Im not all that familiar with Galacian food
Spanish style food around here has little to do with sea food
unfortunately

Troy
the political aspect of the discussion ( a debate would imply there were some other viable competing theory and there simply isn't ) is the main driving force.
That is one reason the importance of the consensus and the value of Oreskes "Beyond the Ivory Tower" is so staunchly denied by the deniers. To recognize these simple facts would be to admit that the science is in and the amount of anomalous data trivial. The only thing left to do is address the industry sponsored political campaign designed to delay change that might effect the bottom line. Money; short term profit is the game and the public arena is the audience agnotologists are trying to win, the scientific community is largely settled on the issue and have moved on to mitigation. Politics is the only arena where industry has the upper hand and so thats where the fight exists. Its called choosing your own ground for a fight in which you are outnumbered. The scientific arena is hardly the best place to win a battle in which your best weapon is BS

hope that makes the reasons why the deniers seek to politicize the conversation a little clearer; the science simply does not support there view

cheers
B

[fasteddy106]

There is no industry sponsored campaign. There is only the campaign by the zero growth nuts to inspire class warfare. Please Boston, post the check numbers from the corporate records if you want to make such a claim. If you know anything about business you know those records are public. The attempt to deflect the skeptics by claiming a connection to the oil companies is just smoke and mirrors. What Boston doesn't tell anyone is that the oil companies he seeks to demonize won't have their profits affected in any way. If the supply of oil is artificially diminished, the price goes up and so do the profits per gallon. Boy, that sure is sending them a message! The logic pool there is about as deep as a thimble.

What is called anomolous actually goes to the heart of the AGW hoax. The so called warming is well within natural and historical variations. There is no cause for alarm. Anthropogenic C02 will not cause a runaway greenhouse effect, nor does it cause warming and there is no empirical evidence to show it does.

All we have is group of radical idealogues who have scientific degrees who have created their own specialty subgroup of science, hijacked the normal peer review process, and now are proclaiming that mankind is a cancer on the earth and must devolve in order to save the planet from themselves.

The devotion to the cause of AGW by these High Priest of the AGW dogma makes the discipline of the Roman Catholic Opus Dei pale by comparison.

Again the question, if the science is so certain, why the need for all the subterfuge and deception and lies and slander and intimidation? Notice that Boston doesn't address this.

[troy2000]

Well Troy, I guess my whole point is that the issue is not about science, it is about a social agenda that cannot be won at the ballot box. If you look at the remarks of some of the folks who are pushing the AGW hoax down our throats you will see that calling them socialists and facists is a compliment.

You're wrong. The issue is about science. You're trying to hijack it, and turn it into a political issue instead. You can't impugn the entire subject of climate change simply by pointing out that some of the people who believe it are nuts, or also pushing other agendas. I've seen some of the nonsense by people on your side: you know, stuff about scientists being Fascists and Socialists, all at the same time...:D

That's on about the same level as claiming that people who tabulate drunk-driving statistics or investigate the effects of intoxication on driving skills are simply fascists and socialists, who really want to take our cars away from us and make us walk.

You guys can drag out graphs and papers for or against climate change on this thread until the cows come home, but it won't change common sense. And common sense says the majority of scientists worldwide are not engaged in some sort of sinister conspiracy. They aren't trying to use climate change as an excuse to take over the world. It's sad that I should even have to say something so self-evident.

Like most conspiracy buffs your conspiracy theory doesn't work, unless we postulate there are damn near more people conspiring than there are people being conspired against...

[hoytedow]

There is no system closer to socialism than fascism.

[hoytedow]

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
--Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1923

[troy2000]

There is no system closer to socialism than fascism.

Oh please....Europe is covered with socialist countries, and not a damn one of them is fascist. Are you telling me the Swedes are Fascists? The Brits? The French?

[hoytedow]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

[hoytedow]

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin

[hoytedow]

Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

- Patrick Henry (from his Liberty or Death speech)

[Zed]

LOL....

Science is always political, humans are involved! Science history is replete with examples of the minority being proven correct yet having to face a torrent of sometimes very nasty opposition. There are so many agendas tied in with climate science there is no way it is pure, its a god damn political football with many sides trying to exploit it.

[troy2000]

There is no industry sponsored campaign.

There you go again, saying things that are not only wrong, but blatantly false. I say blatantly false because I'm quite sure you've been debating this subject long enough to know better.

ExxonMobil alone has given millions of dollars to lobbying groups who argue against climate change being a reality.

[hoytedow]

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

Joseph Goebbels

[hoytedow]

Goebbels developed his propaganda techniques by studying the methods of early 20th century progressives.

[rasorinc]

Good post and very true. I have read much about propoganda from 1935 onward. We see it used today by the party in power.

[fasteddy106]

There you go again, saying things that are not only wrong, but blatantly false. I say blatantly false because I'm quite sure you've been debating this subject long enough to know better.

ExxonMobil alone has given millions of dollars to lobbying groups who argue against climate change being a reality.

Post the check numbers Troy, prove your statement. Plus you are ignoring the fact that the energy industries are in a win win position, they can't lose. If the AGW KoolAid Club creates a phoney shortage of oil they simply make more money on less sales.

Exxon/Mobil has spent 23 million on research, not lobbyists, bit of a difference there. Besides, why shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves against the class warfare being waged on them? Btw, no one is saying the that the climate is not changing. Of course it is, it always has and always will. That's another ruse used by the dogmatics of AGW. We are not arguing against reality, we are arguing against the junk science being used to promote a political agenda. Do some reading beyond the headlines Troy, this link is a good start.......

http://joannenova.com.au/

[Guillermo]

There you go again, saying things that are not only wrong, but blatantly false. I say blatantly false because I'm quite sure you've been debating this subject long enough to know better.

ExxonMobil alone has given millions of dollars to lobbying groups who argue against climate change being a reality.
One of your problems here is that you have not been long enough in this thread, or you wouldn't say that (unless you are so hard minded and stubborn as Boston, of course!). :D

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Boston, here you are.
Whenever you want, you're invited.....:)

Cheers!

[troy2000]

One of your problems here is that you have not been long enough in this thread, or you wouldn't say that (unless you are so hard minded and stubborn as Boston, of course!). :D

Cheers.

As much time and energy as fasteddie spends researching and debating this subject, it's inconceivable he would would say something so wrong simply out of ignorance.

That isn't any esoteric question of how to interpret charts, or how reliable hundred year-old readings are; it's a matter of public record. It's a well-known and well-publicized fact that the petroleum industry, particularly Exxon/Mobil, has spent millions of dollars financing groups and individuals who attempt to discredit climate change.

[hoytedow]

ExxonMobil spent a lot of money feeding the crocodile(DNC) as well in the misbegotten hope of being eaten last.

[Guillermo]

"Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the (UK's) environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban."

Excerpted from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

Cheers.

[Marco1]

Eddy, anyone who calls the same people fascists in one breath and socialists in the next is mudslinging and name calling.

I'm not wading into the scientific debate here, but you're obviously trying to politicize the debate and take it out of the realm of science.

There are obviously political ramifications to the debate, but the science of it doesn't stand or fall on the names you sling at the scientists involved.

Hi there Troy, can I ask you a question?

Why do you believe in antropogenic global warming?

Answer: Because you choose to believe one side of the story over another.
That is it.

It is your personal choice, like I made my own personal choice and so did everyone on this thread unless the collected data and made each their own research and calculations.

So it all comes down to who is the most credible right?

Who is easier to be believed, a world wide organisation who has roots in every concievable governemt and left wing political parties, the UN and all the scientist on the payroll....
Or an smaller yet ever growing group of sceptics who risk their career and get their funds blocked and their work unpublished because of what they want to uncover?

It is a rather simple choice.

The only reason global warming has still so many acolites is becuase there is a vast number of people who feel empowered by this new wave of majority dissenting. They, with the religious fervour of the Spanish inquisition have finaly found a way to legaly burn witches. The bastard who has a 10 room house is the same bastard who has 3 cars in the garage and finally you can nail the bastard for warming up the planet and starve the poalr bear, and sink the pacific islands.
The fact that this is all ********, is irrelevant. It is too good to pass. And it is too good to pass by all the politicians also.

So those who sincerely want to "do something" are being used, (whats new) and are marching in front and telling us all that the future is hay roofs kero lamps and goats and chucks in your garden. Honestly I had enough of the whole green ********. It is time people wake up and get a real job.
Sorry not refering to you since I don't know you.

Ah...before I forget...if there is someone here who represents the oil industry, the coal industry, the gas industry or any other industry who is affected by the global warming alarmist, please, pretty please, contact me. I will endevour to work for our (yours and mine ) cause for a small donation towards my phone/internet bill.

GREEN IS ROTTEN, LONG LIVE CONCRETE AND DIESEL

[Guillermo]

I don't agree the GW discussion is basically a problem of a left-right world-wide struggle nowadays, as facts do not support that. I know many people and organizations in both sides defending or rejecting the man-made GW theory. Even the Catholic Church, particularly the Pope Benedictus XVI, has positioned itself whithin the voices supporting the need to control climate, worried by the increasing poverty of thousands of millions of people.

In my opinion what is happening is that we live in a world that has built the pernicious habit of moving itself only around alarmism and media mastheads. GWA is only one more in the growing list of such alarmisms, like the DDT, avian influence, swine flu, etc, hysterias. We no longer pursuit truth and liberty, but the clearing of our consciences to hide the guilty self-indulgence of our wealthy societies and the irrational and out of proportion panic to our own death and pain.

Some no qualms and power yearning organizations take advantage of such a poor moral condition and initiate and feed up that kind of global hysterias based in poor/incomplete science or even plain lies, to frighten the crowds of "tontos útiles" around the world and so force short term focused politicians to throw into their hands huge amounts of money. The UN WHO's treatment of the swine flu is a good example of such scaring methods. And GWA is another one, which is going to be substituted, sooner or later, by a GCA (Global Cooling Alarmism).


Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Thank you Marco1 for my new signature line,"GREEN IS ROTTEN, LONG LIVE CONCRETE AND DIESEL".

[fasteddy106]

While Troy fixates on the $23 million ExxonMobil spent on research the rest of you can enjoy this post from JoNova.........

is a new comment on the post "Pitman: paid $190,000 a year to throw baseless insults". http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/pitman-paid-190000-a-year-to-throw-baseless-insults/ Author: Louis HissinkComment:twawki: Scientific facts are established by experimental verification by other scientists - and if the theory passes muster, then it is codified into a physical "law" and becomes an engineering problem. Debate starts when the theory can't be easily tested experimentally - and often it's a debate about semantics but generally means the theory is not being studied with the right ideas. In terms of climate science and as Jo put on an earlier thread, "how to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps", the bit that climate science can't explain in terms of the standard model of the solar system, (nuclear powered radiating sun providing ALL the energy that reaches the earth as radiation) is then attributed to CO2. In the plasma model the sun and earth, as well as the rest of the solar system, are part of a large interconnected electrical system in which energy is transferred via the enormous Birkeland currents now identified by the THEMIS mission to the sun and from the sun and solar system to the Earth. The auroras are simply evidence of electric currents passing into and out of the Earth system, and these currents are routinely measured in millions of amperes. The auroras glow as a result of those electric currents increasing in power density. Sunspots are electric discharges on the sun's photosphere, and when they become minimal or absent, means that the electrical power driving the sun has decreased in power density. And we know historically that this cycle is about 22 years. Electric currents passing through matter generate thermal effects, radiation etc. Climate science focusses on solar radiation as the sole source of energy - well, solar radiation is a bit like a temperature meter - if it glows hot the higher the temperature and hence energy put into the system, and if gets less bright, then the temperature is dropping. Where we have gone off the rails in science is assuming that the temperature meter IS the energy source. It isn't, its the underlying electric currents in the plasma of space that are the sources of the energy that powers the sun and indirectly the earth. Add electricity to the mix and the "grey area we can't explain" becomes explicable. Except that AGW was never about the science in the first place, and that's why there is so much debate. See all comments on this post here:http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/pitman-paid-190000-a-year-to-throw-baseless-insults/#comments

[fasteddy106]

Thinking about Troy's denial of a conspiracy and his complaints about ExxonMObil's paltry $23 million research spending brought me to this article, now here is some conspiracy and real spending to worry about......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

[fasteddy106]

Time for a little humor..........

A Congressman was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when he turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.'

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the total stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?'

'Oh, I don't know,' said the congressman. 'How about global warming or universal health care', and he smiles smugly.

OK, ' she said. 'Those could be interesting topics. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'

The legislator, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'

To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming or universal health care when you don't know ****?

[Guillermo]

Although galciers have been already extensively debated, these figures had not been posted before in this thread, as far as I could found. I think they are of most interest because they clearly show how glaciers around the globe have been retreating since the coming out of the LIA.

And this from the hands of an article published at Science magazine and cited 162 times.

SOURCE: Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. Oerlemans (2005a). Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1107046

First attached figure: Global temperatures from 1600 derived from the lengths of glaciers.

Second attached figure: Composite average of up to 169 glaciers worldwide (the number varies in different time periods).


Cheers.

[Boston]

constructed a temperature history for different parts of the world from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, I related changes in glacier length to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century is 0.5 kelvin. This warming was notably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.

sure has

Ill have to do better than just skim that article but in the end he is in full agreement with the increased melt as being indicative of increased warming.

Galatian food
I picked up a bunch of shrimp and fresh veggies yesterday and started spicing some fresh cold pressed olive oil
thought I'd try a few things

once that olive oil has a chance to soak up some of that Chili oil then Ill try some grilled shrimp in spiced oil over some kind of salad thing with maybe some seared tuna

I looked up Galatian food and dam that stuff looks good

oh
FM did not provide me with the desired calculations concerning how he justifies eq 4 despite being asked multiple times; which he says will not add up because Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1979/2009 was not representative of the same kind of model system he used. He has not responded to my request that he elaborate on the methods used to justify an equation that is not in equilibrium to represent a system that is by definition in equilibrium within the confines of Kerchhoff's Law. The values used for years to represent the parameters defined in eq 4 FM randomly redefines without justification.

remind you of any one ?
kinda like what you guys are saying about Mann and his hockey stick

[Boston]

oh
There is simply no justification for suggesting that there is anything less than a multi million dollar disinformation campaign being staged by industry against the science of global warming

its a campaign that is widely studied in numerous universities and the example of the tobacco industries campaign against smoking regulation is a classic for runner of the energy industries campaign

the basic premise is that there is no debate within the scientific community and so the energy industry wages its disinformation campaign in the political arena, an arena were bribery in the form of lobbyist actions and campaign contributions take the place of science and fact.

whole study even has a name

( have we forgotten so soon or was it willful ignorance )

agnotology

Agnotology,

formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek word ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"), and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]

Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be," or are ignored or delayed. For example, knowledge about plate tectonics was delayed for at least a decade because key evidence was classified military information related to underseas warfare.[4]

basically its the corporate oligarchies answer to the science

[Marco1]

Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be," or are ignored or delayed.

A lot like supressing or falsifying data or making up scare stories about Himalya glaciars, area 51, polar bears dying by the millions, pacific islands sinking to the center of the earth, the boogy man with sinus inflamation, rain in Africa stopping and start going upwards, the Amazon drying up, the lock ness monster giving birth, the crop circles as a new language.... :D

the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

"I know that I don't know" as proclamed by Socrates is much older than any "university study". I would add somthing to the other part of the statement about ********ology and that is to be applied to most self proclamed "green"
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

[Marco1]

PS

Reciepe for Jam Crostata. Italian version of short bread with jam cake.
I found that most reciepe of this dish are rather crappy so I modified it to what it is supposed to be. The true blue 4/3/2/1 pasta frolla.
Try it you will love it


* 400 g flour, half self raising half not.
* 300 g sugar
* 200 g unsalted butter
* 1 egg and 2 yolk
* The grated zest of a lemon

2 cups of Plum Jam. If it is acidic, better, otherwise Rasperry Jam will do.

Cut the butter cold from the fridge into little cubes, place in a food processor and mix the flour and butter into a sandy consistence

Combine with the sugar and egg without kneeding much at all handling them as little as possible to keep the butter from melting. Leave to rest for an hour in the fridge or leave for the net day, it improves with age.

Once the dough has rested, butter a flat-bottomed pan about 12 inches across (if you have one elegant enough to double as a serving dish, use it),

Roll the dough out somewhere between a quarter and a half inch thick; work quickly, without working the dough overmuch lest it become crumbly upon baking. Set aside the cuttings to make decorative strips.

Spread jam on the dough in the pan. Roll the cuttings, cut the sheet into half-inch strips with a serrated pastry wheel, and lay the strips in a crosshatch pattern over the jam. When you've finished laying out your strips of dough, lay a thin ring of dough around the border of the crostata and tamp it down with a fork to pattern the crostata's rim.

Bake the crostata for about 30 minutes, starting with a cold oven DO NOT preheat your oven, 170 C or 160 if fan forced,...or until the dough begins to brown. Do not let it overbake.

[Boston]

tracking coal money in politics

http://coalmoney.priceofoil.org/

tracking oil money in politics

http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

cheers
B

[Marco1]

My dear Mr B

What you are pointing out is nothing new. Industries of all walks of life have always paid their way with party donations, bribes, funding of any way imaginable to all the shades of politics in the known world. That is a fact of life and human nature at it's less likable state.

However....

Do you really think that the money paid to politicians by the energy industry can even remotely compare to 1/1000,000 of what is spend to LIE to the public using advertising campigns funded with tax money in order to pass legislation that will tax us even further in order to achieve nothing at all?

I think that the thought behind this gargantuan Con Job has been epitomised by a well known Canadian...

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister.

And to contrast, a quote from our very own Penny Wong, from inside her Prussian Uniform...
"You are going to get an ETS, if you like it or not"

Green is rotten...Long live CONCRETE AND DIESEL !!"

[Boston]

I think additional taxes for any reason is a waist of money
basically those rat bastards are getting enough of our money already
to much actually

yes we have a global warming problem and
no I wouldn't trust these idiots in politics to fix a flat tire let alone anything even remotely as difficult as global warming
half of those fools don't even understand what it is let alone how to address the issue

taxes are not the answer
it will only get foisted off on the consumer and industry and gov will just keep right on doing what they have always done

taxes wont make a **** bit of difference

its just one more way to take a real problem and present some scheme designed to personally advance a few people at the expense of the many

typical US gov responce to a problem
kinda like the bank bail outs

funny thing is Ive said this countless times

cheers
B

[Marco1]

It is not only the US, we are following suit unless this year people wake up and vote conservative.

Just look at Europe and what they have done of their ETS or carbon trading.

I wonder what will be next after the GW ballon is deflated...we had the avian and the swine...may be some eXtraterrestrial bug? That would be a new one.
It just takes an asteroid landing and spreading of a few lab born viruses dressed up in green suits....:P

[Boston]

both parties are a crock

both take bribes from the oil and gas industry and everyone else thats offering one and both are just as responsible for failing the people and running the country into the dirt

I say hang the bastards one and all and let God sort em out

we need a whole new gov in this country and not much positive is likely to happen any time soon until we get brave and throw these bums out democrat or republican, conservative ( as if they are actually conservative ) or liberal ( fat chance of any honesty there eh )

[fasteddy106]

There is simply no justification for suggesting that there is anything less than a multi million dollar disinformation campaign being staged by industry against the science of global warming


In response to the above quote by Boston, I will again ask that he post the check numbers and amounts of the bribes and persons taking them. These are public corporations and their books are open. Boston is so good at posting irrelevent minutae and other nonsense, this research should be easy for him. Saying everybody knows just doesn't cut it. What we know is that everybody says that, without backing it up.

Hang them all doesn't quite work in a democracy. Nor is it anywhere near a logical response. Quite irresponsible as a matter of fact. Except for an egotist like Boston. Let God sort them out???? Now that's a beauty coming from him.

What is really funny about Boston is that he continues to confuse climate change with causation. No one is saying that the climate insn't changing. We are debunking the alarmism being used. We are debating the phoney numbers and data distortion. We are questioning the methods used to come up with some of the data. We question the motives behind the deception, and lies. If a science is so certain and the results so perfectly ordained, why the need for the snake oil salesman tactics. We just can't accept that someone using all the unethical and dishonest methods that the AGW movement has used is really doing that out of a concern for our best interests. He just can't deal with fact that an overwhelming majority of folks just don't buy into AGW or his wackjob philosophy of zero growth, anarchism, and whatever other buckshot philosophies are bouncing off the inside of his skull.

[troy2000]

There is simply no justification for suggesting that there is anything less than a multi million dollar disinformation campaign being staged by industry against the science of global warming


In response to the above quote by Boston, I will again ask that he post the check numbers and amounts of the bribes and persons taking them. These are public corporations and their books are open. Boston is so good at posting irrelevent minutae and other nonsense, this research should be easy for him. Saying everybody knows just doesn't cut it. What we know is that everybody says that, without backing it up.

Hang them all doesn't quite work in a democracy. Nor is it anywhere near a logical response. Quite irresponsible as a matter of fact. Except for an egotist like Boston. Let God sort them out???? Now that's a beauty coming from him.

What is really funny about Boston is that he continues to confuse climate change with causation. No one is saying that the climate insn't changing. We are debunking the alarmism being used. We are debating the phoney numbers and data distortion. We are questioning the methods used to come up with some of the data. We question the motives behind the deception, and lies. If a science is so certain and the results so perfectly ordained, why the need for the snake oil salesman tactics. We just can't accept that someone using all the unethical and dishonest methods that the AGW movement has used is really doing that out of a concern for our best interests. He just can't deal with fact that an overwhelming majority of folks just don't buy into AGW or his wackjob philosophy of zero growth, anarchism, and whatever other buckshot philosophies are bouncing off the inside of his skull.

Little disingenuous there, son. Obviously, bribes aren't going to show up on the company books. However, the money the companies have given to dishonest lobbying efforts such as the Oregon Project is documented in excruciating detail and the numbers are readily available and widely published...as you know very well. Why do you demand that Boston produce them all over again?

Your own argument on methods can be turned against you: if opposition to climate change theory is so scientifically clear and valid, why the need for all the dishonest lobbying and bogus science to back it up?

You're still making demonstrably false claims in this thread: it simply isn't true that "an overwhelming majority of folks just don't buy into AGW." You're pulling that claim out of your fundament, with no proof at all to back it up.

It is true that fewer people believe it now than a year or two ago; congratulations to those who are working hard on their disinformation campaigns. That's an interesting approach to scientific theory: misinform the public, pound away with scare tactics, then claim the public opinion thus manufactured and manipulated should be the final arbiter of scientific truth.

By the way, it's cheap theatrics and dishonest debate to attack Boston's 'ego,' or lump Boston's beliefs on climate change in with some imagined "wackjob philosophy of zero growth, anarchism, and whatever other buckshot philosophies are bouncing off the inside of his skull." That sort of tactics would get you an F in any debate class in the country. Apparently he's too mannerly or civilized to bluntly call you on it. I'm not, though...

[hoytedow]

Yep, the Modern Whig Party looks better to me every day.

[TollyWally]

I look at the evidence and I just don't buy it. Plenty of room for controversy that's for sure. I'll ask the believers in global warming a couple of questions that if answered in a convincining way would give them a lot more credibility in my mind.

What was responsible for the observed climate fluctuations over the last few thousand years?

If we are now headed towards a mancaused climate change what is the climate we should aspire to?

[hoytedow]

Warmer is better in my mind because more people are killed by cold than warm. Cold stunts plant growth and therefore lessens food supply. Cold interferes with grape production which lessens wine supply, further diverting other grains to alcohol production further lessening food supply. Cold freezes over vast areas of seawater lessening whale supply, and who doesn't love whales?

[Guillermo]

Let's talk about Troy's "disinformation".

We have already seen glaciers retreat has nothing to do with human activities, but with the warming of the planet out from the LIA. If something is happening these last decades is that the tendency is rather slowing than accelerating. See my recent post 4541 (http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/what-do-we-think-about-climate-change-21390.html#post342986)


Now another hint (There are many, many more in this thread, but you have decided to remain blind to what doesn't match your beliefs): IPCC 2007 report's summary for policymakers http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Phenomenon and direction of trend: Intense tropical cyclone activity increases

Likelihood of a human contribution to bserved trend: More likely than not

"There is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions...."


Now let's see who is "disinforming":

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) attributes increased recent hurricane activity to “natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called “the tropical multi-decadal signal,” typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.” [http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm]


Recent research reported in 2007 by the Woods Hole Oceanic Institute “Scientists Unearth Long Record of Past Hurricanes” [http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=28207&sectionid=1021] analyzing soil deposits representing the last 5,000 years in Puerto Rico found: “extensive periods of intense hurricanes in the past, when ocean temperatures were cooler than they are now. The record showed that the dominant forces spawning heightened hurricane activity appeared to be atmospheric conditions generated by weak El Niños in the tropical Pacific and strong West African monsoons”

In their 2008 hurricane summary (“Summary of 2008 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity and Verification of Author’s Seasonal and Monthly Forecasts”, Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray, Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University, Nov. 2008) the authors state: “Despite the global warming of the sea surface that has taken place over the last 3 decades, the global numbers of hurricanes and their intensity have not shown increases in recent years except for the Atlantic. This large increase in Atlantic major hurricanes is primarily a result of the multi-decadal increase in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) that is not directly related to global sea surface temperatures or CO2 gas increases. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).” [http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2008/nov2008/nov2008.pdf]

The attached figure is from that paper and shows tracks of major (Category 3-4-5) hurricanes during the 25-year cooling period of 1945-1969 versus the 25-year warming period of 1970-1994. They state: “CO2 amounts in the later period were approximately 18 percent higher than in the earlier period. Major Atlantic hurricane activity was less than 1/2 as frequent during the latter period despite warmer global temperatures.”


I'll keep on posting about "disinformation". This is most funny and entertaining.

Cheers.

[Boston]

thanks for the thought Troy but YO YO is definitely on the ignore list
so no worries
I think we have all learned to see straight through that tripe anyway

on the Guillermo front we have melting glassier's and grasping at straws

constructed a temperature history for different parts of the world from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, I related changes in glacier length to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century is 0.5 kelvin. This warming was notably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.

sure has

Ill have to do better than just skim that article but in the end he is in full agreement with the increased melt as being indicative of increased warming.

which I believe we might have already addressed in some detail

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/lemke/geol370/images/04_glacier_mass_balance_graph.png

higher temperatures = less ice

storm dynamics is an interesting study but not a clearly indicative of warming as melting ice

[TollyWally]

So Boston,
Not trying to stir the pot but how about a little input against common sense scepticism?

[Guillermo]

But Boston my darling, no one disagrees with that. You keep on not listening to what others say.
Let's talk more slowly and loud for you to understand:

WE-ARE-NOT-DE-BA-TING-HERE-WAR-MING-BUT-ITS-CAU-SES-AND-EF-FECTS.

Capicci? :D


And also:

PLEASE-GO-ALL-THE-WAY-BACK-TO-YE-AR-SE-VEN-TEEN-HUN-DRED-NOT-JUST-TO-NINE-TEEN-SIX-TY-OR E-VEN-NINE-TEEN-HUN-DRED

Capicci? :D

[Guillermo]

both parties are a crock

both take bribes from the oil and gas industry and everyone else thats offering one and both are just as responsible for failing the people and running the country into the dirt

I say hang the bastards one and all and let God sort em out...
Amazing! This is totally atonishing, coming from you! Are you beginning to see the light? :D :D :D

[Boston]

So Boston,
Not trying to stir the pot but how about a little input against common sense scepticism?

no worries
ummmm
common sense says that if we alter the chemistry of the atmosphere were are likely to see some changes in how that atmosphere works
seems logical

we have dumped untold tons of Co2 into that air
kinda makes sense that that might have some kind of detrimental effect doesn't it

G
that was dam funny
I threw you a bone on that one

so we agree that things are warming
and we agree that co2 is increasing
can we agree on that co2 having the isotopic signature of fosil fuels
or do you have some other source that just happens to exactly mirror waist caused by the industrial revolution

we have been over this of course but not sure you ever reached that admission

cheers
B

once we all realize its warming
and all realize we have dramatically rising levels of co2
then maybe we can just put those two together and see the cause and effect
seems reasonable

then maybe we can check out some of the more intricate aspects of those effects

[troy2000]

Post the check numbers Troy, prove your statement. Plus you are ignoring the fact that the energy industries are in a win win position, they can't lose. If the AGW KoolAid Club creates a phoney shortage of oil they simply make more money on less sales.

Exxon/Mobil has spent 23 million on research, not lobbyists, bit of a difference there. Besides, why shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves against the class warfare being waged on them? Btw, no one is saying the that the climate is not changing. Of course it is, it always has and always will. That's another ruse used by the dogmatics of AGW. We are not arguing against reality, we are arguing against the junk science being used to promote a political agenda. Do some reading beyond the headlines Troy, this link is a good start.......

http://joannenova.com.au/

No, I'm not going to "post the check numbers." The money spent in the US, with its disclosure laws, is well-documented, and you're quite aware of it--as you prove when you start throwing the same numbers around yourself.

And you really need to break yourself of posting deliberate falsehoods as a debating tactic. The $23 million you refer to was spent on lobbying and disinformation, not 'research'--and you know it. Apparently you have no shame; you'll say anything you think might help your argument, whether it's true or not.

Congratulations; you just became the only person on the forum to make my ignore list; I don't need the aggravation. While people like Guillermo are making honest efforts to advance their viewpoint and back it up with appropriate references, you sit here name-calling and making !@#$ up.

[TollyWally]

Boston.
I appreciate the feedback but my questions seem unanswered.

Other than the chill from the Krakatoa eruption I seldom see much explanation for the climate changes experienced over the last couple of thousand years.

1. My natural scepticism keeps asking what were the causes of the recorded climate changes that happened before the industrial revolution spurred carbon production through the transformation of internal combustion etc.?

2. If the alledged carbon based global warming is real and is increasing our temperatures, what would the correct and proper termperature be?

[fasteddy106]

Wow. Troy seeing as how you can't document the supposed payments by ExxonMobil in any manner other than saying "everyone knows" or "well documented" perhaps you should drop that one. Or post your documentation. That would be helpful. Lobbying is not dishonest by the way. Greenpeace lobbys, are they dishonest? The only bogus science I've seen is from the alarmist side. Even were that not the case, the "Tommy did it too" defense usually stops on the playground in grammar school. But please tell me why it is needed to back up the alarmist side. A theory has to be proven to become fact, I don't need to disprove anything. A lie will never become the truth, a fait accompli perhaps, but not the truth.
Polls and surveys from throughout the world show that less and less people believe in the AGW agenda. The AGW believers are in the minority in every recent survey, and should be.The scare tactics have been coming from the IPCC. Remember the polar bears, they aren't in danger, remember the increased number of hurricaines, they are not happening, the oceans aren't rising,etc. What you are calling disinformation is simply the truth getting in the way of the plans of the social engineers at the U.N. Finally I was referring to Boston in particular when I mentioned zero growth, anarchism, and other wackjob philosophys. Look at some of his other posts by him in the forums. There seems to be a lot of those folks involved in the leadership of the AGW movement worldwide. A list of some of those was posted here several weeks ago. Their comments on population control, disease, and government policy are disturbing to say the least. Is it fair to use their own statements against them as they relate to their positions on climate change? I don't see why not. As far as Boston being mannerly or civilized, you need to look at some of his earlier posts in this thread and others before you want to make book on that one.


Pew research Oct. 2009 survey - only 36% believed warming was caused by humans

Rasmussen Dec. 2009 - 34% believe warming caused by human activity


Those are just two of the surveys. Not exactly a resounding pr success by the AGW lobby considering the billions they have spent on convincing the world that human activity is causing climate change. See Troy, when you get caught lying, like the AGW "Team" did, folks don't tend to believe them anymore. You might want to do some actual research into the emails instead of just the headlines about them. You would find a trail of deception and disinformation among the leaders of the AGW movement going back over 10 years and continuing right up until October of 2009. Read Carlins report on the EPA's position. Look up some of the work by Brian Valentine on how the government has been censoring AGW skeptics.

Here is another link that is comprehensive on the entire topic....................

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

[Guillermo]

Boston & Troy, you're going to love this "disinformation":

IPCC's 2007 report:
"Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."


But......
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK (Note: NOT SUSPECT OF BEING IN THE SCEPTICS SIDE :) )
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities [Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40% [Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about equal proportions"


Wow, wow, wow! This study seems to involve a short residence of CO2 in the atmosphere, as Jimbo and myself have showed up several times in this thread. What do you think? :p

But even worse: If only 40% of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at a given time corresponds to an anthropogenic origin....where the hell comes the other 60% from? :P


Cheers

Attached figure (from the paper): Observed atmospheric CO2 increase derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line), and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (dotted thin line). This is compared to total anthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line).

[fasteddy106]

Just a bit more humor............

[fasteddy106]

This is a great essay on common sense and nonsensical alarmism.......


Global Warming Is a Religion
By Walter E. Williams (Archive) · Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Manmade global warming, for many, is an Earth-worshipping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on the basis of faith as opposed to hard evidence. Questioning those pronouncements makes one a sinner. No one denies that the Earth's temperature changes. Millions of years ago, much of our planet was covered by ice, at some places up to a mile thick, a period some scientists call "Snowball Earth." Today, the Earth is not covered by a mile of ice; a safe conclusion is that there must have been a bit of global warming. I don't know the cause of that warming, but I'd wager everything I own that it was not caused by coal-fired electric generation plants, incandescent light bulbs and SUVs tooling up and down the highways.

The very idea that mankind can make significant parametric changes to the Earth has to be the height of arrogance. How about a few questions because temperature is just one characteristic of the Earth. The Earth's orbit is another. If all 6.5 billion of us, all at once, started jumping up and down for a little while, do you think we'd change the Earth's orbit or rotation? Do you think mankind could change the direction and timing of the ocean's tides? Is there anything that mankind can do to stop or start a tsunami or hurricane? You say, "Williams, it's stupid to suggest that mankind could change the Earth's orbit or rotation, ocean tides or cause or stop a tsunami or hurricane!" You're right and it's also stupid to think that mankind's activities can make globalized changes in the Earth's temperature.

Nonetheless, there is much at stake in getting people to subscribe to the global warming religion. There is so much at stake that some scientists, using government grants, are fraudulently manipulating climate data and engaging in criminal activity, as revealed in what has been called "Climate gate." One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of intimidation of heretics or would-be heretics.

A few years back, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel's climatologist, advocated that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers." Former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers." But it gets worse. On one of her shows, Dr. Cullen featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

As a result, many climatologists have been intimidated into silence. That means the public is not informed about counter-alarmists facts such as: Over long periods of time, there is absolutely no close relationship between C02 levels and temperature. Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual C02 levels compared to 96.6 percent by nature. There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today. Contrary to what educators are brainwashing our children with, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century.

Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." That's the political goal of the global warmers.

[Boston]

Boston.
I appreciate the feedback but my questions seem unanswered.

Other than the chill from the Krakatoa eruption I seldom see much explanation for the climate changes experienced over the last couple of thousand years.

1. My natural scepticism keeps asking what were the causes of the recorded climate changes that happened before the industrial revolution spurred carbon production through the transformation of internal combustion etc.?

2. If the alledged carbon based global warming is real and is increasing our temperatures, what would the correct and proper termperature be?

hmm
I somehow had not read those questions into your post 4558
but I did find post 4554
which did have a few questions in it that I had not addressed

I look at the evidence and I just don't buy it. Plenty of room for controversy that's for sure. I'll ask the believers in global warming a couple of questions that if answered in a convincining way would give them a lot more credibility in my mind.

What was responsible for the observed climate fluctuations over the last few thousand years?

If we are now headed towards a mancaused climate change what is the climate we should aspire to?

ok
I do not have any idea what the climate would have looked like had it not been for anthropogenic co2
what I can say with some certainty is that it would almost certainly have fallen into the 600,000 year norm we had been stabilized in
however
we are likely altering that stability

the climate we should be aspiring to
the one we had seen as being the 600,000 year norm

what caused the climate over the last few thousand years

well given that human population has been steadily growing for the last say 10,000 years and that we have significantly altered every area we inhabit it might be reasonable to say that mans interaction with the environment has had more than just the detrimental effects of co2 pollution evident in the last few centuries.
Quantifying those effects are a bit harder than for Co2 but certainly we have had our share of impacts on the environment, with various extinctions directly attributed to paleolithic over-hunting, as well as several wide ranging deforestation events.

however
the most obvious effect has been co2 and plastics pollution

the observed climate change over the last few thousand years is an interesting mix of our gradually increasing influence on climate and the planets gradually diminishing ability to respond to our interference

cheers
B

[TollyWally]

"the observed climate change over the last few thousand years is an interesting mix of our gradually increasing influence on climate and the planets gradually diminishing ability to respond to our interference"

So sometimes even in preindustrial times we make it colder and sometimes we make it warmer?

At the time of the norse explorations in N America it was fairly primitive here. The vikings got here at the end of a heat wave, caused by indians? Several hundred years later it was much colder.

[Boston]

pre-industrialized man definitely had an impact
specifically making it colder or warmer Im not sure
one of the largest impacts was the desertification of the middle east
once it was a lush forest and now it's a barren wasteland
how else do you think so many great civilizations grew and flourished there
it was later that the Egyptians cultivated the delta area but previously much of the area was arable

same holds true of the american Midwest
giant ground sloths mammoths and wild horses to name a few are highly suspect of having been eaten out by precolonial man
and much of the plains is thought to have been burned off by the natives seeking farmland

mans interaction with the climate goes back a ways but its only in recent times that we have begun to impact it on a world wide level

previously most of the impacts were at least contained to a continent or smaller area of influence

the larger question is whats normal
normal is a global average temp as well as its average rate of change over the last stable data set or about 600,00 to 800,000 years

we are hovering at the upper end of the temp scale and the atmospheric chemistry change is most definitely higher than the normal rate of change specific to increasing temps.
species loss is beyond the extreme upper limit as is deforestation and a number of other parameters

even if a super caldera went off it would not match the damage we have done nor the speed with which we have done it

as for the second question
the premise of the question is wrong

cheers
B

[TollyWally]

Well thanks for your answers even though they just seem to raise more questions.

I thought Volcanos sent much more carbon etc. into the atmosphere much more rapidly then anything man has done.

"as its average rate of change over the last stable data set or about 600,00 to 800,000 years "

If I looked at the rate of change from 900 to 1500 it would look much different from the average rate of change over the last 600,000 years would it not?

I think I'm going to withdraw from this thread for a bit. I haven't really gotten any answers that seem to tip the scales against scepticism and I'm sure I'm not going to change the minds of those already convinced. The IPCC scandals certainly illustrate some outrageous behavior on the part of the advocates of global warming. That's not proof that their theories are incorrect but it certainly doesn't increase my confidence in their opinions.

[Boston]

http://r4nt.com/images/v2/210/max.gif

the ash and debris from a volcano have both cooling and warming properties, they seem to nearly cancel one another out over a relatively short period of time concerning the heavier particles and over the longer term ( say a few hundred years when considering co2 ) concerning the finer gasses. If this were not so you would see spikes all over the both the long and short term graphs.

If you look at the graph you see several things
one
is that the spike at the far right in both methane and co2 which is definitly outside of the normal range of motion
two
that these spikes are accompanied by an anomaly in the temp chart; temp appears to be hovering at the high mark in a distinctly uncharacteristic way. If you take a look at the near term graph bellow you can see that it has resolved into a distinct rise in temp
three
is that solar radiation has not changed much and if anything has settled some into a nice long term average

http://tomsager.org/WastewaterSlideShow/CO2andTempGraphs.jpg

now here's the rub
and the part the deniers have the most trouble with

if you cherry pick some part of the 600,000 year graph you can show just about anything you want within the normal parameters; there are rapid increases and rapid decreases in temp within the norm, however, if you consider where we are in the cycle and what is happening to the parameters that lead to additional warming then you begin to realize that we are for one

on the top of the temp curve or nearly so
and staring at at least four major influences that tend to drive the temp even higher all hitting up at once

co2
methane
albedo
fresh water influx

the danger is that if the system wants to naturally correct itself
which I believe it does
and if that natural correction is artificially delayed
then the eventual correction will be amplified resulting in a catastrophic cooling event

and a huge number of climate scientists agree

on the extreme end of the result
snow ball earth time
600 million years ago
( to the extreme described in the film it is still controversial )
the earth froze
( you guys are going to love Hofman )

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HG5_ufWfbuk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HG5_ufWfbuk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

but in a less dramatic event we still get a worse ice age than what we have seen in a long time because the triggering mechanism was turbocharged so to speak and the event is likely to respond in kind

thus it would be significantly better if we did not screw with what amounts to a very delicate system

what makes it worse is that we have multiple barrels going off at the same time
we are also killing the oceans
anaerobic stratification is commonly accepted as the cause of our most catastrophic extinctions

add that to the impending climate correction and with the plastic starvation event and you get an seemingly insurmountable overall worldwide die off

one I think we would have been better to avoid

cheers
B

[fasteddy106]

The KoolAid Club tells us their real agenda.............

Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
__________________


--------------------

Manners & Civility are not a sign of weakness, but clarity is paramount!
Who is John Galt????

[Marco1]

Boston, you are refering to the effect on land by ancient civilisations, be it by deforestation, bad agricultural practices that lead to mass erosion and the like.
Do you imply that such changes actualy changed the climate? Very doubtfull and by minuscule amounts if at all. The changes would have to be at afull continental level and in a very short period of time. Both did not happen.

[hoytedow]

When Yellowstone blows, say bye-bye, Boston, cause Denver ain't gonna be no more. Your statement about man's destruction of the environment surpassing that caused by the super caldera is laughable.:P :P :P

[capt vimes]

the danger is that if the system wants to naturally correct itself
which I believe it does
and if that natural correction is artificially delayed
then the eventual correction will be amplified resulting in a catastrophic cooling event

and a huge number of climate scientists agree

on the extreme end of the result
snow ball earth time
600 million years ago
( to the extreme described in the film it is still controversial )
the earth froze
( you guys are going to love Hofman )

this is very plausible and one of my fears as well...
it does not need very much to mess up the gulf stream and its motor... IF that is happening - sax 'hello' to the new iceage and wax your skies! :D

but in a less dramatic event we still get a worse ice age than what we have seen in a long time because the triggering mechanism was turbocharged so to speak and the event is likely to respond in kind

thus it would be significantly better if we did not screw with what amounts to a very delicate system

what makes it worse is that we have multiple barrels going off at the same time
we are also killing the oceans
anaerobic stratification is commonly accepted as the cause of our most catastrophic extinctions

add that to the impending climate correction and with the plastic starvation event and you get an seemingly insurmountable overall worldwide die off

one I think we would have been better to avoid

cheers
B

i agree with you...

[blacksmith]

One thing to always keep in mind:
The people in government (virtually ALL governments)
have a primary focus on control. They look for any
justification for increasing the amount of control that
they have over the people in the country that they're in
charge of administrating (and -naturally- any other countries
that they can get a finger into). Global warming gives governments
everywhere an excellent reason to get an immense increase of
control over their population and business in their countries.
They just LOVE the concept of "global warming".
Note that they have no interest in stopping global warming even
if it existed and even if -by regulation- they could do so.
They'd be reducing their control as well as the amount of money
that they could make otherwise. How many politicians have that
kind of integrity? (or -for that matter- any integrity at all?).
HUGE bucks have already been invested in "carbon credit exchange"
to allow countries and companies to keep doing what they're already
doing by simply paying a fee/fine/operating cost. Naturally, that
will just be passed down to the consumer, so it's not a single buck
out of their profits. It does ends up being skin off the back of the working
middle class, and, eventually, they will be unable to keep buying
whatever it is that's being sold, but since modern business is driven
by quarterly profits, they could care less...once they've got a few
million, it's all a game.
Note: A sure way to get a lot of money coming your way:
come up with a "crisis" that can only be solved by bigger government.
Government research money (taxes) will come flowing to you by the truckload.
(Figure out how to justify an "air tax" and you'll be set for life).
A sure way to get funding cut (or never get it at all), point out that
increases in government regulation will not solve any given problem
(or that one of the "problems" doesn't exist).

These days, having money trumps having integrity.

One last note: focus on fake "crisis" keeps people from noticing what/where
the real problems are.

[hoytedow]

One thing to always keep in mind:
The people in government (virtually ALL governments)
have a primary focus on control. They look for any
justification for increasing the amount of control that
they have over the people in the country that they're in
charge of administrating (and -naturally- any other countries
that they can get a finger into). Global warming gives governments
everywhere an excellent reason to get an immense increase of
control over their population and business in their countries.
They just LOVE the concept of "global warming".
Note that they have no interest in stopping global warming even
if it existed and even if -by regulation- they could do so.
They'd be reducing their control as well as the amount of money
that they could make otherwise. How many politicians have that
kind of integrity? (or -for that matter- any integrity at all?).
HUGE bucks have already been invested in "carbon credit exchange"
to allow countries and companies to keep doing what they're already
doing by simply paying a fee/fine/operating cost. Naturally, that
will just be passed down to the consumer, so it's not a single buck
out of their profits. It does ends up being skin off the back of the working
middle class, and, eventually, they will be unable to keep buying
whatever it is that's being sold, but since modern business is driven
by quarterly profits, they could care less...once they've got a few
million, it's all a game.
Note: A sure way to get a lot of money coming your way:
come up with a "crisis" that can only be solved by bigger government.
Government research money (taxes) will come flowing to you by the truckload.
(Figure out how to justify an "air tax" and you'll be set for life).
A sure way to get funding cut (or never get it at all), point out that
increases in government regulation will not solve any given problem
(or that one of the "problems" doesn't exist).

These days, having money trumps having integrity.

One last note: focus on fake "crisis" keeps people from noticing what/where
the real problems are.I see you actually studied in civics class. Kudos.:cool:

[Boston]

Boston, you are refering to the effect on land by ancient civilisations, be it by deforestation, bad agricultural practices that lead to mass erosion and the like.
Do you imply that such changes actualy changed the climate? Very doubtfull and by minuscule amounts if at all. The changes would have to be at afull continental level and in a very short period of time. Both did not happen.

there is no real doubt that ancient civilizations effected there local environment or that deforestation alters rain patterns which in turn effects to some degree temp and yes, IE desertification. The changes were however relatively minor compared to what we are doing no with both methane and co2 pollution just as you suggest.

When Yellowstone blows, say bye-bye, Boston, cause Denver ain't gonna be no more. Your statement about man's destruction of the environment surpassing that caused by the super caldera is laughable.:P :P :P

a close relative of mine is the USGS team leader at the Yellowstone observatory. Yellowstone will have a short term worldwide effect and a longer term local effect but all in all it would not throw the planet out of equilibrium. The caldera goes off about every half million years or so and looking back through the records there is no long term damage. Rapid global climate change on the other hand along with the eutrophocation of the oceans is however likely to have significantly long lasting effects.

[hoytedow]

It will mainly strip the upper states as far south as eastern Louisianna, according to what I saw on the History(?) Channel.

See also:http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm

[blacksmith]

Thanks!
Unfortunately, they didn't teach me this stuff in civics class.
But it's pretty all pretty obvious if you watch what they do as
opposed to what they say....very seldom (if ever) does one have
anything to do with the other. Their rhetoric is designed to fool
as many people as possible into supporting one faction of the
"big government party over another.

Of course, step back and take a good look and you see that all
factions are implementing policies designed to make people more
enslaved than they were before. Is a person any less a slave to
a government than to a single man? Does it matter which party is
in charge when they ALL do everything possible to control your
actions, your money, and your life? And who can argue that the people
making the laws aren't influenced by the people with unimaginable
amounts of money behind the scenes? (Note: this is often called
"capitalism"...the fact is that it's anything BUT capitalism,
in fact, it's merchantalism, something much different.)

In this country, I know of exactly ONE politician that couldn't be
convicted on charges of treason (of course, he's portrayed as a
nut case" and "radical" for having the gall to imply that government
officials should abide by their oath of office and support the Constitutional
restrictions on government). Unfortunately, too many people who
live out of the taxpayer's pocket are all profiting from the status
quo and are neck deep in the "old boy" network, consequently even the
most blatent crimes seldom make it to the mass media (who are also
part of that network), let alone to court....

Apologies, I didn't join the forum to rant about politics...
Unfortunately though, these days politics is wound up tightly with every
aspect of our lives, and never -ever- with positive results for any
more than a very few people.
Bottom line: the "Global warming" "crisis" is a politician's dream-come-true.
(they hope)

[hoytedow]

Progressives in both major parties have nearly destroyed both parties. I wouldn't trust either party as far as I could throw them. Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see. They are in politics so they can make the rules. Our best interests are not their best interests.

[Boston]

It will mainly strip the upper states as far south as eastern Louisianna, according to what I saw on the History(?) Channel.

See also:http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm

the largest of the eruptions left ash all the way to the Mississippi but the majority of the damage is mitigated within the first decade or so and that mostly localized to about a five hundred mile radius

I used to be asked countless questions concerning Yellowstone caldera by groups we took out on horseback throughout the greater Yellowstone area, I was also privileged to do fishing guides. Thing is nothing is likely to be quite as catastrophic as another big freeze and that does kinda look like what its leading up to. That or a major extinction event with large areas of desertification.

oh
and the oceans basically dying so the oxygen band will be reduced
that and the near shore environment will also be compromised in that toxic anaerobic algae's will find a great home within the old lungs
nice eh
nothing quite like walking into the garden of Eden
and lighting the place on fire

[Guillermo]

Some global warming alarmists suggest that the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (NATC) or (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) will be disrupted by the melting of the Arctic ice cap, causing an ice age. This is known by scientists to be a bogus scenario.

This has mainly come about due to a general misunderstanding of the NATC and the Gulf Stream.

The simplistic view is illustrated in the first attached figure, which shows the Gulf Stream as a laminar flow and recirculating as a deeper stream as part of the NATC. [http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay/Courses/ATOC530/EuropeClimate.ppt]

The actual Gulf Stream and its relation to the NATC is more complex. The Gulf Stream breaks up into various currents once it passes the Grand Banks. The following figures show the subsequent currents and gyres that result [http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2.htm] “Along the east coast of Florida the current is fed by the Antilles Current, and the flow, now called the Gulf Stream, runs parallel to the coast until reaching Cape Hatteras where it leaves the coast and enters deeper water. While flowing in deep water the Stream often forms large meanders or fluctuations in its path. At approximately 50°W, the Gulf Stream splits into several currents the largest being the North Atlantic Current. The North Atlantic Current then feeds both the Norwegian Current which transports water northward along the west coast of Europe and the Canary Current which flows equator-ward on the eastern side of the Atlantic." See second attached figure.

The third figure (graph) show sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly graphs for five Gulf Stream areas as shown on the map in fourth figure [http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/gulf-stream-sea-surface-temperature-sst.html]. Recent SST warming is well below the warming of the 1930’s-1940’s.

Even the science publications which typically are pro-alarmist have recently backed off on this scare scenario:

* Science: “False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All” [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5802/1064a]: “A closer look at the Atlantic Ocean's currents has confirmed what many oceanographers suspected all along: There's no sign that the ocean's heat-laden "conveyor" is slowing”

* New Scientist: “No New Ice Age for Western Europe” [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225763.900]: “New measurements have failed to show clear evidence that the current is weakening, and models of the North Atlantic show that a shutdown would not occur in the way oceanographers had expected.”


Cheers

[Guillermo]

Another part of the misunderstanding is the myth that the Gulf Stream heats Europe. A 2006 article by Richard Seager (senior research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) in American Scientist (“The Source of Europe's Mild Climate” subtitle “The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth”) [http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1] provides a good explanation of how the oceans warm the land on the eastern side of the ocean.

“Average January air temperatures are warmer over oceans than they are over land, because the sea retains more summer heat, which can then be released to the overlying air in winter. Sites located close to the coasts thus tend to enjoy mild "maritime" climates. And because prevailing winds over the midlatitudes blow from west to east, coastal areas on the eastern side of ocean basins experience especially mild temperatures. Conversely, the coasts bordering the western side of ocean basins experience winters that are intermediate between typical maritime conditions and the frigid "continental" climates found in interior regions. The difference in January temperatures across the North Atlantic at the latitude of London, for example, amounts to between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius.”


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

And now a last (for today) comment on Boston's posted graph:

http://tomsager.org/WastewaterSlideShow/CO2andTempGraphs.jpg

The worst manipulation about ice cores data was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of the cores, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In this part of cores taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentration in it was 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986, Neftel et al. 1985), and not the 290 ppmv needed to prove the man-made warming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century.

To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption (may I say a "Trick"?): The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was not supported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumptions which were in conflict with the facts. The “corrected” proxy ice data were then smoothly aligned with the direct atmospheric measurements from Mauna Loa.

See attached figure: THE MOTHER OF ALL HOCHEY STICK CURVES

Thus, falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports and in the “Summary for Policymakers” in 2007. These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data, an arbitrary rejection of high readings from old ice, and an arbitrary rejection of the low readings from the young ice, simply because they did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. It is a habit that become all too common in greenhouse gas and other environmental studies.


Cheers :rolleyes:

[hoytedow]

Thanks, Guillermo. Lots of good information, that.

[blacksmith]

Yes, "progressives" of both parties have betrayed their constituancy:
democrat "socialists/leftists" have been betrayed,
republican "conservatives" have been betrayed,
the big "L" Libertarian party is in the process of betraying the Libertarians
(although the small "l" libertarians are still trying to fight the good fight)
and Americans -in general- have had their Constitution all but wiped out by the
people in power (of both parties) who use every possible excuse (and the best propaganda machine
in existance) to sell out their birthright. It's been going on for many decades
but has been moving faster and faster over the last few years. (Possibly because
the new goal is to run, not just the country, but the world in general.)

The bottom line is that money/power is talking. Virtually nobody in big-party politics
has any interest in representing anyone other than those who can route megabucks
and power their way.

This isn't new, it's been done many times in the last century: Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc. It's just that now, they're doing it here. Power over people is the focus. When it comes to getting it, anything goes in the book of the
psychotics that work their way up to where they can run the show. (When I was younger, I wondered how that sort of thing happened. Unfortunately we're now getting a good, close up look at the process.)

(Funny, as old as most of these guys are, you'd think that the centuries of fame that they'd get from supporting a policy of individual freedom would outweigh the money and power that they only have a few years left to enjoy, but sure doesn't seem to be the case.)

rant/off
(button isn't working very well today... :-) )

[fasteddy106]

Thanks G, on that note......................click on the image to enlarge

[Boston]

there is no real debate concerning the global current system other than the one presented by the usual suspects

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3niR_-Kv4SM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3niR_-Kv4SM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

this is also known as the "Guillermo threw up in the sink again scenario"

likely a result of some innocent and well meaning soul pointing out to him that ice permeability actually runs about a thousand years or so behind ice formation.

I did like how in one breath you claim there is no thermohaline deep circulation and in the other you present information supposedly concerning that deep circulation
nice

so
which is it
inquiring minds want to know

soon as you are done with the porcelain Goddess that is

love
B

[fasteddy106]

Odd that the oceanic doomsday scenario didn't occur during the previous well documented times when the Artic Ice Cap virtually disappeared during the summer. But then it wouldn't be the first time that Boston knowingly posted outdated and bogus information.

[fasteddy106]

I enjoyed this article..........


A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Richard Lindzen is unarguably one of the top meteorologists in the world, with over 200 publications to his name, as well as awards, medals, prizes and is a member of the NAS, AAAS, AGU, AMS. He is The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his work includes major contributions to our understanding of the Hadley Circulation, small scale gravity waves on the mesosphere, as well as atmospheric tides and oscillations in the tropical stratosphere. From the beginning, he has questioned the claims that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions, pointing out that even with the poor resolution of ice cores back in the 1980’s it was still evident that there was a lag—as temperatures declined, carbon stayed high for thousands of years, something which didn’t sit well with the idea that carbon had a strong and constant force on the climate.

What follows are his thoughts on the current state of the science. They must make it awkward for those who can’t help themselves but believe in authority. Here’s a man who knows more than most of us could ever hope to, and he clearly doesn’t agree with the theory, and backs up his thoughts by publishing peer reviewed papers. What a dilemma for those who don’t want to think for themselves but hope “authority” will do it for them. Which authority do they follow? Does it all boil down to counting up the PhD’s?


This piece was originally written for the German magazine, Numero, but after soliciting it, they decided against publishing it. Interestingly, they were originally in a great hurry to get it. Apparently their intention was to run it with an opposing piece by Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber backed out, and then so did the magazine. They apparently forgot to mention that to Dr Lindzen until he enquired, which doesn’t seem like a polite way to treat eminent authors.

Was there a good reason for Schellnhuber to back out, or was this a case of another alarmist who won’t debate? And of course, even without Schnellnhuber, the magazine could have printed Lindzens article anyway. How often does the media hold back an alarmist story because they lack a sceptical counterpart?

JoNova


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Richard S. Lindzen

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

…implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect…
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does.
It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.

As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument … shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2°C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008). Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

“…the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant.”

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto.
In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake. With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

References
Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.

Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937- 950.

Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-172

Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.

[Boston]

its a simple and well documented event

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZbsMlr9WRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZbsMlr9WRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Best thing to do is keep your head in the sand kids

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hDbz2dpebhQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hDbz2dpebhQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[fasteddy106]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy4gRGic11k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5wIE9jQLEQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDbjd6NL8Gk


This is the woman who produced the documentary movie - "Not Evil - Just Wrong"

[fasteddy106]

Professor Bob Carter on C02........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

[Guillermo]

"....the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth... "....mmmmm.....which scatterbrained guy looks like this to me? :P

[Boston]

that would be you G
at least the repetition for truth part
same old song and dance Guillermo
you probably even hang out at the goth clubs

tsk tsk tsk

and at your age

B

[Guillermo]

Aahhh! So you asume I was referring to you. I wonder why....:P

[Boston]

you talking to me?

cause my last included no mention of myself

[Guillermo]

Neither I mentioned you. :P :P

[Boston]

cool
hey you want to see some more stuff about the thermohaline circulation

Ill be the one in the striped shirt
you be the one in the green shirt
Jimbo can be the one in the black shirt ( the cute one )

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FuOX23yXhZ8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FuOX23yXhZ8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


oh I found this and

you guys are going to freak

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UKwCpD1U64E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UKwCpD1U64E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

now things are going to heat up a little eh ( bad pun, but hey if the shoe fits )

speaking of which I kinda have felt for a long time you guys are sorta a nuisance case yourselves

[Guillermo]

Yeah! I agree. That's the kind of stuff adequate to you The one for kids. :P :P :P

[Boston]

ha hahahhahahahahahahaahah

I am falling out of my chair over this

part 2

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zhxrXujX3Q8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zhxrXujX3Q8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
and three
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8SEVzCPRxoo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8SEVzCPRxoo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Guillermo]

This is also adequate stuff for your level of understanding :P

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jxi-OlkmxZ4&hl=es_ES&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jxi-OlkmxZ4&hl=es_ES&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Boston]

I didnt know you were an Al Gore fan
who would have guessed

did you miss the vid series on the law suet to expose the PR campaign of the oil and gas industry to deceive the population into believing that there is no such thing as Rapid Global Climate Change, co2 pollution or any detrimental causes because of it.

Oh I am laughing my ass off now :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

[fasteddy106]

kDoesn't suprise me at all that the eco-nazis are try to suppress speech, they have been suppressing the truth for decades.

[fasteddy106]

I didnt know you were an Al Gore fan
who would have guessed

did you miss the vid series on the law suet to expose the PR campaign of the oil and gas industry to deceive the population into believing that there is no such thing as Rapid Global Climate Change, co2 pollution or any detrimental causes because of it.

Oh I am laughing my ass off now :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Sometimes I wonder if there is more than one person posting here as Boston. Some of the posts are well reasoned and presented in great detail (wrong in any event but) and others are so childlike and immature with spelling and syntax errors more attributable to a person with language difficulties than such a superior intellect (just ask him) like Boston.

[Guillermo]

"....well reasoned and presented...." mmmmm :confused:
What about: "well cut and pasted" ? :D

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

How silly of me, you are correct of course G.

[Guillermo]

But I have to recognize I'm not better than Boston, as I'm also a Queen of the cut and paste. ;) None of us is a scientist and elaborate our own theory. We are just "guilty bystanders" as Thomas Merton put it. All we can do is search for information, analyze it and decide which one fills better our understanding of the issue.

Cheers.

[Marco1]

.... None of us is a scientist and elaborate our own theory. We are just "guilty bystanders" as Thomas Merton put it. All we can do is search for information, analyze it and decide which one fills better our understanding of the issue.

Cheers.

I am afraid it does not even go that far.
When some people may have SOME understanding of climate, atmosphere, physics, and all the other science that involves this issue, I believe that most if not all people have chosen a side well before anything is demonstrated, or explained to them.

So when the choice is made, most people will go on Google to find support for their choice of side and not the other way around.

Since one could find support on the Internet for almost anything at all, it is pointless to have a match using such measuring sticks, since no one can really know for sure which info is free of errors, bias, slant, exaggeration or falsification.

So what each person is doing is defending his choice of side based purely on the reason that made that person choose such side.

And that is in my view the interesting part.

Take the warming side for example. Warmers like greens have a few things in common. That is they hate development and progress and they love the past.
A green and by elevation a warmer, sees the ideal world composed by no cities but small villages with dirt streets, gardens with chooks and goats, houses made out of mud bricks with batteries and paddle chargers on the straw roof, electric cars or no cars at all and work as little as possible whilst making bio diesel for the tractor. If in Australia probably living in Noosa, the Blue Mountain or Newtown and growing a few plants of pot for his own use.

Stereotype? Absolutely!

Now how to achieve this utopia? Lobbying the government into legislating to stop progress, no dams, no nuclear energy, ban cars, ban anything that is not retrograde and anti development.

The rational is that development is done by rich bastards who exploit the environment, and collude with the government to "degrade the future of our kids for their own selfish purposes"

Let me say that the above is not necessarily wrong. There has been plenty of examples of things we should be ashamed of.

However going back to the past does not guarantee us against human nature. Nor does supporting a ban on CO2 that besides being totally useless to achieve a change in climate that no one needs, is fundamentally a cap on progress. No CO2 means no use of fuel and until we find a competitive source of energy that means going back to the middle ages.
And I am not even addressing the fundamental mistake in thinking that warmer is "bad" whilst cooler is "good". Humans don't do good during cooler periods and thrive during warmer periods and so do plants and animals. I thought that would be rather easy to understand.

Assorted "greens" should consider moving to countries who do live still in the past. From the North pole, Mongolia, India, Africa, Russia there are plenty of utopic villages who have battery power and goats and chooks, yet as you may have guessed, green religion is not about a personal choice but it is about making a choice for others. Just like any other form of totalitarianism.

So all this religious fervour about "doing something" for the future of our kids, is translated in simple terms into taking action against those who they hate, that is people who are successful, who are independent, who ask only the government to let them work and progress rather than legislate them into mediocrity or oblivion.

Of course there are others who are very powerful and are exploiting this sentiments and using all the green utopia seekers for their own agenda. And the speculation as to what that may be I live to your own imagination...too many variables to debate.

[Boston]

sounds like some twisted corporate manifesto

dam tree huggers are trying to steal your freedom

[Marco1]

sounds like some twisted corporate manifesto

dam tree huggers are trying to steal your freedom

Ha ha B, you got it in one.

Corporation are evil, they twist the truth and collude with manifestos, green are misunderstood angels who are mocked with the term "tree hugger."

Your above statement has as much value as stating "Blue is the best colour"
You have expressed your view of the world in a nut shell and I must say that it is your prerogative to believe anything you fancy, including the above generalisation. The problem arises when someone wants to IMPOSE his views on others "for their own good" or "for the common good".

The belief in God from a Christian point of view was imposed with torture for centuries. Muslims have turned to the system the Inquisition used lately with gusto. Communism and "democracy" did similar things since...what? 1900?

The part I am interested in is the REASON a person chooses to believe something over something else. And like I said before it is just that, a personal choice, just like a choice of political party, local club, hobby, sport, etc.

Do you think it is a coincidence that those who vote conservative tend to have the highest income and those who vote labour/popular/socialist/green the lowest? Clearly each person's VALUES have the deciding factor in the person's choice.

If someone' thinks that money is the root of all evil, he will vote labour and his salary will reflect his opinion of money. He will have very little of it.

If someone on the other hand knows that poverty or the lack of money is the real root of evil, and that making money is fun, he will vote conservative.

Similarly, the new "green" choice is a branch off the "rich is evil-poor is virtuous" mantra. Progress, development, dams and canal dredging are all evil and done by rich evil people for their own selfish purposes, so "we" must halt progress at all cost.

The creation of the person's beliefs and values, starts very early some say before 10 and it is that set of values that determines where the person's allegiances will lay later in life. Unless someone makes a conscious effort to change his set of values with help from a professional, the real reason behind that person choice of party, credo, or love of one colour over another will be believed to be his "character" or "style" or other as intangible and as inaccurate reasons.

[fasteddy106]

Another screw up by "Real" scientists.............

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.


Climate-sceptic MPs were quick to react. Conservative MP Helma Neppérus and Richard de Mos from the right-wing Freedom Party want the minister to explain to parliament how these figures were used to decide on national climate policy. "This may invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever," Mr De Mos said.


The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland. The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.

The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350.


Urbanisation
Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about climate-change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.

There used to be 6,000 measuring posts, they say, but now there are just 1,500. A number of weather stations in colder areas like Siberia and the Arctic were dismantled, while the remaining stations were in more moderate zones. As a consequence, data from colder areas was no longer used in the calculations.


D'Aleo and Watts also point to discrepancies between terrestrial and satellite measurements. Satellite weather stations report that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has remained stable, with a slight fall since 2001.

Earth-based weather stations report an increase in warmth which, according to the two Americans, reflects the process of urbanisation. Measuring posts that used to be in remote rural areas have gradually been surrounded by roads, buildings or industry, all of which produce heat.


Solar activity
Dutch researchers reporting to Minister Cramer on Wednesday said that global warming appears to be slower than had been assumed. In a brochure published by the Dutch Platform for Communication on Climate Change (PCCC) the academics say that sunspot activity was relatively low over the past decade and will continue to be low for the foreseeable future.

The lower the solar activity, the smaller the warming effect. According to the PCCC, the average temperature may even decrease by between 0.2 and 0.4 degrees, but they warn that this is just a slight dent in the much stronger rising trend. "The heat is still on," according to the PCCC report.

[fasteddy106]

More humor.............

[Marco1]

I love the vido posted earlier thta shows weather stations that use to be on farmland, now surrounded by car parks and one with a massive airconditioner right next to it> Can you imagine the distortion in that data?

What do you think will happen in the future if we get a cooling thrend that endargers poorer people who have not appropriate housing or heating? Will we be able to forget the CO2 nonsense in time to produce enough cheap energy?

Who was that "green criminal" who stated that the worst that can happen to human kind is to find a cheap source of energy?

[Boston]

ya claiming that the environmental movement is trying to limit ones freedom is a lot like saying that dam whale is eating all our fish

good call

thanks for setting us all straight

simple solution is to chop down all the trees
slaughter all the whales and remove those pesky wolves from the last few acres where they might be hiding
then we can all live in perfect bliss and freedom

Id like to take this moment to thank you and all your wisdom
how could I possibly have been so wrong

burn it folks
burn it all down fast
the world will be a better place a cinder
that way we wont have any more of these tree huggers trying to steel our God given rights to land liberty and ( God bless America ) freedom

HUUAAAA

way to debase it to a political agenda by the way
I suppose thats the only arena in which there could be even a pretense of a debate eh
they are stealing our freedom
stealing our freedom

who do you think you are kidding there mate

[Guillermo]

If someone' thinks that money is the root of all evil, he will vote labour and his salary will reflect his opinion of money. He will have very little of it.

If someone on the other hand knows that poverty or the lack of money is the real root of evil, and that making money is fun, he will vote conservative.
Going out of topic here, but I strongly disagree. Maybe money is the driving factor in some societies, but it's not like that everywhere. There is a lot of people in the world with other values which they take into consideration firstly, and not all money-likers vote conservative and all dislikers vote leftists. Not even a majority, I think. As a matter of fact there are many catholics voting conservative who heartly think the pursuing of money is not a good thing, as an example, or leftists making themselves inmensily rich, as another.

All the best.

[Boston]

well said G

Ive pissed off my friends on the environmental side with my view of hunting and coexistence and Ive aggravated my ranching friends with my view on reintroduction.

the zoo was appalled at my take on there wasting 50 million on 7 elephants but I was all for the Yellowstone wolf project

I think its a balance and a lot of people prefer extremes

for some its important to deny all aspects of the rapid global climate change problem
others take issue with only the less well understood aspects of the concept
and are relatively open to the science that is largely settled
its a grab bag and labeling people is a big mistake

cheers
B

[Guillermo]

Coming back to topic, I have to say Prof. Komitov (http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/)has been so kind to send to me the text of his already accepted for publication (but not yet published) new paper The "Sun–climate" relationship. III. Solar eruptions, north-south sunspot area asymmetry and earth climate

I'm not going to display its content here until the article has been published, but let me say it gives additional evidences about the fluxes of solar particles with energies higher than 100 MeV (the solar cosmic rays), being a very important component of the “Sun–climate" relationship.

Cheers.

[Boston]

should be interesting
I posted the following graph earlier but it might have gone unnoticed within all the banter

the top bar shows the relationship of solar radiation with other parameters like temp and co2 and methane

http://r4nt.com/images/v2/210/max.gif

once you feel comfortable posting the professors information
please do

cheers
B

ps
Jim is strangely quiet these days
everything ok there Jimbo

[Marco1]

ya claiming that the environmental movement is trying to limit ones freedom is a lot like saying that dam whale is eating all our fish

You are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth at the same time.

I say that those who join environmental movements and the warmers side of the argument in this thread, do so because of their preconceived view of the world and not because of any after the fact scientific research or conviction.

Their values, acquired early in life, fall in line with attacking progress and development and personal success at the same time and propose going back to the past as a solution. If possible back to the middle ages. Like any other tyrannical movement, their views must be imposed on others for their own good and for the good of the majority. THe GW movement offers this and so they jump on the bandwagon.

I say there is nothing good about the past and I also say, review your values because they are driving your life without you realising it.

The difference between global warming preachers and the rest, is that GW supporters want to IMPOSE sanctions and taxes that clearly will chastise any form of development and even existing industries as they are now. Most GW supporters know that the science behind it is bogus, yet they still push for it because of all the other "benefits" they see in it. The so called benefits are a mandate to impose social engineering and attacks on personal success the likes Stalin or Castro could only dream about.

It is important always to know what drives us and denying it outright does not really help. If you like the blue colour there is a reason buried in your subconscious linked to a set of values you have acquired at some stage. That particular value is unlikely to be a handicap ever, since it is universally accepted that colour preferences is a personal choice and will never become a social imposition. There are other values who are as pervasive as the liking of a colour over another but that are so strong to determine our very future.

One of them is the idea that rich and money is wrong and evil, ad that poor is always good and virtuous. The consequences of such negative anti-value is so damaging that most people when confronted about it, tend to deny it vehemently, and try to legitimate it with philosophical decorations.

The fact remains that if someone is convinced that there is something wrong about money, and that it is dirty, and other things should take priority, that is precisely what will happen and lack of money will be the main event in the person life. This would be ok if it remained at personal level but unfortunately what happens is that it goes out as hate towards "those rich bastard who only think about money" and so we get the polarisation we can see in all walks of life.

This is a complex issue and worth a debate on it's own, yet I bring it up only to show that just as the "anti-value" of money is dirty, the anti-value rich is evil drives those who choose to support the global warming theory only because it suits their preconceived notions and not because they have any insight into the science.

[Boston]

unbelievable

yup you caught me

[Guillermo]

There is a most interesting Q & A interview to Prof. Phil Jones (remember who he is?) which is being widely commented at the 'realists' blogs.

You can find it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Although Jones defends himself and the AGW theory, of course, it is most interesting to realize how evasive he is in several of his answers.

I want to highlight from there and comment some of his statements:

Warming trends for several periods:

Period Length (years) Trend (ºC per decade) Significance

1860-1880 --- 21 ---- 0.163 ---- Yes
1910-1940 --- 31 ---- 0.15 ---- Yes
1975-1998 --- 24 ---- 0.166 ---- Yes
1975-2009 --- 35 ---- 0.161 ---- Yes

In his words: "the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."

Comment: Let's think a little bit about it...mmmm.....mmmm....Holy Cow! How does that match with AGW? (particulalrly if we compare 1860-1880 vs 1975-1998). Boston? :P


"the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Comment: 0.12ºC, significantly less than the decadal trend for 1975-1998 as we saw upwards, because....

"The trend this time (January 2002 to the present) is negative (-0.12C per decade)" (although he says it's not statistically significant the fact is that it was a cooling period)

Comment: Boston, you insulted and scorned us (agnotologists and the like) when we said there was a cooling from 2002 to 2009. Would you please now say the same to Mr. Jones? :P


"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

Comment: he admits the MWP could have been warmer than present. So proponents (and us their supporters) of the MWP being warmer than present were not so stupid and agnotologists after all. Boston? :P

"It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the (climate) debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view."

Comment: Wow! Look Mr. Obama, this guy seems to be saying science is not settled! Boston: call the Inquisition! :P


I have a lot of more comments, but I don't want to bother the audience, just entertain it by banging Boston in the head once more time to see if he finally learns something about not calling us agnotologists and the like (as you know this was an old method in schools used with the pigheaded boys. Most of the times it was to no avail :P )


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Boston the Scientist Monk learning....:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SgXeu-SeY

:D :p :P

[Dave Gudeman]

"the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Comment: 0.12ºC, significantly less than the decadal trend for 1975-1998 as we saw upwards, because....

"The trend this time (January 2002 to the present) is negative (-0.12C per decade)" (although he says it's not statistically significant the fact is that it was a cooling period)Actually, you can't say "the fact is that it was a cooling period". If it is not statistically significant, that means that the errors in the measurement are large enough that you can't say with any confidence that there really was a cooling period.

[troy2000]

You are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth at the same time.

I say that those who join environmental movements and the warmers side of the argument in this thread, do so because of their preconceived view of the world and not because of any after the fact scientific research or conviction.

Their values, acquired early in life, fall in line with attacking progress and development and personal success at the same time and propose going back to the past as a solution. If possible back to the middle ages. Like any other tyrannical movement, their views must be imposed on others for their own good and for the good of the majority. THe GW movement offers this and so they jump on the bandwagon.
Wrong. I happen to be one of those who believe global warming is real, and I believe it's at least partly due to mankind. I don't hate progress, I don't hate other people's personal success, and I don't propose we go back to the past as a solution for GW. The past is what's caused the problem, derrrrr....we need to go forward.

I say there is nothing good about the past and I also say, review your values because they are driving your life without you realising it.

The difference between global warming preachers and the rest, is that GW supporters want to IMPOSE sanctions and taxes that clearly will chastise any form of development and even existing industries as they are now. Most GW supporters know that the science behind it is bogus, yet they still push for it because of all the other "benefits" they see in it. The so called benefits are a mandate to impose social engineering and attacks on personal success the likes Stalin or Castro could only dream about.Wrong again. No one is trying to destroy development or existing industries. You must be one of the people who claimed that imposing energy saving standards on home appliances was wrong, because (take your pick; one or all of the following): 1. They were unnecessary; free-market competition would do the job. 2. The standards were impossible to meet. 3. Meeting them would drive companies out of business, and/or drive prices up until people couldn't afford them.

What really happened? The standards were met with no muss and no fuss. Appliances became dramatically more energy efficient in a short period of time; more so than they had in years of waiting for market forces to do the job. No one went out of business. And the price of appliances didn't go up enough to notice.

I'll bet you were also one of those who said the government had no business requiring seat belts or air bags, weren't you? I can just imagine you passionately explaining how the research showing they would save lives was skewed, riddled with fraud, incomplete and wrong; that they would kill more people than they saved; that they would contribute to making the price of automobiles prohibitive and drive car companies out of business; and that it was all just a power play by control freaks trying to take our freedoms away from us.

It is important always to know what drives us and denying it outright does not really help. If you like the blue colour there is a reason buried in your subconscious linked to a set of values you have acquired at some stage. That particular value is unlikely to be a handicap ever, since it is universally accepted that colour preferences is a personal choice and will never become a social imposition. There are other values who are as pervasive as the liking of a colour over another but that are so strong to determine our very future.

One of them is the idea that rich and money is wrong and evil, ad that poor is always good and virtuous. The consequences of such negative anti-value is so damaging that most people when confronted about it, tend to deny it vehemently, and try to legitimate it with philosophical decorations.

The fact remains that if someone is convinced that there is something wrong about money, and that it is dirty, and other things should take priority, that is precisely what will happen and lack of money will be the main event in the person life. This would be ok if it remained at personal level but unfortunately what happens is that it goes out as hate towards "those rich bastard who only think about money" and so we get the polarisation we can see in all walks of life.That's a steaming pile of pseudo-scientific, pseudo-psychological horse apples. Like most people who believe man-made climate change is real, I don't think "rich and money is wrong and evil, and that poor is always good and virtuous." And to insinuate the mere fact that I deny it proves it's true is about on a par with most of the 'thinking' I've seen on this thread by you and your ilk.

This is a complex issue and worth a debate on it's own, yet I bring it up only to show that just as the "anti-value" of money is dirty, the anti-value rich is evil drives those who choose to support the global warming theory only because it suits their preconceived notions and not because they have any insight into the science.

Again, typical of the mindset on this thread. You deny global warming because you're intelligent, informed and rational; anyone who argues with you is obviously doing so only "because it suits their preconceived notions and not because they have any insight."

You remind me of a date I had with a psychology major back in 1971. She was monomaniacally focused on explaining to me the hidden motives behind everything I said and did...and strangely enough, no matter why I thought I was saying or doing things, it was really all simply part of my pathetic attempts to seduce her.

I took about two hours of it. Then I drove her back to her dorm, and told her, "get out of the car. Thank you. Now...explain to me how this is just part of my plan to get into your pants." She was actually starting to do so as I drove away. Incurable.....

Frankly, your post is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I'm copying and sending it to a couple of my friends; I expect they'll get a good laugh out of it too.:p

[Guillermo]

More 'disinformation' :D from Prof. Jones:

Question D:
Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

Answer:
"This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

(Note: He did not answer to the Watts/sqm question)


Now let's re-read Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

"The most significant solar event in the 20th century was the extraordinarily high level and the prolonged (virtually over the entire century) increase in the intensity of the energy radiated by the Sun (Fig. 3). A similar rise in solar radiation has not been observed in at least 700 years."

See attached figure.

More:
"The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990's began to return it gradually. The upper layers of the world ocean, completely unexpectedly to climatologists, began to cool in 2003. The heat accumulated by them unfortunately now is running out."

"For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise."

"...we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming."

"....the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years."


Bolded are mine.
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Actually, you can't say "the fact is that it was a cooling period". If it is not statistically significant, that means that the errors in the measurement are large enough that you can't say with any confidence that there really was a cooling period.
I have not said it is statistically significant but that it was a cooling period ( 7 years). And I sustain that.

Your assumption of the meaning of "statistically significant" as "errors are large enough..." is not correct. What it means is that the period is not long enough to be representative of a multidecadal tendency.

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Boston the Scientist Monk learning....:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SgXeu-SeY

:D :p :P
Muy divertido.:D
Very funny.:D

[Marco1]

Frankly, your post is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I'm copying and sending it to a couple of my friends; I expect they'll get a good laugh out of it too.:p

Troy, coming from you the above statemet is rater funny. :rolleyes:

However, I acknoledge that it is very difficult to find people interested in an open debate about their values. To do so with an open mind is even harder. Too close to home and no chance to blame others for it. Denial is the first line of defence and you are clearly not alone.

As for your date...hehe how interesting and how un-romantic. You should have debated the capacity of the sense of smell to detect the best DNA match for the perpetuation of the species. Now that would have put her in a spin ... priceless.
Piti she was probably correct, just not the right place nor the right time...yet still probably very correct.

[hoytedow]

My mind is closed to AGW simply because AGW is ridiculous. P.S. Phil Jones admitted to the fraud, so what more is there to say. He even tried to keep the Medieval Warming Period out of the records, when it was warmer than it is now, when there was no real developed industryand when the population of the earth by humans was relatively minute by today's standards.

AGW has been debunked. It is a religion whose god has clay feet(mother earth).:eek:

[troy2000]

Troy, coming from you the above statemet is rater funny. :rolleyes:

However, I acknoledge that it is very difficult to find people interested in an open debate about their values. To do so with an open mind is even harder. Too close to home and no chance to blame others for it. Denial is the first line of defence and you are clearly not alone.
Your first line of defense seems to be to impugn the motives, education, and psychological stability of anyone who would dare disagree with you.

To have an open debate about values, both sides would first have to define their values. You appear to have none, judging by the complete lack of shame in your debating style, and I certainly haven't told you what mine are. For you to unilaterally assign me some that seem to be a mishmash of class hatred, Luddism, and '60's radical socialism, then accuse me of being in denial for pointing out those are not in fact my values, is a poor substitute for debate.

You aren't Dr. Phil, this isn't the Oprah show, and I'm not playing along with your lame attempts at pop psychoanalysis. Sorry....:D

[Marco1]

Well...I could say that the indication that one has hit the mark is usualy the other side 's strong objection and outrage at the suggestion ... hehe ... You are excused however since most people wouldn't know what their own real values are if they hit them in the face.

[Tug]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a5/tuginator/globalwarming-1.jpg

[troy2000]

Well...I could say that the indication that one has hit the mark is usualy the other side 's strong objection and outrage at the suggestion ... hehe ... You are excused however since most people whouldn't know what their own real values are if they hit them in the face.

People also simply object to being thrown at, period--no matter how lousy the thrower's aim is, or whether they actually get hit or not.

You'd love to have it both ways, wouldn't you? If anyone protests the bs you're throwing, it's because it hit home...and if they keep silent, it's also because it hit home. Fortunately, in the real world someone saying something doesn't make it true.

But outrage is a strong word for such a minor tempest in a teapot. Shall we just say mildly disgusted by your attempted perfidy, and let it go at that?

[Dave Gudeman]

Wrong. I happen to be one of those who believe global warming is real, and I believe it's at least partly due to mankind. I don't hate progress, I don't hate other people's personal success, and I don't propose we go back to the past as a solution for GW. The past is what's caused the problem, derrrrr....we need to go forward.I believe you, Troy. I've always maintained that the large mass of support for global-warming alarmism comes from people who just have a normal and healthy respect for the authority of established science. That's why I think the tactic to change your mind is not to attack your motives, but to convince you that in this particular case established science has allowed itself to be taken over by politics and cannot be trusted.

Wrong again. No one is trying to destroy development or existing industries.However, in this you are wrong. There are people who want to do just that. Some of them are modern nature-worshipers or have other anti-human religious convictions that I suspect would make even you yearn for the warm, human-loving embrace of creationism. Look up "Khmer Rouge" if you don't think that people like this actually exist or actually want to do terrible things to humanity.

One thing that I've noticed about you, Troy, is that you tend to judge things based on associations. You despise AGW skeptics because you associate them with creationists, for example. But what about the association of AGW alarmism with anti-human, eco-terrorist, and communist groups? Shouldn't that, according to your own principles, cause you to be suspicious of it?

[Dave Gudeman]

I have not said it is statistically significant but that it was a cooling period ( 7 years). And I sustain that.

Your assumption of the meaning of "statistically significant" as "errors are large enough..." is not correct. What it means is that the period is not long enough to be representative of a multidecadal tendency.Guillermo, I don't know what other data you may have, but when someone says "the measurements show X but it is not statistically significant" what that means is that they did some sort of error analysis that showed that they could not rely on the measurements to be accurate more than some threshold (typically 95%). So what that means is that, although the measurement showed a cooling, there is at least a 6% chance that there was not cooling. And usually it's more than 6%.

Now, you may have some other information from which you make your statement that there was cooling --I know that I've read it elsewhere-- I'm just saying that this from quote you cannot make that conclusion with any confidence.

[troy2000]

I believe you, Troy. I've always maintained that the large mass of support for global-warming alarmism comes from people who just have a normal and healthy respect for the authority of established science. That's why I think the tactic to change your mind is not to attack your motives, but to convince you that in this particular case established science has allowed itself to be taken over by politics and cannot be trusted.

However, in this you are wrong. There are people who want to do just that. Some of them are modern nature-worshipers or have other anti-human religious convictions that I suspect would make even you yearn for the warm, human-loving embrace of creationism. Look up "Khmer Rouge" if you don't think that people like this actually exist or actually want to do terrible things to humanity.

One thing that I've noticed about you, Troy, is that you tend to judge things based on associations. You despise AGW skeptics because you associate them with creationists, for example. But what about the association of AGW alarmism with anti-human, eco-terrorist, and communist groups? Shouldn't that, according to your own principles, cause you to be suspicious of it?

No, I'm not 'judging' AGW skeptics based on any supposed association with creationists; I'm comparing them to creationists. Big difference....

And as I'm sure you've noticed, the fact that fruitcakes believe something doesn't automatically make it false. Otherwise, the simple fact that some AGW skeptics believe it's a deliberate, world-wide conspiracy would be enough in itself to prove it true.:)

Yes, some fruitcakes have attached themselves to the subject--on both sides. But the average scientist, politician, activist or everyday citizen who believes AGW is a threat isn't just saying it as part of some agenda to destroy progress or repress humanity. I have no respect and little tolerance for the average conspiracy buff, no matter which particular conspiracy he happens to be pushing at the moment.

[Marco1]

Troy...how did you come to believe that GW must be true?

Did you come to that conclusion after exhausting all possibilities from both sides without any bias or favouritism reaching such conclusion using the scientific method?

You would be from out of space if you did that. Humans choose a side BEFORE based on association with values that can be completely unrelated, stored in their subconscious and then scramble for "proof" to support their choice. All this is of course not a conscious decision, yet it is inescapable and such is how the brain works take it or lump it.

It is rather simple and there is ample literature to support this concepts that go several decades back. Certainly not a new discovery.

Similarly I chose to oppose GW alarmist for exactly the same reasons. Association to values I have stored and I use for my own choices. The difference perhaps lays in the fact that I know that such is how my mind works and I have made a conscious effort to weed out the values that do not serve me and use only the one I want. So I can say that my choice, when still based on the same principle we all use, is based on values I have made a conscious effort in choosing.

My proposition, and lets be clear, NOT A CRITICISM, since you until now had no choice in the matter, is that anyone that has chosen a side over another must fist understand why he did so. A set of values that have lived in your mind since before age 10 and that have shaped all your decisions for a long time without allowing your own intellect or logic to have a say.

So perhaps the fervour or blindness exhibit by some in spite of overwhelming evidence can be explained simply because the person can not accept the other side to be right or it will contradict his core values. However said core values in most cases are completely obscured to the conscious mind.

A fascinating subject and certainly at the root of a lot of unnecessary disagreements.

[troy2000]

Troy...how did you come to believe that GW must be true?

Did you come to that conclusion after exhausting all possibilities from both sides without any bias or favouritism reaching such conclusion using the scientific method?

You would be from out of space if you did that. Humans choose a side BEFORE based on association with values that can be completely unrelated, stored in their subconscious and then scramble for "proof" to support their choice. All this is of course not a conscious decision, yet it is inescapable and such is how the brain works take it or lump it.

It is rather simple and there is ample literature to support this concepts that go several decades back. Certainly not a new discovery.

Similarly I chose to oppose GW alarmist for exactly the same reasons. Association to values I have stored and I use for my own choices. The difference perhaps lays in the fact that I know that such is how my mind works and I have made a conscious effort to weed out the values that do not serve me and use only the one I want. So I can say that my choice, when still based on the same principle we all use, is based on values I have made a conscious effort in choosing.

My proposition, and lets be clear, NOT A CRITICISM, since you until now had no choice in the matter, is that anyone that has chosen a side over another must fist understand why he did so. A set of values that have lived in your mind since before age 10 and that have shaped all your decisions for a long time without allowing your own intellect or logic to have a say.

So perhaps the fervour or blindness exhibit by some in spite of overwhelming evidence can be explained simply because the person can not accept the other side to be right or it will contradict his core values. However said core values in most cases are completely obscured to the conscious mind.

A fascinating subject and certainly at the root of a lot of unnecessary disagreements.

I have nowhere near the fervor you have, Marco. I'm not emotionally invested in the theory of climate change (or whatever the current phrase is) being true. I do have my opinion. If it turns out to be complete bs, it won't faze me a bit. It won't affect my daily life, or rattle my self-esteem. I don't proselytize, I don't donate money to the cause, I don't attend meetings or lobby my Congresswoman. Frankly, most of the time I could give a rat's ass, because nothing I say or do is likely to affect the issue one way or the other anyway.

I'm not sure you can say the same. Anyone who believes that the evidence on his side is "overwhelming," when the vast majority of mainstream scientists have come to the opposite conclusion, is much more invested than I am and has a blind spot of his own. Maybe you should be considering your own irrational attachment to one side of the argument, instead of making snide remarks about the disfunctionality of those who adhere to the other side.....

If you really believe all that mumbo-jumbo, pseudo-psychological bs you're spouting about 'core values' that are obscured to the conscious mind, maybe it's time you shut up about mine--and started trying to get in touch with your own.

[Zed]

Most people I meet in real life seem to believe that man is driving climate change and I have yet to find one of them that is confident enough to explain it beyond some very basic questioning. Mostly it comes down to the media told me its true so I believe it, they definitely don't understand it.

[Guillermo]

Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming
Michael Beenstock1 and Yaniv Reingewertz, Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.

http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

Abstract:
We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data."

More:
"We show that when these shortcomings are corrected, there is no evidence relating global warming in the 20th century to the level of greenhouse gases in the long run. We show that although greenhouse gases share a common stochastic trend, this "greenhouse trend" is not cointegrated with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore greenhouse gas forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Consequently, the putative evidence in favor of the anthropogenic theory of global warming turns out to be spurious.

Although we do not find permanent effects of greenhouse gas forcings on global temperature, we find that they have temporary, or short-term, effects. This means that an increase in CO2 emissions only has a temporary warming effect. We show that previous investigators have confused the temporary with the permanent. This means, crucially, that a doubling of greenhouse gas forcings does not permanently increase global temperature. The policy implications of this temporary greenhouse effect are obviously much less serious than had the effect been permanent."

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Don't buy a used hybrid from Phil Jones.

[Boston]

I see the PR campaign is alive and well

I did notice that only G was even remotely attempting to introduce any science into the conversation

although in every case so far its been frighteningly easy to show that science to be generated by the agnotists and on a most amateur level at that.

maybe once he posts the solar data he suggested we will be able to confirm the solar data already presented


http://r4nt.com/images/v2/210/max.gif


simple reality is that the animosity expressed concerning science in general would not likely exist if in that science supported the deniers views. Then Im sure the Deniers would be pointing out the majority of data in support of there cause. Its not, It doesn't and the deniers are pissed off at the science for so obviously leaving them flat footed and without a leg to stand on.

Guess the only thing to do is attack science
or anyone who just happens to have a background in the sciences

makes it a lot easier to play a PR game rather than concentrate on the data

my two cents
we now return you to your normally scheduled disinformation campaign

love
B

[hoytedow]

This is what passes for science? The scientist Phil Jones admitted to the fraud, so what more is there to say. He even tried to keep the Medieval Warming Period out of the records, thereby hiding science and distorting history, all to control the weak-minded among us. Come towards the light.

This is for Boston. Some PR actually is true.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

[troy2000]

I see the PR campaign is alive and well

I did notice that only G was even remotely attempting to introduce any science into the conversation

I like Guillermo. He honestly tries to keep the discussion on-topic, more so than most of us.

[Marco1]

Most people I meet in real life seem to believe that man is driving climate change and I have yet to find one of them that is confident enough to explain it beyond some very basic questioning. Mostly it comes down to the media told me its true so I believe it, they definitely don't understand it.

Zed, that is precisely my point. Most support for EITER side of the GW and anti, comes from people who in teir vast majority have chosen one side because it suits a preconceived...lets call it model of what is bad or what is good.
In Italy there was a say many years ago that went a bit like this ... Say it is raining right? The average person would say "It is raining, thieving government!"
Everything is the fault of the government even the rain. This is said as a joke yet fits a universal way of thinking. If a person has a model of who is at fault for what he sees as wrong, he will seek a way to blame that side for anything under the sun. The GW hypothesis fits a certain model that fits a lot of people not only greenies and it is those who will automatically align with GW as soon as the news comes up with the steaming stacks in the background.
It is so fitting that the very background of every single news snippet to do with so called GW has a background that is a bold face lie. Smokestacks emitting water vapour. A lie. A fabrication. A publicity stunt. INTENTIONAL. PREMEDITATED. USED AT SATURATION.
Yet no one seems to get it.
It's pollution because the overpaid idiot reading head is telling you so. When it fits your preconcieved notions your logic is impaired to a point that one can make an elephant dissapear using a crane, and no one will notice.
Furthermore you will probably attract the ire of the anti-psichology....and to think we are in the year 2010, not 1810

[Marco1]

Al Gore Seems To Have No Idea What ClimateGate Is All About
Sunday 13 December 2009 -

email to someone printer friendly


Al Gore recently said on CNN that its pretty silly for everyone to be getting all worked up over 10 year old email messages. He obviously doesn't know much about ClimateGate as these damning emails run all the way up to November 2009! Since he obviously isn't being briefed very well we've decided to do it.


As Anthony Watts pointed out on his website the ClimateGate emails extend from March 1996 all the way up until November of 2009. To help educate Al Gore we have decided to go through some of the more recent email's and include some quotes for him. The following quotes were culled from emails in the January 1st, 2009 through June 30th, 2009 time period. (if you don't know who any of these people are see the ClimateGate Who's Who video)


From Phil Jones Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009

Tim, Chris,
I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century



It appears that Mike MacCracken in a message to Phil Jones (and others) is suggesting that raising the acidity of the oceans is not a bad thing. I thought they told us that CO2 was killing the oceans by raising their PH levels? Which is guys, is the increased acidity from CO2 (and SO2) hurting the oceans or not? Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44

That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China....Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean)



Does Mr Phil Jones actually hope that global warming comes back? Of course he does, his funding depends on it! Sent: 05 January 2009

Tim, Chris,
I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
record, 1998!



From: Mike MacCracken Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44, he seems awfully worried that their hypothesis is wrong as well as their predictions of warming. So a little damage control seems to be in order and they need to come up with an alternative excuse for the cooling.

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past
decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin.
I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also
do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a
quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise,
the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the
models are no good, etc.



Mr. Schneider in response to FOIA and other requests for data. It looks like they'll just use the lawyers to hide any "glitches or unexplained bits of code". Stephen H Schneider is a Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment.
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:50:56 -0800 (PST)

It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code...This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code--which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work...Let the lawyers figure this out...
Cheers, Steve
PS Please do not copy or forward this email.



Quoted text in an email on "Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:21 -0800" from Phil Jones to Benjamin Santer. Does it bother anyone else that these scientists laughingly "make up statements" to support Obama's "openness in government"?

With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have
submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more
years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up
statements saying you've done this following Obama's
statement about openness in government!



In an email message to a Mr. Smith, who is requesting Dr. Santer's modeling code, Dr. Santer rants about Mr. Steve McIntyre (of ClimateAudit) and about Mr. Smith for being critical of him for not releasing his data. So after this long rant he ends it by saying that Mr. Smith doesn't even have his permission to share this email message. This all seems a bit childish for a scientist.
From: Ben Santer To: Smithg Subject: Re: data request
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:33:53 -0800

Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my
behavior in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and
damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in
establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in
the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or
post it on Mr. McIntyre's blog.



Are they suggesting to fill in Antarctica data gaps with random data in order to have more convincing data for the IPCC?

From: "peter.thorne" To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Visit to Met Office
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:54:16 +0000

Antarctic data first piqued my interest with the Science paper on raobs trends which was clearly non-physical but hard to nail down how wrong it was...

Its clear to me that Antarctica is a uniquely difficult environment to collect long-term homogeneous data in. So I have substantial doubts that all the manned station pegs in Steig et al. are adequate. Does this really matter? I'm not sure.

What Steig et al., satellites, and potentially reanalyses does do is allow us, in principle, at least to get around the no-neighbours issue in assessing homogeneity away from the peninsula. For example we could use a bootstrapping of the Steig et al approach by creating say 50 realisations of each station series using randomly seeded combinations of manned station pegs as the S et al. RegEM constraint (excluding the candidate station) to make a neighbour composite ensemble. We could then add in the available reanalysis field estimates and satellite estimates and make a reasonable punt about the existence and magnitude of any breaks based upon multiple lines of evidence (of course, we lose some of these before 1979 ...). We could use this information to assess in a more rigorous way than has been done to date the homogeneity of these sparse stations. Then cleaned up data could be fed back through Steig et al. afterwards to see how it impacts that analysis making for a nice clean self-contained study...

Of course, this doesn't resolve any fundamental methodological concerns about the S et al. approach that may exist but it does give us a reasonable chance of creating a much more homogeneous READER manned station dataset for next IPCC AR and our future products.



Phil Jones is having problems with the Editor of Weather (a RMS Journal) asking too many questions about his papers and requesting the "raw data" behind the papers. Here in his words to Dr. Ben Santer is the pressure he's exerting against the Editor:

From: Phil Jones To: santer1©xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: See the link below
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

Here is Ben's reply:

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.



Phil Jones 24/06/2009 13:09 to Nick Pepin

I don't want to put off, but there is an awful lot of things
wrong with NCEP/NCAR.
They are probably OK for month-to-month variability, but if you look at some
of the figures in Simmons et al (2004) you'll see that for trends they are
practically useless before 1979.
There is just so much wrong with the sondes which together with the
introduction of satellite data in 1978/9 makes reanalyses awful.



There are hundreds of such emails. So many of them seem to show that they spend a great deal of time tweaking statements and results to keep the "skeptics" off their backs and changing public opinion. Shouldn't they be spending more time on producing good science?

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.126

[Guillermo]

Guillermo, I don't know what other data you may have, but when someone says "the measurements show X but it is not statistically significant" what that means is that they did some sort of error analysis that showed that they could not rely on the measurements to be accurate more than some threshold (typically 95%). So what that means is that, although the measurement showed a cooling, there is at least a 6% chance that there was not cooling. And usually it's more than 6%.

Now, you may have some other information from which you make your statement that there was cooling --I know that I've read it elsewhere-- I'm just saying that this from quote you cannot make that conclusion with any confidence.
Dave,
we are talking the same thing, really. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. In this case the lack of statistical significance is due to the short period of time, in the own words of Prof. Jones.

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Prof. Jones finally admitted the relevance of the MWP.

[Boston]

I like Guillermo. He honestly tries to keep the discussion on-topic, more so than most of us.

Ive even given old G points for at least trying

the rest is typically a blatant slander campaign
whats funny is that when you point out the obvious frauds the deniers go nuts claiming that somehow we should be debating the phony information. At least G gives up on ones clearly shown to be snake oil salesman. I think G is pretty good at digging up some anomalous data and has presented several interesting points.

Hoyt at least has a good sense of humor

but some of the stuff that gets posted is so obviously PR propaganda its almost funny its so bad

whatever
I stepped back from it a while ago
no sense trying to make sense of nonsense

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Thanks, Boston.

A sense of humor is just about all I have left.

Go down swinging.:D

[Boston]

in the end its all any of us have left
I know for me if I wasn't laughing even at myself most of the time
I'd be barking mad by now

no worries
all in good fun

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

I have been barking for a while now, with a little howling thrown in for good measure.

No I didn't.
Ye, I did.
Not.
Did.
Not.
Did.

[troy2000]

I have been barking for a while now, with a little howling thrown in for good measure.

No I didn't.
Ye, I did.
Not.
Did.
Not.
Did.

They say it's OK to talk to yourself. And that it's even OK to argue with yourself sometimes. But when you start losing the arguments on a regular basis, you might be in trouble.....

[Boston]

another darling little graph that I know you will all appreciate

http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg

seems to indicate that the radiation levels have remained relatively stable

while at the same time the level of radiation absorbed seems to have gone up

well thats strange

might be that there is also a measurable alteration in the chemical make up of the atmosphere exactly corresponding to those changes in absorption

most notably
CO2

or at least it seems awfully suspicious that the two might correspond so nicely eh

just a thought folks
just a thought

[mark775]

"There's just so many numbers and stuff - I have a hard time keeping organized." - Phil Jones
RIP AGW LOL!
40772

[Guillermo]

As Boston evidently refuses to read my posts showing the state of the art investigations, but pigheadedly insists in bringing once and again the same old, incomplete and biased info from his favourite warmists bolgs :rolleyes: , let me bring here again what I posted in post #4071 and 4081


Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Accepted 26 November 2009.
editor: S. Peyerimhoff.
Available online 3 December 2009.

Post 4071:

"The extraordinary Quing-Bin Lu (http://www.nanotech.uwaterloo.ca/Research/Nanotech_Researchers/index.php?name=lu) peer-reviewed paper states that the observed data from 1850 up to the present seem to indicate that CFCs conspired with Cosmic Rays are the major culprits for not only atmospheric ozone depletion but global warming for around 1950 to 2000. The observed data point to the possibility that the global warming observed in the late 20th century was dominantly caused by CFCs, modulated by Cosmic Rays Effect-driven ozone depletion. This depletion is expected to decrease after 2010 due to the CR cycles, but the Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC) will keep decreasing.

As they found that global surface temperature change has an excellent linear dependence on the EESC, if their observations are confirmed authors expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades. Indeed, global cooling may have started since 2002, based on the observed data. They think this could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century and that it certainly deserves for further examinations and studies.

The paper also says that due to the increasing trend of the CR intensity, the recovery of the ozone hole may be significantly delayed; the full recovery might not occur even by the end of this century.


I have bought the paper, but I think I may not upload it here as this could breach publishing rights. It is available on-line at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=8816287&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8816287&md5=c056ae181b2ae6d01302b75dafd01dc3



Post 4081:

"So cosmic rays seem to have at least a double effect on Earth's temperature:
- One through the link with CFCs, as per Lu's work
- The second through low clouds formation, as per Svenmark's work, already multicited in this thread.

BTW, on top of their previous work, Svensmark et al. have published a recent 2009 paper in the Geophysical Research Letters where a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale:

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds (http://europa.agu.org:8005/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0915/2009GL038429/2009GL038429.xml&t=gl,2009,2009GL038429,svensmark)



Perhaps you should begin to buy and read some relevant recent papers and begin to take into account other info than the one from your Warmist Bible, the Real Climate blog, my scatterbrained boy. :)

Cheers.

[Zed]

As Boston evidently refuses to read my posts showing the state of the art investigations, but pigheadedly insists in bringing once and again the same old, incomplete and biased info from his favourite warmists bolgs :rolleyes: , let me bring here again what I posted in post #4071 and 4081

Understanding your message is not the game G. He just likes to play the line and a good fighting fish.

[Guillermo]

Yes, most probably.
But I love to bang him in the head. It's free fun :)

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Another guy who is learning the hard way: more from Phil Jones at Nature

"....the authors used data from weather stations around the world; those in China "were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times", they wrote.

But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.

Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. "I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services," says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that "the stations probably did move", and that the subsequent loss of the details of the locations was sloppy. "It's not acceptable," says Jones. "[It's] not best practice." CRU denies any involvement in losing these records.

Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations' locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study's lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? "I will give that some thought. It's worthy of consideration," he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html

Cheers.

[rasorinc]

I have no dog in this fight. I only supply info.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

[Boston]

ah
thank you sir may I have another

actually I was busy with the new biz looking for a better storage yard and adding a new page to the site
that and if you can imagine it I have some spelling to correct


and do you have any corroborating data concerning the cosmic ray intensity
other than what is presented in this paper

cheers
B

by the way this graph you present in no way supports the predictions overwritten on it

the trend lines for consmic rays do not indicate an increase nor does the trend line for temp indicate a decrease
as least according to the data plotted

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/open-discussion/40776d1266357880-what-do-we-think-about-climate-change-lu-ohysics-reports-figure-22.jpg

not sure who drew in that Mediterranean blue prediction line but it deviates completely from the data set depicted

[Boston]

Here is Cosmic Ray data from NOAA and if there is an trend increase over the time frame of the data set then Im sure not seeing it


Neutron Monitors. Ground-based neutron monitors detect variations in the approximately 500 Mev to 20 GeV portion of the primary cosmic ray spectrum.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/COSMIC_RAYS/image/cr_ssn.gif

Ill keep looking for corroborating evidence but so far after four source searches Ive found nothing to indicate any increase in CR intensity with all indicating a stable level of cosmic ray energy over the period recent warming

a good resource you might check is the network of worldwide cosmic ray data stations

http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/common/links.htm

[hoytedow]

...as if

[Boston]

long term graph shows no major increases or decreases in trend

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/CDROM/image/cray.gif

now I realize you are talking Cosmic Radiation ( which I have addressed in my previous ) but I thought I'd just include the sun spot data in case anyone is confusing the two

and according to Dr Moore PHD at Stanford

Swindle: Sun spots show a near-perfect correlation with temperature over the last 400 years – the more sun spots the higher the temperature. This is because sun spots cause solar wind, solar wind prevents cosmic rays from reaching the earth, fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds, and fewer clouds mean more heat. This accounts for all climate change.

The Truth: Sun spots are a proxy for solar energy output, which is also influenced by solar flares and other phenomena. Solar energy output does affect global temperature, and it made a clear contribution to global warming until 50 years ago. But the temperature spike in the last 50 years cannot be explained by a change in solar energy output.

As you can see in the graph below, solar output has not been trending upward since 1978.

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/07/SolarOutput.png

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/07/CosmicRays.png

basically Im not finding any corroborating evidence for the paper you are presenting and I have looked at at least a half dozen well respected sources

[Boston]

while the following article does not specifically mention the piece you have presented it does cover the subject rather well. I thought it interesting that it also confirms my belief that there was no corroborating deviation from the CR norm that might correspond to the recent warming trend

Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
Filed under:

* Climate Science
* Sun-earth connections

— rasmus @ 6 December 2004

There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth’s climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth’s cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).

Svensmark’s failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.

The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth’s climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth’s temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.

http://www.realclimate.org/cicerone0203_fig3.jpg
don't you just love real climate :P :P :P
its such a great resource :D :D :D


FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level). The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison. [Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html'' , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and ``ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA'].

References:

Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth’s Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3

Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370

Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen (1991), Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 254: 698-700

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, T.M.L. wigley, J.M. Arblaster, A. Dai (2003): Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century, J. Climate, 6: 426-444

Shindell, D., D. Rind, N. Balachandran, J. Lean and P. Lonergan (1999): Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone and Climate, Science, 284: 305-308

Svensmark, H. (1998), Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate, Physical Review Letters, vol 81, num 22, 5027-5030

[Boston]

so now since that parameter has been layed to rest I'll check out the level of CFC's over the last say 50 yrs

from
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/ozone/images/ozfg12.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/ozone/ozkf12.htm&usg=__9uPW7jnLVaJnddgd1TWEU_TQSs4=&h=400&w=600&sz=12&hl=en&start=8&sig2=y8K-hU4zKnQryf4Lq14Ccg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=EIIy86l3DJiGnM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Datmospheric%2Bconcentrations%2Bof%2Bcfc%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=VUR7S8etOZ_wtAOdsITLCA

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/ozone/images/ozfg12.gif

looks like only chloroform is declining at a significant rate
but Ill keep looking

found a longer term look at
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/tritium/images/cfc-analysis-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/tritium/order-cfc.html&usg=__t8cKFmS-d7hDHrvgucyXTA_2298=&h=380&w=480&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&sig2=MnbFHr63GN-Pwf8yrWpbZQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=nEUoKG5My6oQiM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Datmospheric%2Bconcentrations%2Bof%2Bcfc%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=VUR7S8etOZ_wtAOdsITLCA

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/tritium/images/cfc-analysis-1.jpg

and again at
http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/ttd_figs/cfchistory2.png

http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/ttd_figs/cfchistory2.png

I did find the following article to be informative

The original CFCs were powerful greenhouse gases (about 0.34 W/m2 forcing since 1850), and even allowing for a cooling due to the subsequent depletion in stratospheric ozone (-0.15 W/m2), they had a net warming effect. Therefore the ongoing phase-out will help both the stratospheric ozone problem and reduce the forcings leading to global warming. CFC concentrations are indeed now starting to level out and are expected to decrease further in coming decades. However, some of the replacement gases (for instance HFC-23) which are not as harmful to ozone, nonetheless have an significant greenhouse warming potential. The total forcing from these replacements is expected to be small compared to increases in CO2, but any reductions that can be easily made can potentially offset some increases in CO2. Thankfully, some other replacements exist (for instance ammonia) which neither affect ozone nor the greenhouse effect. The cure for ozone depletion has not turned out to be worse than the disease!

On the other hand, some of the climate change effects on ozone were discussed previously in connection with Arctic ozone levels. These effects are both chemical and dynamical. The chemical impacts relate mainly to increasing levels of methane and stratospheric water vapour directly affecting the local chemistry. Additionally, stratospheric cooling (caused by increasing CO2 as well) has an indirect effect on the rates of many of the ozone-destroying reactions (accelerating ozone loss). Dynamically, planetary and gravity wave activity, (related to convection and the jet streams, for instance) all affect the momentum balance in the stratosphere and control the Brewer-Dobson overturning circulation. Therefore changes to those can potentially affect the stratospheric circulation and thus change stratospheric winds and stability. These dynamic effects can often lead to local changes of temperature (particularly in high latitudes) much greater than any radiative change e.g through possibly changes to the strength of the polar vortex (Shindell et al, 1998).

So, as we learn more about stratospheric ozone and climate change, what were once two separate problems have become more and more entwined. It therefore appears unlikely that meteorologists are going to get a break anytime soon from explaining exactly how the two issues do, and don’t, connect.

which indicates to me that while there would be some cooling or at least reduced warming should the levels of CFC's drop it would not negate the rise in co2 as a major player in Rapid Global Climate Change

after looking at about a dozen graphs Im not seeing a correlation between CFC and temp but feel free to post what you have
the ones I posted were all from NOAA and various universities

on a whole other note there is an interesting anomalous piece of data come up in the wild world of anthropology
http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895972/
apparently the 11 hobbit skeletons discovered are really screwing up modern anthropology

cheers
B

[samjohnnylee]

Hey all,

Its been long time since I have gone through one site that is truly technical and more over its great to be here.. Its helpful its informative.. It's rocking..

Boston.. Tremendous work done.. You deserve a appreciation !!.

Thanks,
Sam.

.
tower light (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/index.php) || uk tower light (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/index.php)

[Boston]

I am but a flee on the ass of life

[Marco1]

Hey all,

Its been long time since I have gone through one site that is truly technical and more over its great to be here.. Its helpful its informative.. It's rocking..

Boston.. Tremendous work done.. You deserve a appreciation !!.

Thanks,
Sam.

.
tower light (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/index.php) || uk tower light (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/index.php)

Hi Sam, rocking allright...how rocking cold is it over there? No matter how nice technical they get on this thread, still no warming coming up. No matter how much CO2 Al Gore and Co lets go up in the air, still no warming.
Bummer, must crank up that open fire to see if this year is the year it turns around.... "rapidly!" :)

[Boston]

and the abuse begins

[hoytedow]

Central Florida and the temperature hasn't gone above 60 degrees Fahrenheit for days now. Same in the Bahamas where they don't have heat for the homes. Damn that AGW. hehe haha. :P :P :D It was warmer in Vancouver, B.C., yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.:( :confused: :eek: :cool:

[Boston]

And thats one of the big misconceptions about Rapid Global Climate Change
that its only got to do with warming. It isn't

Instead its all about a disturbance in typical weather patterns resulting in a-typical occurrences. Like the Jet stream moving off course or an unusual arctic oscillation like what caused the cold weather in the south this year.
The mechanism might be well known but the strength of the reaction is outside of typical parameters.

Welcome to the new world. Try and notice how many plants and animals are having a hard time coping and then realize this is what Ive been saying all along. That the more frequent alterations from the norm are going to continue happening until the stress it puts on local intransigent populations simply overcomes them.

Those weather patterns that have been the norm for ~600,000 years are what has made for the ecosystems. Alter that and you disturb the balance of the system. If you create a change so rapid that the plants and animals cannot adapt or move fast enough and you get mass extinctions.

Manatee's, dropping like flies
fish, dropping like flies
birds ?
Reptiles, dropping out of trees

I read several articles that mentioned the smell is so bad its hard to go into some areas

I've also heard its not quite cold enough to kill off the invasive pythons though

B

[BlackSnow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2rotlX9Js

[Boston]

ok now that was bloody priceless
lmao

[Boston]

little tid bit about plastics in the ocean

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/16/vbs.toxic.garbage.island/index.html?hpt=C2

[Guillermo]

Boston, my predictable one:
Those blogs where you get the info from seem to have not realized yet that when solar influence on Earth's temperature and climate is being talked about, it is not only solar irradiance alone (or then you are finding and quoting not enough up to date documents). A similar thing happens with the CFCs thing. I'm going to give you another chance: try to look for falsifying papers to the more recent info I have posted lately in this thread. Go for them, my boy, and bring them here for us to learn something new. You keep on posting info already known. C'mon, we deserve a better effort on your side (Although I have to recognize you are the only one in the "warmgnotist" side in this thread -let's call it like that- who at least does some effort. The rest only rant around. That's why I like you).


I am but a flee on the ass of life
(Flee? :we may asume you want to say "fly" or "flea". I take it as "fly")

Quite true!
As we say in Spain, we can call you now "La Mosca": vuela, vuela, vuela... y donde se posa la caga. :D

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Boston "la Mosca",

As it is quite clear now you do not read (or then understand) my posts, nor the linked info, let me give you a little clue quoting something else from Komitov:

"It has been marked by many authors that the ”overall sunspot activity −− > TSI −− > climate” relationship is far not enough to explain the real climate dynamics during the last 400 years since AD 1610. As it is pointed out by Thompson (1997) only 25% of the global warming effect after AD 1850 could be explained by the TSI increasing during the this time. Additional factors should be searched to explain the remaining 75%. Especially after AD 1975/80 there is a total divergence between the TSI and the global temperature changes (Solanki, 2002; Usoskin et al., 2005; Lockwood & Frohlich, 2007). This phenomena could not be explained satisfactory even if the GCR flux is taken additionaly into account. That is why for the last 30-35 years by the opinion of many researchers the human activity is the factor, which play the dominant role for the climate changes."

Hey! realize what I'm quoting here Boston! what the hell is happening? Is good old Komitov totally nuts...? :D

More to come....

Cheers.

[Boston]

oh very funny

pero no que le hace los caballos asno?

I must have "settled" on a sore spot eh

my take on what you are presenting is to go through the parameters one by one and check the veracity of the claim based on what we think we know so far

1) is there an increase in the level of CR

the answer seems to be no but that does not mean that there cant be a reaction with an increased or altering level of CFC's

2) are the levels of CFC's changing

answer seems to be that they look to have stabilized but that does not necessarily mean that what changes did occur in recent times didn't correspond to the rise in temp.

3) are the levels of CFC's corresponding to the changes in temp

I checked to see if the levels of CFC's might be mirroring the alterations in temp and again the answer seems to be no

not only do they not appear to be moving in unison but neither do they seem to be following or preceding an alteration in temp
basically depending on how you want to draw up the trend lines there is really very little observable comparison among the parameters

once you can establish that you have a viable paper you then might think of whether that paper is one of those famous bits of anomalous data I keep talking about
just because a paper is for real and based on good science does not necessarily mean it fits in the puzzle
a few pieces left over and science has a tendency to say "oh well a few loose ends but all in all a good theory"
whereas if you have a lot of anomalous data like in anthropology then then science tends to say "our theory is incomplete" or some such dismissive tripe like that rather than just admit it does not know something
point is that the amount of corroborating evidence far outweighs the amount of anomalous data when it comes to climate science

I might ask though whats up with taking 4679 posts to come up with one viable paper though

assuming that is it holds up to further investigation

cheers
B

our posts must have crossed

I skim a lot of stuff till I hit something of interest

the idea that there was some kind of increase in CR over the last say 1000 or even 600,000 years just is not born out in the data
our sun is dynamic through a predictable range and the data does not show it deviating from that range in quite some time.
Where you are getting the idea it is somehow growing in intensity is beyond me
CFC's at least had a shot at mirroring the warming but upon looking at more graphs Im just not seeing the correlation

looks to me like you might be about ready to crack and admit that mans activities are altering the climate
or at least thats what I'm reading into it

good on ya mate
I knew you would see reason eventually

where the hell is Jim by the way

is he off hacking the realclimate site again

[hoytedow]

Old Limerick I remember from my youth:

A flea and fly in a flue,
Were imprisoned so what could they do?
Said the flea let us fly.
Said the fly let us flee.
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

Unrelated but it does help con el vocabulario.

[Guillermo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2rotlX9Js
That one is even better than the one Jimbo posted a while ago!
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/what-do-we-think-about-climate-change-21390-78.html#post304844

Thanks a lot!

[Boston]

G me hombre los Caballos asno
where is Jim lately

I remember he was doing that atkins diet
he didn't go having a heart attack or anything now did he

[hoytedow]

Estas palabras no son muy simpatico.
Caballos asno indeed!

[Guillermo]

I do not know what has happened to Jim. He's most probably tired of the "let's arrive nowhere" game in this thread. All of the most nice contributors have also left. Now only we two remain stubborngly posting something related to science here, Boston, and debating once and again the same points. Most probably because we are either masochistic or insane. Or both. :D

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

For me it like watching ping-pong in slooooow motion.:D

[Guillermo]

Very sloooooo-ping-Boooooos-tong motion indeed! :D :D :D

(Time to go to bed: Good night and kisses everybody)

[hoytedow]

Exciting stuff!

[hoytedow]

Good night, all.

[Boston]

still daylight for me
but I did just have to get out and have coffee
working on the new biz leaves my eyes buggy after a while

I think we at least are moving about some rather than rehashing the same old same old

I like that G at least comes up with something constructive.

oh well
tune in tomorrow
same bat time
same bat channel

on the extinction front

Of the world's 634 primate species, 48 percent are threatened with extinction, according to the report, issued by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

[Marco1]

pero no que le hace los caballos asno?

But no what do they do the horses donkey? :(
amalaya....niguirisa sagarasa funcardito


However I did like the bit about Climate change is not about cooling or warming.
Of course it is not, why do you think it changed from Global warming?
Because it is not warming right?
So if it is not warming what are we talking about CO2 warming the planet?
Is it CO2 cooling the planet now. In which possible way is a greenhouse gas cooling? Are greenhouses cooling houses now? Have we all gone raving mad?
"Rapid changing" rapid in comparison to what? Climate changes rapidly, of course it does, It has been changing for millions of years...very rapidly without our help.

[Zed]

It's now to be called --> "Global Climate Funding" in government circles and "The War on Climate" in the media, just to eliminate any ambiguity related stress that the public may be feeling. So... give us your money and we promise we will have the climate sorted by next Wednesday... no money and you are all going to die a horrible fiery death! Oh, no , sorry that is Sundays speech... meh, but you get the idea, basically its your money or your life, only its legal, because we are from the government and we are here to help you!

[fasteddy106]

Another myth debunked, this one about Antartica.

World Climate Report

The Web’s Longest-Running Climate Change Blog
February 16, 2010
Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
Filed under: Antarctic, Climate Changes —
Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

We humbly disagree.


In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.

These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.

There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.

Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.

This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.

While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase. No doubt the dearth of press coverage stems from the IPCC treatment of this topic.

In the IPCC AR4 the situation is described like this in Chapter 4, “Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground” (p. 351):

As an example, an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003), spanning the period from November 1978 through December 2005, is shown in Figure 4.8. The annual mean ice extent anomalies are shown. There is a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33 ± 7.4 × 103 km2 yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7 ± 0.6% per decade), whereas the Antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade), which is not statistically significant. The uncertainties represent the 90% confidence interval around the trend estimate and the percentages are based on the 1978 to 2005 mean.

Notice that the IPCC states that the Antarctic increase in sea ice extent from November 1979-December 2005 is “not statistically significant” which seems to give them good reason to play it down. For instance, in the Chapter 4, Executive Summary (p. 339), the sea ice bullet reads:

Satellite data indicate a continuation of the 2.7 ± 0.6% per decade decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978. The decline for summer extent is larger than for winter, with the summer minimum declining at a rate of 7.4 ± 2.4% per decade since 1979. Other data indicate that the summer decline began around 1970. Similar observations in the Antarctic reveal larger interannual variability but no consistent trends.

Which in the AR4 Summary For Policymakers becomes two separate items:

Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. These values are consistent with those reported in the TAR. {4.4}

and,

Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}

“Continues to show…no statistically significant average trends”? Continues?

This is what the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), released in 2001, had to say about Antarctic sea ice trends (Chapter 3, p. 125):

Over the period 1979 to 1996, the Antarctic (Cavalieri et al., 1997; Parkinson et al., 1999) shows a weak increase of 1.3 ± 0.2%/decade.

By anyone’s reckoning, that is a statistically significant increase.

In the IPCC TAR Chapter 3 Executive Summary is this bullet point:

…Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.

So, the IPCC AR4’s contention that sea ice trends in Antarctica “continues” to show “no statistically significant average trends” contrasts with what it had concluded in the TAR.

Interestingly, the AR4 did not include references to any previous study that showed that Antarctic sea ice trends were increasing in a statistically significant way. The AR4 did not include the TAR references of either Cavalieri et al., 1997, or Parkinson et al., 1999. Nor did the IPCC AR4 include a reference to Zwally et al., 2002, which found that:

The derived 20 year trend in sea ice extent from the monthly deviations is 11.18 ± 4.19 x 103 km2yr-1 or 0.98 ± 0.37% (decade)-1 for the entire Antarctic sea ice cover, which is significantly positive. [emphasis added]

and (also from Zwally et al. 2002),

Also, a recent analysis of Antarctic sea ice trends for 1978–1996 by Watkins and Simmonds [2000] found significant increases in both Antarctic sea ice extent and ice area, similar to the results in this paper. [emphasis added]

Watkins and Simmonds (2000) was also not cited by the AR4.

So just what did the IPCC AR4 authors cite in support of their “assessment” that Antarctic sea ice extent was not increasing in a statistically significant manner? The answer is “an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003).” And just what is “Comiso (2003)”? A book chapter!

Comiso, J.C., 2003: Large scale characteristics and variability of the global sea ice cover. In: Sea Ice - An Introduction to its Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology [Thomas, D. and G.S. Dieckmann (eds.)]. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 112–142.

And the IPCC didn’t actually even use what was in the book chapter, but instead “an updated version” of the “analysis” that was in the book chapter.

And from this “updated” analysis, the IPCC reported that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent was an insignificant 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade)—a value that was only about one-half of the increase reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

There are a few more things worth considering.

1) Josefino Comiso (the author of the above mentioned book chapter) was a contributing author of the IPCC AR4 Chapter 4, so the coordinating lead authors probably just turned directly to Comiso to provide an unpeer-reviewed update. (how convenient)

and 2) Comiso published a subsequent paper (along with Fumihiko Nishio) in 2008 that added only one additional year to the IPCC analysis (i.e. through 2006 instead of 2005), and once again found a statistically significant increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, with a value very similar to the value reported in the old TAR, that is:

When updated to 2006, the trends in ice extent and area …in the Antarctic remains slight but positive at 0.9 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3% per decade.

These trends are, again, by anyone’s reckoning, statistically significant.


Figure 1. Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).

And just in case further evidence is needed, and recent 2009 paper by Turner et al. (on which Comiso was a co-author), concluded that:

Based on a new analysis of passive microwave satellite data, we demonstrate that the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% dec-1 since the late 1970s.

This rate of increase is nearly twice as great as the value given in the AR4 (from its non-peer-reviewed source).

So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

It is little wonder why, considering that the AR4 found that “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.”

References:

Cavalieri, D. J., P. Gloersen, C. L. Parkinson, J. C. Comiso, and H. J. Zwally, 1997. Observed hemispheric asymmetry in global sea ice changes. Science, 278, 1104–1106.

Cavalieri, D. J., C. L. Parkinson, P. Gloersen, J. C. Comiso, and H. J. Zwally, 1999. Deriving long-term time series of sea ice cover from satellite passivemicrowave multisensor data sets. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 15803–15814.

Comiso, J. C., and F. Nishio, 2008. Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C02S07, doi:10.1029/2007JC004257.

Parkinson, C. L., D. J. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, H. J. Zwally, and J. C. Comiso, 1999. Arctic sea ice extents, areas, and trends, 1978– 1996. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 20837–20856.

Turner, J., J. C. Comiso, G. J. Marshall, T. A. Lachlan-Cope, T. Bracegirdle, T. Maksym, M. P. Meredith, Z. Wang, and A. Orr, 2009. Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L08502, doi:10.1029/2009GL037524.

Watkins, A. B., and I. Simmonds, Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology, 2000. Journal of Climate, 13, 4441–4451.

Zwally, H.J., J. C. Comiso, C. L. Parkinson, D. J. Cavalieri, and P. Gloersen, 2002. Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979-1998. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, C53041ShareThis

[Zed]

Now here is a ponderous thing... What would happen to the DEA if they actually won the war on drugs? Spot the problem?

[Boston]

asno = ass

"but doesn't that make you the horses ass"

was intended as a friendly jibe rather than anything all that vindictive, which unfortunately is a norm for some folks on this thread

my Spanish cant possibly be that bad
at least not as bad as my spelling

oh
as if you were not aware
Rapid Global Climate Change is the proper name of the theory; global warming is the misnomer insisted on by deniers and ignorant media types

the idea isn't that its going to warm endlessly or even cool endlessly but that it will shift between the two faster than the planets species can adapt
which why I'm often posting concerning extinctions, as there has been a dramatic rise in extinctions since the industrial revolution.

but somehow I'm sure everyone knew that, as I have explained it numerous times and apparently some simply choose to follow the denialist diatribe. A condition explained by the modern study of Agnotology, which has also been discussed in detail.

[fasteddy106]

Another interesting read from JoNova.....................

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

[Boston]

another little jewel is that one third of amphibians are endangered one third are threatened and one third are in decline.

half the primates are endangered

there has been a fifty percent drop in north American song bird numbers

and fisheries are dropping like flies ( west coast salmon for example )

but it has nothing to do with mankind's activities ?

[Dave Gudeman]

as if you were not aware
Rapid Global Climate Change is the proper name of the theory; global warming is the misnomer insisted on by deniers and ignorant media typesThat's a bit of historical revisionism, Boston. Up until a few years ago everyone called it "global warming". It is only recently that the alarmists decided that "climate change" was a better marketing term. I think there are two reasons that they wanted to change the name. First, it is hard to terrify most people by talking about "warming". Most people think of sunny days in spring or heating up a bit of cold pizza in the microwave. Not scary images.

Another reason they want to change the name is because they like to point to all extreme weather conditions as signs of the impending catastrophe, and there are some PR problems with pointing to snow storms as signs of "global warming".

As a side note, have you ever noticed that when someone points at extreme cold weather and makes fun of global warming, some alarmist points out piously that "weather is not climate", but when someone points to warm weather as a sign of global warming, none of these same alarmists seem to think that any correction is required?

[Dave Gudeman]

By the way, for people who claim that all of these errors found in the IPCC documents and other alarmist publications are simple mistakes, can you explain why every single one of these "mistakes" was in the direction of supporting the alarmist position? If they were really random mistakes, shouldn't they be about equally in both directions?

[Zed]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, YES!

[Boston]

well if you really want to know the development of the name it goes something like this

from the NASA web site

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
Definitions

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.” This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.


Rapid Global Climate Change is the term used at Woods Hole
most recently in the following
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347

referring to overall climate as global warming is an incorrect use of the term

[hoytedow]

NASA has gone over to the "dark side" so I am leery of their data.

[Boston]

Hey G
hows it today

found an article you might enjoy

Konrad Hughen, Associate Scientist
Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Source: Oceanus Magazine


Natural materials such as shells, ice, corals, and tree rings contain clues to help scientists piece together how our oceans, atmosphere, and land have changed in the past. The history of the Earth is recorded in many different chemical codes and languages, however, so we geochemists and paleoceanographers create tools that help us translate what the planet is telling us.

My research focuses on developing tools to trace environmental changes that occurred over millennia and centuries, and even over decades and years—long before humans were recording them. The trouble is that sometimes these paleo-science tools give us conflicting information; we construct or interpret a story of the past, and then new observations upset that story.

Recently, my colleagues and I encountered such a problem. While some environmental clues tell us that the sun had a crucial role in ancient atmospheric changes on Earth, we found other clues suggesting that the oceans also play a central part. My research group is looking closely at the environmental tracers themselves to see if our current history of the Holocene Epoch (the past 10,000 years or so) is a work of fiction or nonfiction.

Follow the isotopes
One of our most important tools is an isotope of carbon known as radiocarbon, or 14C. It is incorporated into living and nonliving things and then radioactively decays at known rates into daughter isotopes. It is incredibly useful for dating events in Earth’s past. However, radiocarbon fascinates me for a different reason: It is quite valuable as a geochemical tracer of how carbon cycles through the Earth system.

The amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere and in the surface of the ocean is controlled by changes in two things: how much radiocarbon is produced in Earth’s atmosphere and how it is distributed among various places on Earth—in the atmosphere, in living things, and particularly, in the deep ocean.

Radiocarbon is generated by cosmic rays that penetrate Earth’s upper atmosphere. When the sun is more magnetically active, more sunspots spew more radiation; that blocks cosmic rays from reaching our celestial neighborhood, and less radiocarbon is produced. When the sun is less active, fewer cosmic rays are blocked, and more radiocarbon is created.

Cosmic rays also produce beryllium-10 (10Be) in the atmosphere, making it another useful isotope to trace the sun’s activity. More solar activity generates less 10Be, and less gets incorporated into snow that falls out of the atmosphere and accumulates on glaciers. Analyzing cores from glaciers, scientists can reconstruct past levels of 10Be and solar activity.

There is a significant difference between beryllium and radiocarbon, however. Unlike beryllium, radiocarbon from the atmosphere dissolves into the ocean surface. The oceans’ circulation sometimes draws down radiocarbon from the surface and mixes it into deeper waters, where it decays over time. So the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere can also be influenced by the oceans.

What goes around comes around
My colleagues and I ran into our problem in the process of developing a record of climate changes as the Earth was emerging from the last ice age, about 15,000 to 11,000 years ago. We examined sediments cored from the seafloor in the Cariaco Basin off Venezuela. The sediments accumulate in layers over time, and they contain fossil shells of surface-dwelling microscopic marine animals. The shells incorporate radiocarbon and other isotopes from seawater that existed when the animals lived, and hence provide a record of past ocean conditions.

We were trying to correlate the timing of abrupt shifts seen in the Cariaco marine records with climate shifts on land that were detected by other researchers using 10Be in ice cores and 14C in tree rings. We got a near-perfect match of events.

The problem is that the fit was too good. The marine and terrestrial records of radiocarbon should not be a one-to-one match. Because the oceans draw down a portion of dissolved radiocarbon into the depths, there should be less radiocarbon in surface waters (and in fossil shells) than in the atmosphere.

A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the oceans’ deep circulation sometimes stalls—a periodic phenomenon that we now know can drive major global climate changes. When these slowdowns in ocean circulation occur, less radiocarbon in the ocean surface is drawn down to the depths, leaving more radiocarbon to accumulate in the air and sea surface.

So if radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere increased solely because of changes in solar activity, then beryllium and radiocarbon deposits on land would have increased; seafloor deposits would have increased, too, but not as much. On the other hand, if the radiocarbon changes were caused by a shift in ocean circulation, marine sediments and terrestrial tree rings should agree—as they seem to—but then beryllium levels should not have increased.

Muddy, but telltale, clues
As paleoclimatologists, our instinct is to say that changes happened for one reason or another—either the sun caused the change, or the ocean did. But perhaps it is both. Perhaps the sun, in triggering changes in isotopes, also triggered small changes in temperatures or another process that slowed deep ocean circulation—which, in turn, would accelerate and amplify the isotopic changes.

Such a scenario is speculative and highly controversial. We cannot build such a case from just one event in geologic time, so now we are trying to learn more from the rich data trove of Cariaco Basin sediments. The ocean basin is a unique place, where a confluence of environmental conditions makes its sediments very sensitive detectors of climate changes.

So now we are going back to our seafloor cores, hoping to analyze the records they preserve of global climate at other times in the past 10,000 years, when substantial and somewhat abrupt changes occurred. Will those periods show the same mysterious and contradictory mix of solar activity and ocean cycling? Only the mud will tell.

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Comer Science and Education Foundation, through the WHOI Ocean and Climate Institute.

[Boston]

the Dark Side eh
ok

seems like a simple definition to me
but Dark Side it is

actually the acronym for NASA in many other agencies is "never a straight story"

[hoytedow]

But no what do they do the horses donkey? :(
amalaya....niguirisa sagarasa funcardito


However I did like the bit about Climate change is not about cooling or warming.
Of course it is not, why do you think it changed from Global warming?
Because it is not warming right?
So if it is not warming what are we talking about CO2 warming the planet?
Is it CO2 cooling the planet now. In which possible way is a greenhouse gas cooling? Are greenhouses cooling houses now? Have we all gone raving mad?
"Rapid changing" rapid in comparison to what? Climate changes rapidly, of course it does, It has been changing for millions of years...very rapidly without our help.In case anyone wasn't paying attention, I thought it should be repeated.:cool:

[hoytedow]

Guillermo, how you say never in Latin? Is it nunc? Some could be Equus hemionus, no you.

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!

[Boston]

4706 is a perfect example of agnotism

Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek word ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"), and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]

or as Jerry said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

[Marco1]

But doesn't that make you the horse's ass...

If you attempted to put that sentence into Spanish, you get 10 points for bravery. Clearly not an easy task.

A horse's ass is a jackass who's job is to produce mules with a mare. I am not sure how it got down to become a symbol of scumbag, but you can clearly not translate that and must use an equivalent expression. The fact that your English version starts with 'but' does not help. Bad English would turn into worst Spanish for sure.

Best to use local expressions in local lingo.
"Tienes razón, yo soy un burro" would be one way.

another....
" Si es que a burro no me gana nadie "

or perhaps...
Que burrada!

Only kidding....:D

[Marco1]

Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek word ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"), and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]


Boston, I understand that the person who originally posted that snippet, intended to target the sceptics' camp. However after reading it again, don't you think it actually describes the actions of government institutions and global warming alarmist to a t?

the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.
Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.
Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.

[Boston]

My Spaniard friends seldom if ever swear, my Mexican friends swear with a passion but its all pretty basic. kinda leaves a gap in my language skills which I suppose starts with my English. I guess I should have just stuck with French but after 40 or so years without it I cant even really say I know that language anymore either.

I am a man without a country

oh well
waving a beer at someone usually says it all

http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/threetits_2006-07-26.JPG

apparently this girl is a porn star
imagine that eh

I wonder how she feels about global warming :P

[Zed]

My Spaniard friends seldom if ever swear, my Mexican friends swear with a passion but its all pretty basic. kinda leaves a gap in my language skills which I suppose starts with my English. I guess I should have just stuck with French but after 40 or so years without it I cant even really say I know that language anymore either.

I am a man without a country

oh well
waving a beer at someone usually says it all

http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/threetits_2006-07-26.JPG

apparently this girl is a porn star
imagine that eh

I wonder how she feels about global warming :P

Say...

fo-toe-shhh-opp.

Shes about as real as 'global warming'!

whoops I thought that was the term the mentally lacking media use?

:p

[Boston]

obviously you didnt watch the video

very entertaining I might add

story as she tells it is that the middle one is real and it was the other two that she had "done" to make them a better match

I'd link to the flick of her going at it but that might be a tad much for some of our viewers

but she is not the only case of multiple tits or nipples apparently
( told you I looked it up )

there is a girl with 7 nipples on 2 tits and numerous girls with three and four tits

this girl is but ugly but has the same condition as the previous with a tit inthe middle that developed and the two others that didnt

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/475086943_dbf5e2c761.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/50887070%40N00/475086943/&usg=__nMRuW56gljN3NAwgycJk5JT1yjA=&h=375&w=500&sz=84&hl=en&start=5&sig2=3hmiKQpkQhx-AzSukRzMWQ&itbs=1&tbnid=Aa9w76U1AYzU6M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthree%2Btits%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=XFp-S42MIpawsQOg0tD8Cw

this ones got three tits that all developed but she's not all that hot either

this one might offend some folks by the way
http://www.flurl.com/video/5259977_comments.htm

you might look up Supernumerary breasts if you are all that doubtful

[Zed]

Oh dear god... I have a bridge for you to buy!

[Boston]

your imagining things again
as I said
according to the girl the middle one is the one that developed and she had the two others done to match

she does an interview on Dailymotion followed by a more detailed look if you know what I mean

it is a relatively common medical condition in which typically only the extra nipple is visible
apparently occurring to some degree or another about 1% of the time
its called
supernumerary mamalia or something like that

look it up instead of acting like someone is claiming something they are not

[Zed]

I said nothing... how can I be imagining things? You are projecting again.

[fasteddy106]

Back to the regularly scheduled programing. This link is to a great article pointing out the mindset of the zero growth wack jobs who promote the AGW agenda in order to promote their own tortured agenda of devolution and societal regression..............

http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS084%20-%20Opportunism%20and%20Exploitation.pdf

[Guillermo]

Another interesting read from JoNova.....................

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Most interesting. Thanks for bringing it here. I will read it carefully.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

GW alarmists would like to shut down all power plants, yet “An offline Florida power plant is providing a warm-water refuge for several hundred manatees who like the Sunshine State's human residents are shivering in record low cold temperatures. … The oil- and gas-fired plant was taken off line last year for modernization but [Florida Power and Light] FPL has installed a special heating system to keep waters at an attractively balmy temperature for the manatees” [http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/56265]

The LA Times showed the following picture of manatees using the warm water output from a power plant to survive. “More than 200 manatees are wintering in a balmy canal outside a power plant, the latest exotic Florida animals seeking refuge from the state's frigid temperatures. Giant eagle rays and spinner sharks joined them in the 70-degree waters Thursday as onlookers watched them frolic near Apollo Beach. With temperatures up to 20 degrees below normal, some less resourceful animals needed help from humans to survive.” [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/01/warm-water-surrounding-florida-power-plant-is-a-spa-for-chilly-manatees-sharks-and-rays.html]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a7b831ef970b-pi

A study of Florida’s manatees and power plants (“Laist and Reynolds “Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges and an Uncertain Future”, 2005 [http://mmc.gov/reports/publications/pdf/floridamanatees.pdf]) states: “Most Florida manatees depend on localized warm-water refuges in the southern two-thirds of Florida to survive winter; about 60% use outfalls from 10 power plants. Future availability of these refuges is in doubt; most of these power plants may be retired within the next 20 year … plant retirements may increase cold-stress-related deaths and significantly decrease manatee abundance. … All power plant outfalls now used by manatees were built between the 1940s and early 1970s. Many of these plants have reached or are approaching the end of their planned operational lives and soon may be retired. Since they were built, regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act have prohibited new facilities from discharging effluent substantially warmer than the receiving waterbodies. The older, pre-existing plants, however, were granted variances allowing them to continue discharging warm water. Unless the older units are “repowered,” an expensive process of updating or replacing existing generating units with more efficient units, their retirement in the next 10 to 20 years will eliminate discharges on which most Florida manatees now depend for winter survival.”

The above report states: “As most power plants now used by manatees had not yet been built at that time [1950], some assume that, if power plants were closed, manatees would simply move south to warmer areas in Florida with no effect on overall manatee abundance. Such assumptions, however, may be overly simplistic and largely incorrect. Based on site-fidelity to winter refuges and manatee responses to past outfall shut-downs, it seems questionable, if not doubtful, that all or even many manatees would move to southernmost Florida or to natural springs that lie outside of their familiar range.”


Perhaps the pro-AGW environmentalists will just claim that the manatees are an “invasive species” and should be allowed to succumb to the cold.

[Guillermo]

The following figures show the sea surface temperatures (SST) for the Florida manatee area. The graphs show the monthly SST anomalies (blue) and annual average SST anomalies (red) for 1930 through 2008 (data from the CRU HadSST2 database plotted at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx). The HadSST2 database is averaged over 5x5 degree grids – the temperatures for the 4 grids encompassing the manatee area are shown.

The grid covering most of Florida’s coastline (25-30Nx80-85W) shows a slight cooling trend over the last 80 years. The other grids show a slight warming trend which does not exceed the warming of the 1930s.

The Gulf Coast Side of Florida
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Manatees_files/image002.jpg

The Gulf Stream Side of Florida
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Manatees_files/image003.jpg

[Guillermo]

I ask again: rapid compared with what? with the fast warming periods shown in these graphs, per example? some other? I'd greatly appreciate if you could post a long term graph to let us know what are you talking about, Boston.

Data from NOAA GISP2 ice core data, central Greenland:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord_files/image026.jpg

[Boston]

no time at the moment to go over all of that G but I was reading the Ocean News before I have to go and found this which might help you understand rapid climate change a little better

February 6, 2010

WINNIPEG — Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected, the lead investigator in Canada’s largest climate-change study yet said Friday — raising the possibility that the Arctic could, in a worst-case scenario, be ice-free in about three years.

University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study, said the rapid decay of thick Arctic Sea ice highlights the rapid pace of climate change in the North and foreshadows what will come in the South.

“We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said at a student symposium on climate change in Winnipeg. “It’s happening much faster than our most pessimistic models suggested.”

Barber and more than 300 scientists from around the globe spent last winter on the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen in the Arctic, studying the impact of climate change. It was the first time a research vessel remained mobile in open water during the winter season. The Canadian government provided $156 million in funding for the study.

Barber said the melting sea ice can be compared to disappearing rain forests.

“If you go into the rain forest and you cut down all the trees, the ecosystem in that rain forest will collapse,” he said. “If you go to the Arctic and you remove all the sea ice or if you remove the timing of the sea ice, the system will change.”

That change will include more invasive species moving up from the South and species that live in the Far North having to adapt to a different environment.

The occurrence of Arctic cyclones is also on the rise, which contributes to ice breakup.

Barber said before the expedition that climate scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly. It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.

“We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.”

The impact means more variability in the Earth’s climate — warm trends are warmer and cold trends are colder.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Arctic+vanishing+faster+than+most+pessimistic+models+researcher/2532570/story.html#ixzz0g0UfebgQ

[hoytedow]

GW alarmists would like to shut down all power plants, yet “An offline Florida power plant is providing a warm-water refuge for several hundred manatees who like the Sunshine State's human residents are shivering in record low cold temperatures. … The oil- and gas-fired plant was taken off line last year for modernization but [Florida Power and Light] FPL has installed a special heating system to keep waters at an attractively balmy temperature for the manatees” [http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/56265]

The LA Times showed the following picture of manatees using the warm water output from a power plant to survive. “More than 200 manatees are wintering in a balmy canal outside a power plant, the latest exotic Florida animals seeking refuge from the state's frigid temperatures. Giant eagle rays and spinner sharks joined them in the 70-degree waters Thursday as onlookers watched them frolic near Apollo Beach. With temperatures up to 20 degrees below normal, some less resourceful animals needed help from humans to survive.” [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/01/warm-water-surrounding-florida-power-plant-is-a-spa-for-chilly-manatees-sharks-and-rays.html]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a7b831ef970b-pi

A study of Florida’s manatees and power plants (“Laist and Reynolds “Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges and an Uncertain Future”, 2005 [http://mmc.gov/reports/publications/pdf/floridamanatees.pdf]) states: “Most Florida manatees depend on localized warm-water refuges in the southern two-thirds of Florida to survive winter; about 60% use outfalls from 10 power plants. Future availability of these refuges is in doubt; most of these power plants may be retired within the next 20 year … plant retirements may increase cold-stress-related deaths and significantly decrease manatee abundance. … All power plant outfalls now used by manatees were built between the 1940s and early 1970s. Many of these plants have reached or are approaching the end of their planned operational lives and soon may be retired. Since they were built, regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act have prohibited new facilities from discharging effluent substantially warmer than the receiving waterbodies. The older, pre-existing plants, however, were granted variances allowing them to continue discharging warm water. Unless the older units are “repowered,” an expensive process of updating or replacing existing generating units with more efficient units, their retirement in the next 10 to 20 years will eliminate discharges on which most Florida manatees now depend for winter survival.”

The above report states: “As most power plants now used by manatees had not yet been built at that time [1950], some assume that, if power plants were closed, manatees would simply move south to warmer areas in Florida with no effect on overall manatee abundance. Such assumptions, however, may be overly simplistic and largely incorrect. Based on site-fidelity to winter refuges and manatee responses to past outfall shut-downs, it seems questionable, if not doubtful, that all or even many manatees would move to southernmost Florida or to natural springs that lie outside of their familiar range.”


Perhaps the pro-AGW environmentalists will just claim that the manatees are an “invasive species” and should be allowed to succumb to the cold.

If you had posted this as a teaser I would have said Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant.:cool:

[hoytedow]

...and I would have been wrong.

[Guillermo]

no time at the moment to go over all of that G but I was reading the Ocean News before I have to go and found this which might help you understand rapid climate change a little better
How do you infere from there that thinning of Arctic ice is due to increased athmospheric CO2? :confused:

NSIDC regularly puts out a news article describing the deteriorating state of the Arctic, called the Sea Ice News. In their May 5, 2008 article, they stated:
" …the Arctic Oscillation was in its positive phase through the winter season, associated with a wind pattern helping to flush thick ice out of the Arctic, leaving thinner ice. This is one of the factors helping to set the stage for pronounced ice losses this summer."

Additionally, Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC said:

"The NAO/AO (Arctic Oscillation) is a particularly prominent one and a substantial amount of the decline in the sea ice during the late 1980s and early 1990s could be attributed to a strong positive mode during winters because the positive mode favors the loss of thicker ice (through drift) that is less likely to melt during summer."

Multiyear Artic ice has rather to do with the drift during the winter due to winds patterns there, as recognized by the own NSDIC, than with atmospheric temperature. And, of course, it has nothing to do with ACO2. This has been already asumed by most in the quickly vanishing "warmists" camp, including NSDIC. Except Al Gore, Real Climate and Boston, of course. :p


Once clarified this elementary thing, please fullfill my curiosity and don't hide away with ridiculous distraction maneouvres: can you please post a long term temperatures graph to let us know what are you talking about when you talk rapid climate change?

[Boston]

cause in the very next paragraph the article goes on to say what just about every scientist involved in climate research is saying

Dr. John Hanesiak, an associate professor at the University of Manitoba’s Centre For Earth Observation Science, said that due to human actions and the release of greenhouse gases, those extremes may include more frequent summer droughts and more spring floods in southern climates.

“We know that we’re part of the problem,” he said. “There’s no question about that.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Arctic+vanishing+faster+than+most+pessimistic+models+researcher/2532570/story.html#ixzz0g1nTfewF



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Arctic+vanishing+faster+than+most+pessimistic+models+researcher/2532570/story.html#ixzz0g1n3lVCa

[Guillermo]

I see.
“We know that we’re part of the problem,” he said. “There’s no question about that. The models are telling us that now.”

Do you realize? MODELS (why did you omit that sentence?), not facts. He is one more in the crowd of people fooled by the failed IPCC's computer models.

Read this NASA press release: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

From there:

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

NASA doesn't mention AGW at all.

Watch the COMPLETE history of the NSIDC arctic sea ice in a video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6j8SGs_gnFk&hl=es_ES&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6j8SGs_gnFk&hl=es_ES&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here is another video which shows the flow of sea ice down the west coast of Greenland and the Beaufort sea. Clearly there is more at work here than simple melting, there is a whole dynamic flow going on.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RnqNXxewpdw&hl=es_ES&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RnqNXxewpdw&hl=es_ES&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

(I beleive this two videos had been already posted, but anyway...)

[Guillermo]

Now answer my question: can you please post a long term temperatures graph to let us know what are you talking about when you talk rapid climate change (RCC)?

[Jimbo1490]

long term graph shows no major increases or decreases in trend


Nir Shaviv, one of the most eminent experts in this area of study, stated, oh about a decade ago, that the overall Cosmic Ray counts, as depicted in the graph's Boston presented, are meaningless as they show no correlation to cloud formation, and by extension albedo and temperature. Warmers love to throw up graphs of overall CR counts for this reason. Shaviv maintains it's the count of CR's over a certain intensity threshold (IIRC, the figure was 20 GEV), which itself has NO correlation to the overall CR count, that show a strong (undeniable, really) correlation with cloud cover, albedo, etc.

Again, old outdated information on CR's is being presented as refutation of the CR/cloud albedo connection. Again, this has all been covered.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Hi Jim! Nice to have you back. You don't lavish your presence here lately. :( This is less fun without you :)
Yes, the GWA, particularly our friend Boston :) just use once and again the same old outdated information, because most of the recent scientific findings discredit AGW rather than the contrary.

And their tactis are always the same: I bet Boston will not answer once again my question on the RCC (his new "warmnotologist" mantra) but will initiate a distraction maneouvre, whatever it is. :D

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Warmnotology, formerly warmnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt on climate change, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Guillermo M. Gefaell a Boatdesign.net contributor specializing in the banging on the head of some stubborn real world denialists and IPCC computer models believers. Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek words ζεστός, warm, ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"), and -λογία, -logia. More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where less understanding on climate subjects makes one more certain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of climate ignorance cited by Gefaell is the GWA conspiracy to manufacture data about the climate depending on antropogenic CO2. Under the banner of science, the IPCC, a group of poor practice scientists and some enviromentalist lobbies produced biased climate research about everything except global cooling hazards, to exploit public fears about GW and thus fulfill a political and economical interests agenda. Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.

Cheers :D

[fasteddy106]

Hey Jim, good to see you. Did you notice the hack post by Boston? That is so typical of him to post partial information as if the appearance of fact will make it become reality. Loser!

[fasteddy106]

This is a good article about more of the deceptive tactics used to convince us that we are evil unless we devolve to brainless unsophisticated survivalists living in dirt hovels ............

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

[Boston]

Hi Jim! Nice to have you back. You don't lavish your presence here lately. :( This is less fun without you :)
Yes, the GWA, particularly our friend Boston :) just use once and again the same old outdated information, because most of the recent scientific findings discredit AGW rather than the contrary.

And their tactis are always the same: I bet Boston will not answer once again my question on the RCC (his new "warmnotologist" mantra) but will initiate a distraction maneouvre, whatever it is. :D

Cheers.

to funny
yerp thats me Mr Distraction eh

Hey Jim
nice to see you up and kicking
was kinda wondering if you were doing ok over there
good to see you were just maybe pleasantly distracted hacking your way back into the Realclimate site again

looks its 3:51 am and Im just in from a long day and then a nice dinner party so maybe Ill see what I can do with denial views once I get some sleep
If my bleary eyes are reading this correctly Jim says its the intensity and not the number of sun spots? that makes the big difference, which doesn't seem to make much sense cause the CR is measured in intensity, so Im not sure, if our conversation is about CR what the problem is with the data presented ( although Im sure there is always a problem :P )

G
If Im reading this correctly
has issue with where I left off my cut and paste

I also have a question

if there is voluminous data to form a coherent theory and that theory is presented as it has ( climate change )
and if you disagree with it
yet have have insufficient data to form a complete and comprehensive theory of your own
then I suppose a reasonable question might be

where's your theory that you might be asked to defend it
or is it just easier to ignore that little flaw in the denialist camps tactics and simply forget that no competing theory exists

gotta get but best of luck
and good to have you back Jim

B

[Marco1]

There is no point in reasoning with a religious person. THis is a matter of faith.

We have those who "believe" and those who do not believe.

Try to tell a 7 day adventist he is wrong in wanting to keep the sabbath.

Try to debate with a JW that transfusions are not forbidden by the scritpures.

Tell an exclusive brethren that women have the right to speak in church.

All of the above people "believe" to be right. And all take the information from the same book.

Global warmist have got religion and there is no point in any debate with them. The only debate worth having is with those who dont believe anything may they see the light.

[Marco1]

This is an add:

Cave for sale. Guaranteed no CO2 emissions, no power, no warming, no cooling. Completely self sufficient.

Lobotomy included in the package deal.

GW deniers abstain from applying.

[troy2000]

There is no point in reasoning with a religious person. THis is a matter of faith.

We have those who "believe" and those who do not believe.

Try to tell a 7 day adventist he is wrong in wanting to keep the sabbath.

Try to debate with a JW that transfusions are not forbidden by the scritpures.

Tell an exclusive brethren that women have the right to speak in church.

All of the above people "believe" to be right. And all take the information from the same book.

Global warmist have got religion and there is no point in any debate with them. The only debate worth having is with those who dont believe anything may they see the light.

I'll call you on that one. Your stance is dismissed by the vast majority of mainstream scientists--not just by some group of ignorant, brainwashed fanatics. For you to accuse scientists, and those who agree with them, of having "gotten religion" makes little sense. You seem to be the one standing on faith instead of facts and reason, winnowing through piles of data and evidence for whatever might support your preconceived notions.

You do your side of the debate no good at all when you go off on rants like this, basically calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot.

[fasteddy106]

Once again you got it wrong Troy. An overwhelming majority of scientists do not subscribe to the AGW dogma. A majority of self proclaimed climatologists do. In the U.S. alone over 31,400 scientists have signed the Petition Project. The signers disagree with the AGW hypothesis and are willing to put their names and reputations forward unlike the anonymous polls conducted among the grant whores of the AGW movement.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

And before you try to trash the signers you should know that the names were all verified in 2007 and the phoney names placed there by AGW sphycophants were removed.

Of course the idea of consensus deciding science is silly anyhow. It only takes one person to disprove a theory pronounced as dogma by thousands. The truth is the truth, regardless of the thousands who may find it uncomfortable.

You then take issue with anyone who disagrees with the AGW dogma and brand them ignorant brainwashed fanatics while you take umbrage with any bricks tossed at the high priests of Carbon Catechism.

The reference to religion is placed there because of the unreasonable faith that is placed in the pronouncement of the IPCC regardless of the instances of corruption, fraud, deciet, bad science and just plain screw ups that are the legacy of the IPCC since its founding. There is not a single disaster scenario that has not been debunked. There is not a single paper published that uses empirical evidence to tie Global Warming to human activity. Such faith is usually reserved for the belief in a diety, not to further scientific debate.

[fasteddy106]

Some thoughts from our friends in Austrailia..........

http://listentous.org.au/media/11-fossil-fuels-fail-to-explain-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

[Guillermo]

fasteddy,
Just a precision on my side to this your phrase "tie Global Warming to human activity"

I'm convinced climate change (or global warming if we put it that way) is not related to antropogenic CO2. But there can be other human forcings acting on global climate (understood as a sume of regional impacts), such as land change, poor agricultural practices, soots and sulfurs emmissions, etc, etc, as well as perhaps even some with global level impact such as the CFC's in troposphere and stratosphere. In my case I'm only debating here the effect of ACO2.

Cheers.

[Boston]

interesting G so how is it you justify believing that the lesser quantities of gasses being emitted like sulfur ( but without the physical characteristics necessary to be as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 ) are having the greater impact on climate change

granted I wrote extensively concerning dimming a few thousand posts ago

the conclusion being that the advent of controls on visible pollutants without controls on the invisible pollutants is a key factor in the rising temps we have been seeing

soots and sulfurs simply dont have the physical characteristics to be the strong greenhouse gass that methane or co2 is

sooooooooo

once again
do you have a comprehensive alternative theory you would like to present to the scientific community that might justify your beliefs

or is this all just hyperbole to delay any meaningful change that might cut into corporate profits in the short term

[Jimbo1490]

There is not a single disaster scenario that has not been debunked. There is not a single paper published that uses empirical evidence to tie Global Warming to human activity.

They still have not climbed the first hurdle, which is to show that something anomalous is happening with the earth's climate. The ~8 papers published by the very scientists of the climategate fiasco are the only peer-reviewed support of this assertion, and all these works were deeply, irrevocably discredited years before climategate. In fact the last nails in the coffin were driven home only one month before climategate, with the long-awaited revelation of the Yamal data.

With nothing unusual going on, why are we looking for the 'cause' and 'solution in the first place:?:

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

You see, Boston? There you are again with your distracting maneouvres, avoiding to answer the simple question I made.

Once again :rolleyes: : can you please post a long term temperatures graph to let us know what are you talking about when you talk rapid climate change?

[Boston]

an ambiguous question as usual G
care to define "long term"

In the case of climate change research the term in question is the last stable series of cycles over ~600,000 years. The cycles show a distinct pattern mirroring co2. The pattern is unlikely a coincidence and given the extreme deviation in co2 and the recent warming mirroring that increase in co2 its kinda hard difficult for the deniers to do much but wither and fall by the way side. Its no wonder the consensus on climate change is so huge (97%) or that no mater how much money industry pores into the PR campaign designed to preserve there profits they have yet to come up with a coherent and comprehensive counter theory; instead agnotologyst focus on anomalous data and disinformation.

the amount of data available in support of Rapid Global Climate Change is overwhelming

http://www.trackforum.com/images/WARMING/Vostok+Temp-Co2-Mh4-Dust-Solar-Glacial.jpg

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/temperatureSmall.gif

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg

http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif


so having established what the last stable cycle looks like you might want to consider the deviation from it in terms of both the hesitation and then recent rise in temp corresponding to the dramatic increase in the prime green house gas CO2

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/ipcc-20091209-palinoped.jpg

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20070103_temp_graph.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/CO2-Temp.png


your grasping at straws again G
how about if you answer one of my questions for a change

do you have a comprehensive counter theory that incorporates the majority of the known data

[Guillermo]

Where do you see the "rapid" temperature increase there, my darling? Please take just one graph of real data (not Al Gore projections) for the last, let's say, 10,000 years, 100,000, 600,000 or 600 million years, whichever you want, and point it out please (And please quote the peer reviewed paper from where you took the graph from)

And I see you still insist on confounding correlation with causation: CO2 in the paleoclimatic records follow temperature, not the contrary, as has been thoroughly proved. Please search this thread for "temperature lag" to find out the wealthy of information on the subject (please read it carefully and think a little bit, something difficult for you, I know). Those graphs act against yourself, my warmnotologist one! Why do you insist on putting yourself in a ridiculous position?

[Boston]

while I appreciate the easy questions G I would have thought you were trying to lead up to something a little more difficult

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/temperatureSmall.gif

lets ignore the projection that temp will follow co2 and stick to the actual data of the most recent times as compared to the past say 10,000

notice where the graph says "today" and notice that its a spike from a previous high
temp according to the pattern of the last 600,000 years or so should be falling at this point in the cycle, but its not is it. Its headed upward again again and fast.
definitely a deviation from the norm and one that follows the pattern of CO2 perfectly and exactly as predicted

looks like your grasping at straws again there G

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/assets/5264.jpg

a clearer view of the dramatic rise in global temps can be seen more clearly in this compilation of data sets

http://www.cmmap.org/images/learn/climate/changeGraph.jpg

[Guillermo]

Don't you have eyes to see, ears to listen and a brain to think?

Once again and more slowly for you: :rolleyes:

PE-ER-RE-VIEW-ED-PA-PERS-BOS-TON-I-AS-KED-FOR-LONG-TERM-GRAPHS-FROM-PE-ER-RE-VIEW-ED-PA-PERS

LAST-TEN-THOU-SAND-YE-ARS-OR-MO-RE

Capici now?

P.S.
DON'T-BE-SI-LLY-AND-DON'T-IN-SIST-ON-THE-JO-KEY-STICK-GAR-BAGE-YOU-A-RE-ON-LY-DIS-CRE-DI-TING-YOUR-SELF-ONCE-A-GAIN :(

[Guillermo]

While you dig for the info with that your slow brain and your quick entrails ;) , let me post here something interesting and recent for the sake of the other members here.

A review of North Atlantic modes of natural variability and their driving mechanisms
Iris Grossmann and Philip J. Klotzbach
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D24107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012728, 2009
Received 24 June 2009; revised 5 August 2009; accepted 31 August 2009; published 31 December 2009.

This paper reviews three modes of natural variability that have been identified in the North Atlantic Ocean, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic Meridional Mode (AMM). This manuscript focuses on the multidecadal fluctuations of these three modes. A range of different mechanisms to initiate phase reversals in these modes on multidecadal timescales has been suggested previously. We propose a systematic grouping of these mechanisms into three types that involve, respectively, (1) the dependency of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) on salinity, (2) the sensitivity of the THC to changes in ocean heat transport and (3) the dependency of the NAO to changes in the Atlantic meridional temperature gradient. Some new density data is also provided, demonstrating physical links between the THC and the AMO.

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grossmannklotzbach2009.pdf

I had posted before something from Prof. Gray head of the Dept of Atmospheric Science team at the Colorado Universty (Klotzbach works with him)
I bring it back here for those of you not wanting to go back for it:

Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2009.pdf
Read it carefully.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

This is also interesting for you, the USA people.

ATLANTIC BASIN SEASONAL HURRICANE FORECAST FOR 2010
Forecast Parameter and 1950-2000
Climatology (in parentheses)

9 December 2009
Forecast for 2010
Named Storms (NS) (9.6) 11-16
Named Storm Days (NSD) (49.1) 51-75
Hurricanes (H) (5.9) 6-8
Hurricane Days (HD) (24.5) 24-39
Major Hurricanes (MH) (2.3) 3-5
Major Hurricane Days (MHD) (5.0) 6-12
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) (96.1) 100-162
Net Tropical Cyclone Activity (NTC) (100%) 108-172

PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COASTAL AREAS*:
1) Entire U.S. coastline - 64% (average for last century is 52%)
2) U.S. East Coast Including Peninsula Florida - 40% (average for last century is 31%)
3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville - 40% (average for last century is 30%)

PROBABILITY FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE TRACKING INTO THE CARIBBEAN (10-20°N, 60-88°W)
1) 53% (average for last century is 42%)

*Landfall probabilities are calculated based on the midpoint of our predicted NTC range (e.g., NTC of 140) 3

From: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2009/dec2009/dec2009.pdf

Note from the authors:
"We issue these forecasts to satisfy the curiosity of the general public and to bring attention to the hurricane problem. There is a curiosity in knowing what the odds are for an active or inactive season next year. One must remember that our forecasts are based on the premise that those global oceanic and atmospheric conditions which preceded comparatively active or inactive hurricane seasons in the past provide meaningful information about similar trends in future seasons. This is not always true for individual seasons. It is also important that the reader appreciate that these seasonal forecasts are based on statistical schemes which, owing to their intrinsically probabilistic nature, will fail in some years. Moreover, these forecasts do not specifically predict where within the Atlantic basin these storms will strike. The probability of landfall for any one location along the coast is very low and reflects the fact that, in any one season, most U.S. coastal areas will not feel the effects of a hurricane no matter how active the individual season is."

Cheers.

[Boston]

still grasping at straws G

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/assets/5264.jpg


well lets see
this one is from the NOAA yearly report

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/images/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

one of hundreds of papers quoting this data
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CBAQFjAB&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.nodc.noaa.gov%2Fpub%2Fdata.nodc%2Fwoa%2FPUBLICATIONS%2Fgrlheat08.pdf&rct=j&q=papers+using+NOAA+data&ei=__6AS4PHHoKwswPYzuXxAw&usg=AFQjCNFrMx2hWnpJgB48yqSWlabmUFHkJg&sig2=tA0Eie3rHMSaI1zsnWhTuQ

this one is from the RATPAC data set

one of hundreds of papers quoting this data
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Foa%2Fclimate%2Fratpac%2Fpapers%2FFree_et_al_2005.pdf&rct=j&q=papers+using+ratpac+data+&ei=pP6AS5z0LIvCsQOGktSeBA&usg=AFQjCNGt_jAct0dD32wnGz3uGSWoHF40Dg&sig2=240D1c9jKp8XlqJ0g2d-wA

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/ts-sfc-radiosonde-jan-dec-2008-pg.gif

this one represents co2

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/CO2_0-400k_yrs.gif

this one temp

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif

four papers quoting this data

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A.

1) Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years).

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.

Nature 329:403-8.

2) Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.

Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.

Nature 364:407-12.

3) Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.

Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.

Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.

4) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.

Nature 399: 429-436.

need I really go on G
every graph I posted is well known within the community and has been quoted numerous times in numerous papers

what I think is confusing you is your used to the deniers dreaming up there own data to support there paper thin arguments, whereas scientists work in unison to produce a wide variety of data that is then compiled into a coherent form, checked against other data sets collated and presented with no bias for the community to use as they see fit. Unlike the deniers camp the scientists have no predetermined conclusions.

cheers
B

ps
can we try and make the questions a little harder

at least debunking Miskolczi involved discovering that his formulas were bunk and that he dreamed up his own mystery data to represent known parameters

what your on about now is kinda boring if all you want is to know is if the graphed data is used in published works

what exactly is the argument your trying to get at G

of course the NOAA NCAR and NASA data is going to be published and multiple times at that

[Boston]

interesting that Im the one being accused of the distractions
you wanted graphs and so I gave them to you
now your on about something else entirely with various local weather events not incorporated within the larger picture

its called Global climate change remember

again not presenting the entire picture
tsk tsk tsk

how about if you show a few temp graphs along with where they came from what data sets they pool and who used them in there papers

now that aught to be a hoot eh

cheers
B

how about if instead of offering ambiguous data on local weather patterns, we maybe tackle a few of the myths being spread by the disinformation campaign. Lets let the readers see for themselves how silly some of the arguments on this thread really are when compared to the simple facts

lets just take em one at a time

Myth 1
There is no scientific consensus


( Fact
the consensus is overwhelming )


The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement about the following fundamental assertions: 1) the world has been warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable future, 2) the warming is largely due to human activity (burning fossil fuel - oil, coal and gas - and destroying forests), and 3) the consequences of rising temperature, in all projected futures, are grave enough to warrant global action.

How do we know this? In 1988 the U.N. established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a body of over 2000 scientists and experts from around the world who gather periodically to review the existing peer-reviewed literature of the relevant science. The skeptical scientists, by the way, are invited and are even among the lead authors of working groups. The summary documents are reviewed word for word, with industry and skeptics in the room. The IPCC's methods are rigorously fair to dissent, and incomparably thorough. The IPCC only began to assert the fundamentals in 1995 and since then has increased the conviction of the wording in its summary statements.

To add to this unprecedented overall agreement of the world's scientists, a statement endorsing the legitimacy of the process and the conclusions of the IPCC has been signed by 16 national scientific societies (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/index.html -> Search: IPCC -> The Science of Climate Change):

THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8°C above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources. Statement truncated


Readers might notice that the US National Academy of Sciences is not on the list. But read below to see that its position is that of the IPCC.

It's been said that getting scientists to agree on much is like herding cats. We recommend you keep this in mind when putting the present day level of general agreement in perspective.

Yes, there are contrarians. There always will be. But there aren't many of them and a significant fraction of these are supported directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel industry. Just as in the case of the smoking-cancer link, there will always be "experts" who support the self-serving industry position and deny the science.

Unfortunately, the stakes in global climate change and the fossil fuel industry are even higher than they are with tobacco and cancer. The planet's climate is at stake.

[fasteddy106]

Gee whiz, the grant whores who head up of the science units in a bunch of countries and are responsible for the membership makeup of the IPCC all agree with the IPCC, startling.