What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

and do you have one shred of evidence to back up these beliefs

the science is in and the rate of increase as well as the increase itself is unprecedented in a variety of categories

CO2
Methane
Temp

all are found to be on the move at unprecedented rates
these rates do not fall within the boundaries of variability as the speed of these changes is simply not found in any data set of the resolution able to note such speeds

your statement is simply unfounded within the science

your welcome to prove otherwise but untill you might provide graphs depicting changes similar to modern times

your statement remains unsupported

cheers
B

[Guillermo]

And what the fitting of the base line for the models (usually 1961-1990 by the way, not 1940-1970, nor 1910-1940), has to do with the cooling temperature behaviour of the 1940-1970 period or the similar warming behaviour in spite of the big difference in CO2 concentrations between 1910-1940 and 1970-2000? Explain that to us from your high knowledge, scatterbrained Weasel. And also show us the impact of the base line in the several periods' temperature trend by choosing whatever base line you prefer. Try not to LIE or initiate one of your distracting maneouvres if you can, please.....:rolleyes:

P.S.
I think you'll find insteresting this, from Paul Clark's site:
"Of course, adjusting the baseline doesn't make any difference when you're looking for trends or cycles."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

love. G

Caught by the b... again!
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing024.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Guillermo]

Plant stomata data show much greater variability of atmospheric CO2 over the last 1,000 years than the ice cores and that CO2 levels have often been between 300 and 340ppmv over the last millennium, including a 120ppmv rise from the late 12th Century through the mid 14th Century. The stomata data also indicate higher CO2 levels than the Mauna Loa instrumental record; but a 5-point moving average ties into the instrumental record quite nicely…

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/LawDomeMLOKouwenberg800.png

The Beck 2007 survey of historical chemical analyses shows even more variability in atmospheric CO2 levels than the plant stomata data since 1800…

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/LawDomeMLOKouwenbergBeck1800.png

The GEOCARB data also suggest that ice core CO2 data are too low…The average CO2 level of the Pleistocene ice cores is 36ppmv less than GEOCARB

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/PleistoceneCO2Shifted.png

Recent satellite data (NASA AIRS) show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the polar regions are significantly less than in lower latitudes. AIRS data show that carbon dioxide is not well mixed in Earth's atmosphere, results that have been validated by direct measurements. There is a net transfer of carbon dioxide from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere produces three to four times more human produced carbon dioxide than the southern hemisphere.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/411797main_slide9-AIRS-full.jpg

So… The ice core data may be yielding low and uncertain CO2 levels.

On the other hand, paleoclimatic records have less resolution than the present instrumental data, not accurately showing short term spikes.

Using paleoclimatic reconstructions of CO2 only from the ice cores and pretending to drive "unprecedency" conclusions from them for global asessment by comparing such records with the more accurate present and instrumental data, is flawed and incorrect.

(In my, of course, 'untruthful denier' opinion...:) )

[hoytedow]

I'm aware of it.

It was more myths at the time just as the denier myths of today

now there are regions that may experience extreme cooling but the global average will be warmerI saw approximately in the year 1970 one of those climate clowns with my own eyes on the Merv Griffin Show predict that by 2000AD people would get frostbite in New York City on the 4th of July. I wish I could remember his name. He may have been associated with Goddard.

[wardd]

I saw approximately in the year 1970 one of those climate clowns with my own eyes on the Merv Griffin Show predict that by 2000AD people would get frostbite in New York City on the 4th of July. I wish I could remember his name. He may have been associated with Goddard.


WOW!

All of one?

[troy2000]

I saw approximately in the year 1970 one of those climate clowns with my own eyes on the Merv Griffin Show predict that by 2000AD people would get frostbite in New York City on the 4th of July. I wish I could remember his name. He may have been associated with Goddard.Yes, there were people saying it. but I repeat: despite what Bearflag says, there was no consensus. The theory wasn't generally accepted by the scientific community at large; and it wasn't backed up with research, data and studies like global warming is. It was just one of the possibilities being considered, not the only one or even the prevailing one.

It simply isn't true that there was once a scientific consensus that global cooling was coming, which was then magically replaced by a new consensus on global warming in the last few years. In fact, the greenhouse effect of rising CO2 levels due to human activity was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. And the potentially catastrophic results of human CO2 production were being talked about sixty years ago, in the 1950's

The question during the 1960's and 1970's wasn't whether human activity was affecting the planet; the idea that we were capable of influencing the climate had already been widely accepted. But there were competing theories about the results: some scientists thought the greenhouse effect from the rising CO2 levels would be overwhelmed by the aerosol effect of particulate pollution.

To quote Paul Erlich, "the greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."

While the media was still hyping global cooling in the 1970's, scientists weren't; they were already going the other way. A survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming, with the warming articles also being cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.

Allow me to quote the abstract of a paper published in the journal of the American Meteorological Society, titled "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus."

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[hoytedow]

Consensus conschmensus! Horse puckey!

[wardd]

there is no consensus of scientists, not real ones

they agree with the science

[hoytedow]

Real scientists follow the science and don't fudge the data for grant money.

[wardd]

you mean like the ones that deny agw for pay?

[hoytedow]

you mean like the ones that deny agw for pay?haha:P :P :P :P :rolleyes: :confused: :?: :!:

[wardd]

haha:P :P :P :P :rolleyes: :confused: :?: :!:

you didn't know?

if i were you i'd go to the oil companies and demand back pay

[bearflag]

there is no consensus of scientists, not real ones

they agree with the science

Ahh.. because the scientists who you agree with are "real" and the ones you disagree with are err.... "not"?

How very unscientific of you, sounds more like politics.

This saying is getting a lot of play recently: "You are entitled to your own opinions just not your own facts"

What we have here is not one or two, but many camps who look at the same evidence, ie the same empirical facts, and we interpret differing opinions.

There are fringe nutters on both sides. Anyone arguing for climatic armaggedeon in the immediate future, is pretty near insane, likewise, anyone who is arguing young earth, or who is looking to Revelations for weather predications is equally so.

But don't discount that there are serious ideas and serious scientists on many sides of the climate debate.

[wardd]

the rate of change is unprecedented

what if a point is reached where it becomes a self reinforcing feedback loop?

it would be like bearing wear, slow at first then speeding up

[troy2000]

Consensus conschmensus! Horse puckey!

Do you understand how we're using the term 'scientific consensus?' No one claims it's some magic phrase or spell that makes something automatically true. It's just a shorthand way of saying, "the vast majority of scientists agree on this subject."

That is undeniably true, by the way. The vast majority of scientists do agree that global warming (or rapid climate change, or whatever you want to call it) is real, and that humans are one of the major causes.

Of course, scientific facts aren't decided by voting, whether it be by scientists or by the public. But the fact that such an overwhelming majority of scientists agree should indicate that it isn't just a kooky fringe theory - or a sinister plot by liberals, New World Order agents, capitalists run amok, or any other group of conspirators.

[wardd]

Do you understand how we're using the term 'scientific consensus?' No one claims it's some magic phrase or spell that makes something automatically true. It's just a shorthand way of saying, "the vast majority of scientists agree on this subject."

That is undeniably true, by the way. The vast majority of scientists do agree that global warming (or rapid climate change, or whatever you want to call it) is real, and that humans are one of the major causes.

Of course, scientific facts aren't decided by voting, whether it be by scientists or by the public. But the fact that such an overwhelming majority of scientists agree should indicate that it isn't just a kooky fringe theory - or a sinister plot by liberals, New World Order agents, capitalists run amok, or any other group of conspirators.

but occasionally liberals can be right

[troy2000]

but occasionally liberals can be right

Liberals are generally right, in the long run. Or at least they generally win in the long run, because they embrace change.

Conservatives, by definition, want to either stick with the status quo or turn the clock back to some (mostly imaginary) golden age when things were better. Since they can't stop change, they're mostly on the losing end of history.

That's a good thing, because in my opinion the world is getting better overall in most ways, not worse. As my dad once said, "people are always talking about the good old days. But I was there, and I wasn't impressed."

[wardd]

Liberals are generally right, in the long run. Or at least they generally win in the long run, because they embrace change.

Conservatives, by definition, want to either stick with the status quo or turn the clock back to some (mostly imaginary) golden age when things were better. Since they can't stop change, they're mostly on the losing end of history.

That's a good thing, because in my opinion the world is getting better overall in most ways, not worse. As my dad once said, "people are always talking about the good old days. But I was there, and I wasn't impressed."

So, you don't want cheap goods made with child labor?

[bearflag]

Liberals are generally right, in the long run. Or at least they generally win in the long run, because they embrace change.

Conservatives, by definition, want to either stick with the status quo or turn the clock back to some (mostly imaginary) golden age. Since they can't stop change, they're mostly on the losing end of history.

Alas, liberals are hardly "liberal" anymore.

It would probably be more accurate to call them "socially permissive" or "moral relativists" and fiscally "progressive" (in the political sense of the term, ie Progressive movement, not progressing forward), based upon dialectic materialism etc.

Its interesting you bring up "Golden Age" because that is almost picture perfect imagery from the Progressive and Socialist literature, pop culture like The Wizard of Oz comes to mind. These thinkers really believed in perfect societies and the perfection of man, in fact that was government's role, individual man needed to be steered by those who knew best what was best for society at large. You could argue that the progressive experiment is in many ways the opposite of the formative liberalism and positivism which came from the age of enlightenment or the american experiment.

You could perhaps argue that "modern conservatism" (not to be confused with Bush, Thatcher, McCain, Gingrich, et all) is perhaps more true to the original idea of liberalism, so yes, in a sense you are right, they are going back to the idea of limited government, individual responsibility, logical positivism (and with it skepticism). Of course the term conservatism has other baggage, and the term can mean many things depending on the era and the context.

Definition wise these are the ones useful:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

1 and 3 are the definitions used by most, but 2 is probably more accurate in re: governance and philosophically speaking. That is to be conservative in regards to the involvement of government, ie to limit the powers of government and moderate its role.

I guess to end my rant, I see what you are saying and I agree with it in part. But the statement is so blanketing that is it without any meaning. Most self proclaimed "liberals" are hardly in possession of any quality that would be identified with the liberal thinking you are arguing for, similarly most self identifying conservatives aren't making any claim at all in regards to philosophy but are usually addressing some other topic entirely, such as small governance or perhaps traditional family values, and not "return to the way things were, or don't change we like the way things are" If anything amongst "conservatives" there are more people for changing the status quo than on the other side of the fence.

[troy2000]

Alas, liberals are hardly "liberal" anymore.

It would probably be more accurate to call them "socially permissive" or "moral relativists" and fiscally "progressive" (in the political sense of the term, ie Progressive movement, not progressing forward), based upon dialectic materialism etc.

Its interesting you bring up "Golden Age" because that is almost picture perfect imagery from the Progressive and Socialist literature, pop culture like The Wizard of Oz comes to mind. These thinkers really believed in perfect societies and the perfection of man, in fact that was government's role, individual man needed to be steered by those who knew best what was best for society at large. You could argue that the progressive experiment is in many ways the opposite of the formative liberalism and positivism which came from the age of enlightenment or the american experiment.

You could perhaps argue that "modern conservatism" (not to be confused with Bush, Thatcher, McCain, Gingrich, et all) is perhaps more true to the original idea of liberalism, so yes, in a sense you are right, they are going back to the idea of limited government, individual responsibility, logical positivism (and with it skepticism). Of course the term conservatism has other baggage, and the term can mean many things depending on the era and the context.

Definition wise these are the ones useful:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

1 and 3 are the definitions used by most, but 2 is probably more accurate in re: governance and philosophically speaking. That is to be conservative in regards to the involvement of government, ie to limit the powers of government and moderate its role.

I guess to end my rant, I see what you are saying and I agree with it in part. But the statement is so blanketing that is it without any meaning. Most self proclaimed "liberals" are hardly in possession of any quality that would be identified with the liberal thinking you are arguing for, similarly most self identifying conservatives aren't making any claim at all in regards to philosophy but are usually addressing some other topic entirely, such as small governance or perhaps traditional family values, and not "return to the way things were, or don't change we like the way things are" If anything amongst "conservatives" there are more people for changing the status quo than on the other side of the fence.

A thoughtful post; it deserves more time and attention than I can give it before bedtime. I'll tackle it tomorrow.

[troy2000]

WASHINGTON — 2010 is running neck-and-neck with 1998 as having the warmest first eight months of a year since the start of record keeping in 1880.

The planet's average temperature for January-August was 58.5 degrees Fahrenheit, tying the 1998 record for that period, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday. That temperature was 1.21 degrees F above the 20th century average.

A late-surge in temperatures at the end of 2005 made that year the warmest full year on record.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center also reported:

* It was the third-hottest August on record with an average temperature for the month of 61.2 degrees F (16.2 C). The hottest August was 1998, followed by 2009.
* The meteorological summer — June-August — averaged 61.3 degrees F, making it the second-hottest summer on record worldwide behind 1998.
* August was hotter than normal in eastern Europe, eastern Canada and parts of eastern Asia but cooler than normal in Australia, central Russia and southern South America.

Meanwhile, a separate report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center said the sea ice coverage this summer in the Arctic was the third-lowest since satellites began measuring that in 1979. Only 2007 and 2008 were lower.

Sea ice levels appear to have reached their low for 2010 on Sept. 10, the center said. The extent was 1.8 million square miles — 625,000 square miles below the 1979-2009 average minimum.

"Despite a late start to the melt season, the ice extent declined rapidly thereafter, with record daily average ice loss rates for the Arctic as a whole for May and June," the center stated. "Assuming that we have indeed reached the seasonal minimum extent, 2010 would have the shortest melt season in the satellite record, spanning 163 days between the seasonal maximum and minimum ice extents."

The sea ice report follows news that tens of thousands of walruses had flocked to shorelines because the sea ice they normally rely on this time of year was scarce.

Melting sea ice is part of a pattern of changes atmospheric scientists attribute to global warming, which has been documented in rising temperatures over the last several decades.

Other changes include melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica, which can lead to rising sea levels, a decline in glaciers and changes in weather patterns around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39199247/ns/us_news-environment/

[Marco1]

Troy, with all due respect, what does it matter if it is 1, 2 or 3 C hotter? And for that reason what does it matter if it is cooler as we have it now in Australia?

Answer, nothing.

It would matter only if the variation is outside normal parameters and cause is
A) andropogenic
B) we could do something about it.

Everything else is fluff, scare mongering, political mumbo jumbo as pseudo science.
We had much hotter climate before. We had much colder climate before and neither had anything to do with passing wind or burning fuel.
The sea level has not changed in the last 100 years yet it has been lower than it is now and it has been higher than it is now. So?

This fanatic search for the missing link that will "prove" that it is humans fault and that therefore we must go back to live in caves or even better pay more taxes as if that would make any difference is nonsensical.
The "rapid" climate change is not changing anything at all. Not rapid nor slow.

Computer models can be programmed to say anything you want.
It is ONLY reality that matters

[Knut Sand]

Some further info;

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp

Deutches Bank, they're interested in the money side of things too, probably?

[Guillermo]

We can also say 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Area Maximum has been the second on record since 2002.

Satellite records for both Poles Sea Ice are only from 1979, so they tell us nothing about previous times. And of course they also tell us nothing about the causes.

Arctic has been with less ice area before, i.e. 6000-7000 years ago, having nothing to do with CO2 (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/). Descending trend for Arctic sea ice is happening since around 1850, which most likely is caused by the coming out of the LIA. I have posted about this before, a week or two ago.

Now let's see the other side of the planet:

2007 was the highest ever Antarctic Sea Ice Area Maximum ever recorded, while 2010 has already reached the 2nd highest Maximum Antarctic Sea Ice Area on records.
1993 was the lowest ever Antarctic Sea Ice Area ever recorded, and this year(2010) is the 24th lowest and the 8th highest.
The highest Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum ever recorded was 2003.

So what?

[Guillermo]

Some further info;

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp

Deutches Bank, they're interested in the money side of things too, probably?
That proves where the money is nowadays....;)

[wardd]

That proves where the money is nowadays....;)


in the banks?

address the statement not who made it, if they don't have a history of false claims

[troy2000]

Troy, with all due respect, what does it matter if it is 1, 2 or 3 C hotter? And for that reason what does it matter if it is cooler as we have it now in Australia?If you don't know the answer to that question by now, you just don't want to know. Obviously a degree here or there means nothing in the short run; it's the average over time that matters. And yes, just a few degrees difference in the average global temperature can cause a significant change in climate.

Answer, nothing.Wrong answer....

It would matter only if the variation is outside normal parameters and cause is
A) andropogenic
B) we could do something about it.It is outside normal parameters; the cause is anthropogenic; and we can do something about it.

Everything else is fluff, scare mongering, political mumbo jumbo as pseudo science.
We had much hotter climate before. We had much colder climate before and neither had anything to do with passing wind or burning fuel.Complete non sequitur. The fact that there have been climate changes for other reasons in the past hardly proves that today's cause isn't anthropogenic. That's like telling your doctor, "this can't be food poisoning, because the belly-ache I had last year turned out to be gas."
The sea level has not changed in the last 100 years yet it has been lower than it is now and it has been higher than it is now. So?Wrong again. The average sea level has risen measurably in the last hundred years.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p364381652174757/

This fanatic search for the missing link that will "prove" that it is humans fault and that therefore we must go back to live in caves or even better pay more taxes as if that would make any difference is nonsensical.
The "rapid" climate change is not changing anything at all. Not rapid nor slow.No 'fanatic search' is necessary, because there is no missing link. The fanatic searchers are the ones throwing up ever-more-far-fetched alternatives, explanations and misinformation in an attempt to discredit legitimate science

Nor is anyone who matters saying we should go back to living in caves; that's nonsensical. The truth is that better and more modern technology is what will help us out of this mess, not throwing technology away.

Computer models can be programmed to say anything you want.
It is ONLY reality that mattersTypewriters or a pen and pencil can say anything you want, too. That doesn't prove someone who uses them is lying, just because they're saying something you don't want to hear.

[Guillermo]

In “Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5993/834),” Christian Beer et al. estimate total annual terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) in an approach more solidly based on data than previous approximations. Terrestrial GPP is the largest source of global carbon exchange. It drives many ecosystem functions, such as respiration and growth. Food, fiber, and wood production from plants are all part of terrestrial GPP. Moreover, GPP is one of the major processes controlling land-atmosphere CO2 exchange.

The researchers used a combination of observation and calculation to estimate that the total GPP by terrestrial plants is around 122 billion tons per year. In part, the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems acts to offset human CO2 emissions, which total around 7 billion tons annually. Thirty-two percent of this uptake occurs in tropical forests, and precipitation controls carbon uptake in more than 40% of vegetated land. Here is how Beer et al. sum up their findings:

After four decades of research on the global magnitude of primary production of terrestrial vegetation, we present an observation-based estimate of global terrestrial GPP. Although we arrive at a global GPP of similar magnitude as these earlier estimates, our results add confidence and spatial details. The large range of GPP results by process-oriented biosphere models indicates the need for further constraining CO2 uptake processes in these models. Furthermore, our spatially explicit GPP results contribute to a quantification of the climatic control of GPP. Complementing theoretical or process-oriented results about climatic limitations of GPP, our observation-based results now constitute empirical evidence for a large effect of water availability on primary production over 40% of the vegetated land (Fig. 3A) and up to 70% in savannahs, shrublands, grasslands, and agricultural areas. Our findings imply a high susceptibility of these ecosystems’ productivity to projected changes of precipitation over the 21st century, but a robustness of tropical and boreal forests. Results of current process models show a large range and a tendency to overestimate precipitation-associated GPP (Fig. 3B). Most likely, the association of GPP and climate in process-oriented models can be improved by including negative feedback mechanisms (e.g., adaptation) that might stabilize the systems.

(bolded is mine)


In “Global Convergence in the Temperature Sensitivity of Respiration at Ecosystem Level, (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5993/838)” Mahecha et al. assess how ecosystem respiration (R) is related to temperature over week-to-month and longer annual time scales, and find a potentially important but difficult-to-interpret relationship. Attempting to understand the sensitivity of respiratory processes to temperature, they approximated the sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystem respiration to air temperature (Q10) across 60 FLUXNET sites. The authors expand on their motivation:

Quantifying the intensity of feedback mechanisms between terrestrial ecosystems and climate is a central challenge for understanding the global carbon cycle and a prerequisite for reliable future climate scenarios. One crucial determinant of the climate–carbon cycle feedback is the temperature sensitivity of respiratory processes in terrestrial ecosystems, which has been subject to much debate. On the one hand, empirical studies have found high sensitivities of soil respiration to temperature, with values of Q10 (here an indicator of the sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystem respiration to air temperature) well above 2. Dependencies of Q10 values on mean temperatures have been attributed to the acclimatization of soil respiration, among other factors. On the other hand, global-scale models often make use of globally constant Q10 values of 2 or below to generate carbon dynamics consistent with global atmospheric CO2 growth rates. Nonetheless, several models have directly included empirical dependencies of the parameterization of respiratory processes to environmental dynamics. This inclusion is questionable, given that single-site studies have indicated that factors seasonally covarying with temperature can confound the experimental retrieval of the intrinsic temperature dependence of respiration.


The investigators report that the week-to-month scale sensitivity is stable across sites varying in mean temperature, but annual sensitivity varies markedly from cold to warm ecosystems. Overall, they found an empirically inferred Q10 of approximately 1.4 at the ecosystem level. “These results reconcile the empirical evidence with findings that the global carbon cycle can be well modeled only with an ecosystem level sensitivity of Q10 < 2,” Mahecha et al. conclude. “Moreover, our results may partly explain recent findings indicating a less pronounced climate–carbon cycle sensitivity than assumed by current climate–carbon cycle model parameterizations.”

(bolded is mine)

The combined impact of these two papers is yet another blow to the validity of current computer models. Previous assumptions about the absorption and production of CO2 by terrestrial plants under changing conditions are in error. These new results once again reinforce the fact that rising CO2 levels will not cause the temperature increases predicted by existing computer models.

[Boston]

Plant stomata data show much greater variability of atmospheric CO2 over the last 1,000 years than the ice cores and that CO2 levels have often been between 300 and 340ppmv over the last millennium, including a 120ppmv rise from the late 12th Century through the mid 14th Century. The stomata data also indicate higher CO2 levels than the Mauna Loa instrumental record; but a 5-point moving average ties into the instrumental record quite nicely…

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/LawDomeMLOKouwenberg800.png

The Beck 2007 survey of historical chemical analyses shows even more variability in atmospheric CO2 levels than the plant stomata data since 1800…

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/LawDomeMLOKouwenbergBeck1800.png

The GEOCARB data also suggest that ice core CO2 data are too low…The average CO2 level of the Pleistocene ice cores is 36ppmv less than GEOCARB

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/PleistoceneCO2Shifted.png

Recent satellite data (NASA AIRS) show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the polar regions are significantly less than in lower latitudes. AIRS data show that carbon dioxide is not well mixed in Earth's atmosphere, results that have been validated by direct measurements. There is a net transfer of carbon dioxide from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere produces three to four times more human produced carbon dioxide than the southern hemisphere.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/411797main_slide9-AIRS-full.jpg

So… The ice core data may be yielding low and uncertain CO2 levels.

On the other hand, paleoclimatic records have less resolution than the present instrumental data, not accurately showing short term spikes.

Using paleoclimatic reconstructions of CO2 only from the ice cores and pretending to drive "unprecedency" conclusions from them for global asessment by comparing such records with the more accurate present and instrumental data, is flawed and incorrect.

(In my, of course, 'untruthful denier' opinion...:) )


I love this one
soon as i get a chance I'll dig through it

right now I have some girl hangin onto my nuts and happy as a clam

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

... And yes, just a few degrees difference in the average global temperature can cause a significant change in climate.
...
the cause is anthropogenic; and we can do something about it.... The fact that there have been climate changes for other reasons in the past hardly proves that today's cause isn't anthropogenic. ...I had last year turned out to be gas."....
......
Nor is anyone who matters saying we should go back to living in caves; ..... The truth is that better and more modern technology is what will help us out of this mess, not throwing technology away.Typewriters or a pen and pencil can say anything you want, too. That doesn't prove someone who uses them is lying, just because they're saying something you don't want to hear.

The cause is not anthropogenic.

We can do nothing about it.

There is no proof of AGW.

Sorry about your gas. Try Beano.

There are some who belong in caves, they are sooooooo batty.

Why give the typewriter, pens and pencils as an example of modern technology?

Some people are lying any time their lips are moving.

You are correct that I don't want to hear their lies. I especially resent the fact that they have bamboozled you.
Come over to the light.

[troy2000]

The cause is not anthropogenic.

We can do nothing about it.

There is no proof of AGW.

Sorry about your gas. Try Beano.

There are some who belong in caves, they are sooooooo batty.

Why give the typewriter, pens and pencils as an example of modern technology?

Some people are lying any time their lips are moving.

You are correct that I don't want to hear their lies. I especially resent the fact that they have bamboozled you.
Come over to the light.

I wasn't mentioning typewriters, pens and pencil as examples of modern technology. I was pointing out how absurd it is to distrust computer modeling simply because it comes from a computer.

I don't bamboozle worth a damn, Hoyt. You should know that by now, after all the attempts that have been made here to do so...:)

The rest of your post is simply 'deny, deny, deny.' And you wonder why folks use the term 'deniers'?:p

[hoytedow]

in the banks?

address the statement not who made it, if they don't have a history of false claimsThis is yet another ridiculous statement made by our friend from Ward D.

[hoytedow]

I love this one
soon as i get a chance I'll dig through it

right now I have some girl hangin onto my nuts and happy as a clam

cheers
BYou better hope she isn't squirelly, but she probably is, anyway.

[wardd]

This is yet another ridiculous statement made by our friend from Ward D.

in what way?


I have found that even people I hate can be right

[hoytedow]

You hate me? :(

I'm honored.:)

[wardd]

You hate me? :(

I'm honored.:)

very few people I hate and they had to work very hard for it

I don't know you so your just background

[Guillermo]

right now I have some girl hangin onto my nuts and happy as a clam

This girl...? :P

[hoytedow]

Yep. Just as I thought.


Squirelly. :)

[Guillermo]

I love this one
soon as i get a chance I'll dig through it

Yes, you have an opportunity there, as there are debattable matters, I know. But try not to dig very deep as perhaps you'll not be able to come out of your own grave once again. :P

Like...let's see....what about this one? We are still waiting....:D

"And what the fitting of the base line for the models (usually 1961-1990 by the way, not 1940-1970, nor 1910-1940), has to do with the cooling temperature behaviour of the 1940-1970 period or the similar warming behaviour in spite of the big difference in CO2 concentrations between 1910-1940 and 1970-2000? Explain that to us from your high knowledge, scatterbrained Weasel. And also show us the impact of the base line in the several periods' temperature trend by choosing whatever base line you prefer."

[troy2000]

Alas, liberals are hardly "liberal" anymore.

It would probably be more accurate to call them "socially permissive" or "moral relativists" and fiscally "progressive" (in the political sense of the term, ie Progressive movement, not progressing forward), based upon dialectic materialism etc.You can't differentiate between liberals and conservatives on grounds of permissiveness or morality. That's a red herring dragged across the trail, mostly by hypocritical preachers and politicians who are Hell-bent on enforcing "do as I say, not as I do." So many of them have been caught engaging in the same behavior they want to outlaw for the rest of us that it's become a cliche....

Please note that politically and socially conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the country at large, even though they spend a ridiculous amount of time criticizing 'liberals' for their immorality and lack of family values:

A study saying that born-again Christians divorce more often than non-Christians has raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, even brought on a little holy anger. So much, in fact, that the study's author, evangelical George Barna, put out a special letter to "our partners in ministry" trying to calm their fury and let his fellow believers know that he was standing by his stats no matter how distasteful they might be.

The Barna Research Group's national study showed that members of nondenominational churches divorce 34 percent of the time in contrast to 25 percent for the general population. Nondenominational churches would include large numbers of Bible churches and other conservative evangelicals. Baptists had the highest rate of the major denominations: 29 percent. Born-again Christians' rate was 27 percent. To make matters even more distressing for believers, atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate of divorce 21 percent.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

Continuing on the theme of permissiveness: my personal lifestyle and habits are so boringly conservative that I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone to condemn them. But it certainly isn't because I lack permission from some government agency or church to live and act differently....nor do I think it gives me the right to demand that everyone else follow my example. They don't need (and shouldn't seek) my permission to live their own lives by their own standards. If that be permissiveness, make the most of it.:)

I think many of the hot-button issues conservatives are carrying on about today are mostly symbolic, anyway. Take gay marriage for example. I fail to see how allowing two guys or two women to marry will have any effect on my marriage. I doubt either of my sons is going to decide he wants to marry a man instead of a woman, if it becomes legal to do so. And it's completely absurd for people like four-times married Rush Limbaugh to lecture me on the sanctity of marriage.

Or look at flag burning. It's beyond me how that can be such a threat to the country that a Constitutional amendment is needed to stop it....:confused:
Its interesting you bring up "Golden Age" because that is almost picture perfect imagery from the Progressive and Socialist literature, pop culture like The Wizard of Oz comes to mind. These thinkers really believed in perfect societies and the perfection of man, in fact that was government's role, individual man needed to be steered by those who knew best what was best for society at large. You could argue that the progressive experiment is in many ways the opposite of the formative liberalism and positivism which came from the age of enlightenment or the american experiment. Um....say what? How you could possibly interpret the Wizard of Oz as some sort of advocacy for big government is beyond me. And I not only saw the movie; I read almost every Oz book ever written when I was a kid.

Nor are you using 'Golden Age' in the traditional sense of the term, or in the same way I used it. It generally refers to some idealized notion of a time past when things were better than they are now, not some sought-after Utopia in the future.

The term Golden Age (Χρυσόν Γένος) comes from Greek mythology and legend and refers to the first in a sequence of four or five (or more) Ages of Man, in which the Golden Age is first, followed in sequence, by the Silver, Bronze, and Iron Ages, and then the present, a period of decline. By extension "Golden Age" denotes a period of primordial peace, harmony, stability, and prosperity.

Often a Golden Age is ascribed to a period in time where one can observe a definite low point prior to and after the age. Thus it is frequently premature to call a new event a Golden Age, since without being able to foretell the future, we are not able to view its decline. Therefore, generally the term Golden Age relates to things past, and should not be applied to present events or cultural developments.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-golden-age.htm

You could perhaps argue that "modern conservatism" (not to be confused with Bush, Thatcher, McCain, Gingrich, et all) is perhaps more true to the original idea of liberalism, so yes, in a sense you are right, they are going back to the idea of limited government, individual responsibility, logical positivism (and with it skepticism). Of course the term conservatism has other baggage, and the term can mean many things depending on the era and the context. You're making my point for me: modern conservatives generally talk about going back to some time when people were more responsible, more rational and more moral; a time when government powers were limited and not abused, etc.

Unfortunately, such a time never really existed. Pick me the era in American history when you think such ideals were better upheld, and I doubt I'll have any trouble at all proving it just ain't so.

Definition wise these are the ones useful:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

1 and 3 are the definitions used by most, but 2 is probably more accurate in re: governance and philosophically speaking. That is to be conservative in regards to the involvement of government, ie to limit the powers of government and moderate its role.I have no trouble agreeing with what conservatives consider the underpinnings of their beliefs concerning government or social institutions; I agree that we need to tread carefully in allowing the government new powers, and that changes in government or attempted changes to the social fabric shouldn't be made arbitrarily, capriciously, or unnecessarily. It's more the particulars I disagree with than it is the basic belief system. The Devil is in the details....:)

I guess to end my rant, I see what you are saying and I agree with it in part. But the statement is so blanketing that is it without any meaning. Most self proclaimed "liberals" are hardly in possession of any quality that would be identified with the liberal thinking you are arguing for, similarly most self identifying conservatives aren't making any claim at all in regards to philosophy but are usually addressing some other topic entirely, such as small governance or perhaps traditional family values, and not "return to the way things were, or don't change we like the way things are" If anything amongst "conservatives" there are more people for changing the status quo than on the other side of the fence.

The claim is commonly made by conservatives that liberals want to expand big government and have it take over our lives, as opposed to conservatives wanting to limit it and get it out of our lives. I would submit that in reality, most conservatives aren't really against government power as such; they just have different ideas about where and how it should be applied.

They're less likely to think that government should step in to regulate business practices, for example. On the other hand, they're more likely to believe personal behavior they disapprove of should be criminalized and punished.

They call corporate political donations free speech which can't be infringed. But they want to put people in jail for burning an American flag.

They supposedly support freedom of religion and defend property rights. But they want government-mandated Christian prayers in schools, and believe the government should step in to prevent a property owner from building a mosque on it.

They claim to oppose arbitrary government power. But they believe that anyone accused of being a national security threat should immediately lose all his Constitutional rights.

So on and so forth....yes, I know I'm painting with a broad brush. But that list does generally apply to the friends I have who self-identify as conservatives.

A final note: dialectical materialism is a philosophical approach to reality derived from the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. When you say liberalism is based on it, you're essentially calling American liberals Marxists. I certainly hope that wasn't your intent.;)

[wardd]

modern conservatives are prone to try and shape reality to fit their beliefs

progressives seek to find what works

when clinton was in office the R's complained about his polling, but he used polling to find out what the people wanted

when bush polled it was to find out what words would work to sell what the R's wanted to sell the people

[Guillermo]

modern conservatives are prone to try and shape reality to fit their beliefs

progressives seek to find what works



I do not use to participate in political rants in this thread, much less about other country's politics. But, as the world is quite bigger than the USA (who would have said it!), I cannot resist:

Let me introduce to you Mr. Zapatero, our anthropogenically optimist & socialist President.

He -precisely- is a master in shaping reality to fit his beliefs and totally unable to find what works. :P

[wardd]

I do not use to participate in political rants in this thread, much less about other country's politics. But, as the world is quite bigger than the USA (who could have said it!), I cannot resist:

Let me introduce to you Mr. Zapatero, our anthropogenically optimist & socialist President.

He precisely is a master in shaping reality to fit his beliefs and totally unable to find what works. :P


he is really a closet consertive

[Guillermo]

he is really a closet consertive
"closet consertive" ? :confused:

If you mean he is conservative, let me open your eyes: here an image with some of his friends :P

[wardd]

"closet consertive" ? :confused:

If you mean conservative, let me show you here some of his friends :P

consertive agw deniers, all

[hoytedow]

modern conservatives are prone to try and shape reality to fit their beliefs

progressives seek to find what works

when clinton was in office the R's complained about his polling, but he used polling to find out what the people wanted

when bush polled it was to find out what words would work to sell what the R's wanted to sell the peopleTranslation:
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither blither
blither blither blither blither

[hoytedow]

he is really a closet consertiveWhat is a consertive?

[wardd]

you all will have to over look hoy, he is 7 years old

[hoytedow]

They are communertives! hahahahahahahahahaha:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :D :!:

[hoytedow]

you all will have to over look hoy, he is 7 years oldHoy, no. Mañana, Sí.

[hoytedow]

Hoy, el té. Mañana, el café.

[hoytedow]

you all will have to over look hoy, he is 7 years old...y la basura, por qué?

[Marco1]

it's the average over time that matters. And yes, just a few degrees difference in the average global temperature can cause a significant change in climate.


Troy, tell me what are you afraid of? That the weather will change? (because it has not changed yet despite all that CO2)

Weather will change REGARDLESS of what we do or stop doing.
Whilst we are here talking this nonsense about variations in temperature that will keep on varying whatever we do, the food industry poisons us with pesticides, mercury, food colour, flavour enhancers, preservatives, antibiotics and assorted poisons all dutifully legal.
And the same law makers that have made all those poisons legal, want you and me to PAY SPECIAL TAXES, under the pretenses that doing so will "stop the climate changing"
Such claim is so infantile and believing it to be possible is so naive that it is beyond belief anyone would actually fall for it.

[Marco1]

What is a consertive?

The urban dictionary defines it as a transexual

[Marco1]

I like this little snippet
Clearly religion is the poison of human kind. Whatever religion it is.

Climate Change As A Cult

The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, Silent Spring,

now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times). Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.[28]

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming Ice Age scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" [29]

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,

"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of Gaia,

Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.[30]

[Guillermo]

I have found this funny definition at the Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=global%20warmist

Global warmist.

"To be defined as a global warmist, a person must have all of the following traits: 1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet. 2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. 3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case." 4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change. 5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause."


And this one is even more funny:

Global warming fart:

"A fart so heat-filled that it measurably contributes to the temperature of the planet."


:D:D:D

[hoytedow]

I have found this funny definition at the Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=global%20warmist

...

Global warming fart:

"A fart so heat-filled that it measurably contributes to the temperature of the planet."


:D:D:D...such as any time wardd airs his views.

Couldn't resist. Joking.

[mark775]

Please note that politically and socially conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the country at large, even though they spend a ridiculous amount of time criticizing 'liberals' for their immorality and lack of family values: - Well, when one is doin' the neighbor kid, the dog, mom, or whatever else strikes one's fancy, there aren't so many divorces are there? Are you seriously going to try and posit that liberals are better family people? Somehow, I can't see your two Vancouver buddies here getting a divorce - but is this kind of action what you'd want for your kids?

47591

Do we have to change the name of the thread again?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

Wad, you are still an idiot.

Just thot I'd stop by and throw a little Sterno - it might have cooled down a bit in this thread.

[hoytedow]

I think some of them would drink the Sterno.

[wardd]

Please note that politically and socially conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the country at large, even though they spend a ridiculous amount of time criticizing 'liberals' for their immorality and lack of family values: - Well, when one is doin' the neighbor kid, the dog, mom, or whatever else strikes one's fancy, there aren't so many divorces are there? Are you seriously going to try and posit that liberals are better family people? Somehow, I can't see your two Vancouver buddies here getting a divorce - is this kind of action what you'd want for your kids?

47591

Do we have to change the name of the thread again?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

Wad, you are still an idiot.

Just thot I'd stop by and throw a little Sterno - it might have cooled down a bit in this thread.


TY TY

[troy2000]

Please note that politically and socially conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the country at large, even though they spend a ridiculous amount of time criticizing 'liberals' for their immorality and lack of family values: - Well, when one is doin' the neighbor kid, the dog, mom, or whatever else strikes one's fancy, there aren't so many divorces are there? Are you seriously going to try and posit that liberals are better family people? Somehow, I can't see your two Vancouver buddies here getting a divorce - but is this kind of action what you'd want for your kids?

47591

Do we have to change the name of the thread again?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

Wad, you are still an idiot.

Just thot I'd stop by and throw a little Sterno - it might have cooled down a bit in this thread.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm 'positing.' You'll notice that atheists and agnostics had the lowest rate of divorce in the study I cited. That study was done by a minister with no anti-religious agenda, by the way.

I think one of the reasons for the numbers is that too many strongly religious people have unrealistic expectations. They've been fed the notion that all they have to do is stay right with God, and He'll fix their problems for them. It doesn't work that way; they're still responsible for their own lives and interpersonal relationships.

Since the two boys from Vancouver are extremely unlikely to ever have wives and children, don't you think it's rather silly to pretend they're somehow typical of married liberals?

It might have been more relevant to put up pictures of conservative Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Remember him? He spent years as a noisy advocate of family values. But it didn't save him from divorce, after his wife watched the six o'clock news and found out his idea of fun is anonymous male sex in public restrooms....

[troy2000]

Troy, tell me what are you afraid of? That the weather will change? (because it has not changed yet despite all that CO2)

Weather will change REGARDLESS of what we do or stop doing.
Whilst we are here talking this nonsense about variations in temperature that will keep on varying whatever we do, the food industry poisons us with pesticides, mercury, food colour, flavour enhancers, preservatives, antibiotics and assorted poisons all dutifully legal.
And the same law makers that have made all those poisons legal, want you and me to PAY SPECIAL TAXES, under the pretenses that doing so will "stop the climate changing"
Such claim is so infantile and believing it to be possible is so naive that it is beyond belief anyone would actually fall for it.

I don't think you really care about the science or lack thereof involved in AGW, or its results. The main thing on your mind seems to be an irrationally overblown fear that someone might use it as an excuse to take some of your money.

And by the way, lawmakers seldom 'make' things legal. It usually works the other way around: most substances and activities start out legal - and stay that way unless and until a law is passed against them.

You're carrying on about all those substances the government isn't banning or regulating. But I'm willing to bet you have a cow about nanny government and your taxes, every time it actually tries to do something about them....:D

[Boston]

sorry I havn't had a chance to correct any of your latest stuff G
I been kinda busy
bought a boat

soon as I have time I'll get back to you

cheers
B

[Marco1]

Troy if you had to make your money by being in business, you would also be worried as to what a super tax would do to the economy and as a consequence to your business. this, far from being "irrational" is very rational and real. It may sound alien to you because you seem to somehow feel sheltered in your employment. however if there was ever a false sense of security, that is precisely one of them.

As for your take on how the legislation that allows the use of chemicals or the threshold allowed is passed, check how the parliament operates in your state and your federal government. Parliamentarians decide by legislation or by omission what ends up in your body. The same ****** who pretend to know how to "save the planet".

Boston, congratulation on your purchase. When you go on your boat, please check the level of the sea and send me an email if it is higher than usual.

[troy2000]

Troy if you had to make your money by being in business, you would also be worried as to what a super tax would do to the economy and as a consequence to your business. this, far from being "irrational" is very rational and real. It may sound alien to you because you seem to somehow feel sheltered in your employment. however if there was ever a false sense of security, that is precisely one of them.I spent more of my life self-employed as a building contractor than I've spent as a wage earner; the concept that taxes might have an effect on the economy is hardly 'alien' to me. And I'll say it again: fear of taxation is hardly a rational basis for deciding whether the science behind AGW is right or wrong.
As for your take on how the legislation that allows the use of chemicals or the threshold allowed is passed, check how the parliament operates in your state and your federal government. Parliamentarians decide by legislation or by omission what ends up in your body. The same ****** who pretend to know how to "save the planet".I'm still betting that you scream about nanny government, the way it's wasting your tax dollars, and how it's going to drive up prices and destroy the economy, every time it actually tries to do something about all those dangerous substances you claim to be so worried about....Bringing them up is a red herring, that (again) has nothing at all to do with the scientific reality of AGW.:)

Boston, congratulation on your purchase. When you go on your boat, please check the level of the sea and send me an email if it is higher than usual.

A typically irrational non sequitur; it means nothing and proves nothing.:rolleyes:

[mark775]

"...stay right with God, and He'll fix their problems for them." - Faith in God, I believe is good. Of course, The Inquisition, Jim Jones and such will be brought up as refutation of this point but I'm talking recent, and on the whole. What you advocate is really no different but that instead of faith in God, you people, you progressives, have faith in the government in just the same way. Speaking of Jim Jones...Who's drinking the Kool-Aid now?
By-the-way, Troy, you used that quote from your father some million pages back, or in another thread - I'm not going to look for it. It was different. I suspect that, ala Mark Twain, you have used a little poetic license to best tell your tale. The problem is, Mark Twain was perhaps the one great American literaturist and you, well...you don't have much "acquaintance with letters", tho what you tell is still a tale.
May I ask, as you watch your state, your country, crumble beneath you...as you mow the empty house's lawns to keep the neighborhood looking decent (well maybe not you, maybe just metaphorically - you do live in mesquite and nopales, after all)...as you see your Goddess (Medusa!) Pelosi say now, "Maybe...Maybe not" to tax cuts as she sees herself flying "coach" come November... May I ask...How's your nanny-state workin' out for you and yourn? What - you don't think it's crumbling? How 'bout a look at the infra-structure, say... leaking-for-weeks (or years) gas lines in Ranch Cordova exploding. Does that hit close enuf? A drive thru the once great/now dingy state of California is enuf to remind just how deserted, degenerated, degraded the place has become. Have you not recently seen the state? It was the jewell of the United States, at the cusp of progressivism...
And where is it now?

47638

I know of "Air Guitar" but...
(Don't look directly at her)

Stay right with the union, stay right with Pelosi (Or whoever at the moment), they'll fix your problems for you.

[TeddyDiver]

sorry I havn't had a chance to correct any of your latest stuff
Well, meantime I throw this picture here.. Dunno if it's climate change or sun spots to blame but looks good for my plans go short way to Pacific..
4000nm to Homer and 5000 to Puget sound :D

[Boston]

Ok I think I had left off this conversation were Guillermo had made some, shall we say, less than accurate statements again

could you repeat them please so I might make the best use of my time and simply focus on the corrections rather than go searching back for whatever blither it might have been

thank you for your time
love
B

[troy2000]

"...stay right with God, and He'll fix their problems for them." - Faith in God, I believe is good. Of course, The Inquisition, Jim Jones and such will be brought up as refutation of this point but I'm talking recent, and on the whole. What you advocate is really no different but that instead of faith in God, you people, you progressives, have faith in the government in just the same way. Speaking of Jim Jones...Who's drinking the Kool-Aid now?'Recent and on the whole,' it's complete BS to claim conservatives are any more moral than liberals. They're just a lot more hypocritical about saying one thing and doing another....while they're trying to force standards onto others that they won't follow themselves.
By-the-way, Troy, you used that quote from your father some million pages back, or in another thread - I'm not going to look for it. It was different. I suspect that, ala Mark Twain, you have used a little poetic license to best tell your tale. The problem is, Mark Twain was perhaps the one great American literaturist and you, well...you don't have much "acquaintance with letters", tho what you tell is still a tale.Yes, I've used that quote before; it made a strong impression on me when my father said it. I may not have the precise wording 100% correct, because he said it years ago. But when you say the quote was substantially different last time I used it, either in the letter or the spirit, you're sadly mistaken or deliberately lying. Which is it?
May I ask, as you watch your state, your country, crumble beneath you...as you mow the empty house's lawns to keep the neighborhood looking decent (well maybe not you, maybe just metaphorically - you do live in mesquite and nopales, after all)...as you see your Goddess (Medusa!) Pelosi say now, "Maybe...Maybe not" to tax cuts as she sees herself flying "coach" come November... May I ask...How's your nanny-state workin' out for you and yourn? What - you don't think it's crumbling? How 'bout a look at the infra-structure, say... leaking-for-weeks (or years) gas lines in Ranch Cordova exploding. Does that hit close enuf? A drive thru the once great/now dingy state of California is enuf to remind just how deserted, degenerated, degraded the place has become. Have you not recently seen the state? It was the jewell of the United States, at the cusp of progressivism...

Stay right with the union, stay right with Pelosi (Or whoever at the moment), they'll fix your problems for you.

What a load of whiny, defeatist crap; you need to learn to believe in America. You're the sort of crybaby, doom-and-gloom conservative who gives the whole right end of the political and social spectrum a bad odor. People like you have been running around like chickens with their heads off all my life, claiming the sky is falling and the US is doomed next week, unless it repents and follows them to salvation. If you had your way, you'd destroy the country just to prove you're right, wouldn't you?

And I'm sorry, but I don't have goddesses. I don't worship Pelosi (or anyone else) the way you ignorant yokels adore celebritits like Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. When some of you folks listen to a woman talk dirty politics, your blood apparently drains out of your brains and into your crotches.

California will survive just fine; thank you for your concern. Most of its current problems are a direct result of the record-setting recession gifted to the country by eight years of Bush deregulation and misrule. In case you hadn't noticed, the whole country is still suffering from that.

The millions of people who live here would be very surprised if it were the deserted, crumbling wasteland you imagine; they know better. And that's in spite of the fact that they suck off the government teat a lot less than Alaskans do. Unlike Seward's Icebox, California actually sends more money to Washington per person than it gets back. That's how Washington manages to keep subsidizing tax-dollar sinkholes like Alaska....while its pseudo-sourdough residents pound their pasty chests and carry on about what rugged, self-reliant individualists they are.

Get your putative facts straight, before you try a flame war with someone who's armed with real ones. Gas pipelines aren't state government infrastructure; they're privately owned and operated -- under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Transportation, not Sacramento. If you have a beef with the way the pipeline in San Bruno was maintained for the last fifty years, take it up with Washington, DC or Pacific Gas & Electric.

Then go back over the last forty years and look at major pipeline explosions (most with fatalities) in New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Virginia, Delaware, Missouri, Tennessee....

Oh yes: let's not forget the six major pipeline explosions since 1969 in Texas -- the Mecca of political and social conservatism. Five of those six explosions killed people. Trying to blame California liberals for a pipeline blowing up simply showcases your complete and inexcusable ignorance.

Here's a little friendly advice: "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[hoytedow]

Well, meantime I throw this picture here.. Dunno if it's climate change or sun spots to blame but looks good for my plans go short way to Pacific..
4000nm to Homer and 5000 to Puget sound :DDouble check it, Teddy. New York Times is not on my list of credible sources.:(

[wardd]

Double check it, Teddy. New York Times is not on my list of credible sources.:(


the moonie paper out of dc and fox noise

[hoytedow]

the moonie paper out of dc and fox noiseThat was a nice try. Maybe next time you will actually succeed in forming a complete sentence.

[wardd]

That was a nice try. Maybe next time you will actually succeed in forming a complete sentence.

I got my point across


the washington times is owned by the unification church and fox is a wing of the republican party

there' truth in them for sure

[troy2000]

Double check it, Teddy. New York Times is not on my list of credible sources.:(

That's because it doesn't stick to telling you only what you already believe....:rolleyes:

[troy2000]

I got my point across


the washington times is owned by the unification church and fox is a wing of the republican party

there' truth in them for sure

The Washington Times has lost money every single year since it was founded. If it weren't for the deep pockets of Reverend Moon, it would have folded long ago...

[hoytedow]

Along with Tourette's syndrome you guys are giving me this.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_head_syndrome

[troy2000]

Along with Tourette's syndrome you guys are giving me this.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_head_syndrome

Those aren't explosions; they're the sound of your preconceived notions imploding.:p :p :p

[hoytedow]

Those aren't explosions; they're the sound of your preconceived notions imploding.:p :p :pMore like it is the sound of my imp loading.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp

[wardd]

being full of sh_t will make one explode too

the right seems full of sycophants

I almost feel sorry for rove having to back peddle and kiss tea party butt

I bet he doesn't believe in agw either

[troy2000]

More like it is the sound of my imp loading.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp

Not a bad comeback.:D

[hoytedow]

Not a bad comeback.:DThanks.

[hoytedow]

being full of sh_t will make one explode too

the right seems full of sycophants

I almost feel sorry for rove having to back peddle and kiss tea party butt

I bet he doesn't believe in agw eitherYou should know, being full of Rapid Global Climate Shift.

[wardd]

You should know, being full of Rapid Global Climate Shift.


that was pathetic, so I'll give you another try

[hoytedow]

Sorry. Maybe this will be easier to understand.:

[wardd]

Sorry. Maybe this will be easier to understand.:


I'll help you, if you had put a$$ backwards in it would have been better

[troy2000]

Thanks.

Of course, I was trying to mind my manners by not pointing out that your imp is mostly loading blanks....:cool:

[hoytedow]

Hisssssssssss.

[hoytedow]

Somebody call the g-a$$ co.

[Guillermo]

Ok I think I had left off this conversation were Guillermo had made some, shall we say, less than accurate statements again

could you repeat them please so I might make the best use of my time and simply focus on the corrections rather than go searching back for whatever blither it might have been

thank you for your time
love
B
With pleasure: YOU ARE A CHEEKY LIAR

Dig in that statement to your convenience, please. :D

[Guillermo]

Once again about global warming and solar activity
K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi and B. Kirov - 2005
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Abstract.
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for he global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming.We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using his index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period or which we have data.


Authors mention three possible mechanisms for solar influence on climate:

1) variations in the total solar irradiance leading to variations in the direct energy input ino the Earth’s atmosphere.

2) variations in solar UV irradiance causing variations in stratospheric chemistry and dynamics

3) variations in solar wind modulating cosmic ray flux which affects the stratospheric ozone and small constituents and/or the cloud coverage

In Figure 6 (attached) the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.

(bolded is mine)

And finally they state:

So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming.

[Guillermo]

Dr. Jasper Kirkby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Kirkby) of CERN gave in 2009 a very interesting presentation on past climate change and solar/cosmic rays activity in this colloquium presentation, “Cosmic Rays and Climate”. It's a long presentation, but I reccommend a throrough viewing.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming - and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations - although disputed - suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.

And here you can download the presentation:
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576


Let me highlight this from the Conclusions:

• Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood - especially on the 100 year timescale relevant for today’s climate change
• Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate

(Probably this untruthful CERN deniers are paid by the Oil industry! :P )

[Guillermo]

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals

S. E. Gibson
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

J. U. Kozyra
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

G. de Toma
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

B. A. Emery
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

T. Onsager
NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA

B. J. Thompson
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA


JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, A09105, 7 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009JA014342

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

Abstract:
Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign. In response, geospace and upper atmospheric parameters continued to ring with the periodicities of the solar wind in a manner that was absent last cycle minimum, and the flux of relativistic electrons in the Earth's outer radiation belt was elevated to levels more than three times higher in WHI than in WSM. Such behavior could not have been predicted using sunspot numbers alone, indicating the importance of considering variation within and between solar minima in analyzing and predicting space weather responses at the Earth during solar quiet intervals, as well as in interpreting the Sun's past behavior as preserved in geological and historical records.

[Guillermo]

To finish with my interventions for today, here a rebuttal of Miskolczi’s 2010 paper by the "quack", "unscientific mindsettted", "professional propagandist" and "paid by the oil and gas industry" Roy Spencer. :rolleyes:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

[troy2000]

To finish with my interventions for today, here a rebuttal of Miskolczi’s 2010 paper by the "quack", "unscientific mindsettted", "professional propagandist" and "paid by the oil and gas industry" Roy Spencer. :rolleyes:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

Since he's a quack, unscientific mindsetted, profesional propagandist paid by the oil and and gas industry, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by quoting him....:rolleyes:

[Marco1]

Troy I am sorry to finally realise, rather late it seems, that your posts are so full of irrational judgmental diatribe that they make dialogue let alone debate impossible.
Interestingly, If I was on the warmist side, (God forbid) I would be organising a revolt to stop a price on carbon or an ETS or any other government measure that involves a great new big tax, simply because no government is to be trusted to actually do something for the environment with this new found endless supply of new money. On this we should both be on the same side, however you are so eager to put others down (all in the name of Google science) that you can not even see what should be obvious.
It's a pity

[Marco1]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_101.gif
Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

(Want to see how the current month’s temperatures are shaping up? Check the graph below)

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of early 2010, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002.

The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.









http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/discover-amsu5-trends-screenshot1.jpg

[Marco1]

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

[Marco1]

Christopher Booker
Published: 6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009



If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

Related Articles

*
The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing
*
Nobody listens to the real climate change experts
*
Adrenalin rush kills thrill-seeker
*
Global cooling hits Al Gore's home
*
Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie
*
Climate Change Act: Now the world faces its biggest ever bill

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'

Fined, frozen and now jailed

The Marine Fisheries Agency was certainly onto a winner when it enlisted the aid of the Assets Recovery Agency in its ruthless war against our fishermen. In December 2007 Charles McBride and his son Charles, from Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, were fined £385,000 for under-declaring catches of whitefish and prawns in the Irish Sea, threatening the loss of their homes and boat. But the Assets Recovery Agency, using powers designed to recover money from drug dealers, also froze all their assets. To pay the fines, the McBrides tried to borrow against their assets. Now, for this effort to pay the fines, Liverpool Crown Court has sentenced the two men to two and three months in gaol for “contempt of court”.

Blown away

The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, timed his jibe impeccably last week when he said that opposing wind farms is as “socially unacceptable” as “not wearing a seatbelt”. Britain’s largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Brown’s £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020.

Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the “great wind fantasy” will soon be over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
TelegraphNews

Christopher Booker

[Marco1]

What do I think of Global Warming?

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/pile-of-manure.jpg

[hoytedow]

Since he's a quack, unscientific mindsetted, profesional propagandist paid by the oil and and gas industry, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by quoting him....:rolleyes:Aren't you paid by the gas industry, Troy, or are you paid by a more sinister group?

For those of you who don't know, sinister means left.

[troy2000]

Troy I am sorry to finally realise, rather late it seems, that your posts are so full of irrational judgmental diatribe that they make dialogue let alone debate impossible.
Interestingly, If I was on the warmist side, (God forbid) I would be organising a revolt to stop a price on carbon or an ETS or any other government measure that involves a great new big tax, simply because no government is to be trusted to actually do something for the environment with this new found endless supply of new money. On this we should both be on the same side, however you are so eager to put others down (all in the name of Google science) that you can not even see what should be obvious.
It's a pity
That's a rather longwinded way of saying you have no rebuttal to the legitimate points I've made....

What's irrational about pointing out that you seem to be more worried about what doing something about AGW might cost you, than you are about whether it's real or not? I think any objective person reading your posts would come to the same conclusion.

Your warning about not giving the government money for the environment because it won't spend it wisely makes little or no sense, because you could (and probably do) make exactly the same blanket argument about each and every dollar the government collects, no matter what the purpose.

And after some of the ranting you've done about fraudulent science, dishonest scientists, power-hungry greedy politicians, and the brainwashed fools who believe them, you're in a poor position to complain about 'diatribes.':rolleyes:

[troy2000]

Aren't you paid by the gas industry, Troy, or are you paid by a more sinister group?

For those of you who don't know, sinister means left.

Yes, but I'm paid to operate a compressor station, not to talk to boneheads; I do that pro bono.;)

I'm definitely sinister though; I've been left-handed all my life.

[hoytedow]

I am also left-handed but that only means I am in my right mind. What is your excuse?:D :D

[troy2000]

Iam also left-handed but that only means I am in my right mind. What is your excuse?:D :D

Same-side dominance...

[hoytedow]

Same-side dominance...I am left speechless.:)

[wardd]

what makes monopolistic corporations more caring of the people than government

go on , tell me we don't have any monopolies

take health insurance companies, they make money by denying benefits not paying them, there is no logical business model in which they can make money if they had to insure everybody and pay all legitimate claims

[hoytedow]

Health insurance companies are not monopolies. :eek: There are many competing with each other! If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it is free!:rolleyes:

[hoytedow]

Don't forget algore invented the HMO.

[wardd]

Health insurance companies are not monopolies. :eek: There are many competing with each other! If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it isa free!:rolleyes:

non other than that paragon of liberalism than oto bismark was a champion of universal health care

there is no way around the fact that they make money when they deny you care

and how do you explain the fact that on a per capita basis we pay more and get worse results than most all other industrial countries

[troy2000]

Health insurance companies are not monopolies. :eek: There are many competing with each other! If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it isa free!:rolleyes:

In the first place, there isn't nearly as much competition as you apparently believe there is. Are you aware that it's generally illegal to sell health insurance across state lines? The companies in Florida, for example, are only competing with each other; everyone else is blocked out. So it's a cozy little relationship inside each state, where each company is careful not to upset the apple cart by undercutting its so-called competition enough to matter.

It baffles me that you think anything could be worse than the way the health insurance companies are stuck between us and our doctors, with their hands stuck out both directions.

I don't think anyone expects health coverage to be 'free;' obviously it has to be paid for somehow. So do schools, libraries, roads, fire departments, police departments, courtrooms and prisons, and a host of other services that we take for granted and pay for with tax dollars. Do you think libraries are more important than health care?

Personally, I don't believe in letting people die because the insurance companies can't make a profit off them. We're probably the only place in the world where big business decides who lives and dies, based on a friggen profit margin...and you believe that's the best we can do? I don't think so.

Maybe you missed my post about health care costs skyrocketing for workers in the last five years, because employers are refusing to chip in enough to even stay even with the cost of living; they're shoving more and more of their share onto their employees. We're rapidly on the way to having 'employer-provided' health care become a misnomer; soon it will simply mean they sic the insurance companies and HMO's on their employees' pay checks, and get the hell out of the way.

Let me emphasize this again: if we're the greatest county in the world, we can do better. And we should be doing better.

[wardd]

job related health care is a fluke of history in the US.

during ww2 wages and prices were frozen and to lure workers companies started giving benefits one of which was health care, which at the time was cheap as there was little medicine could do really

in the age of sulfa drugs, drugs were few and cheap and if you got seriously sick you died

and in many parts of the country there is no health care competition

and you have to take the plan your employer offers or pay through the nose, so tell me about this freedom to choose your health care

[alanrockwood]

I just popped in for a minute.

As long as health care costs are under discussion, here is a graph of US health care costs as a percentage of national income in the USA (Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.).

We are currently at 16%, of the national income, which is one of the highest, if not the highest expenditure among the economically advanced countries. Unfortunately, the health outcomes in the US lag behind health outcomes in most economically advanced countries.

Say what you will about the advantages the US "system" of health care (and there are some), the fact is that the US pays more and gets less for the money than in any other comparable country.

[troy2000]

What he said....

[wardd]

when it comes to healthcare the numbers are more overwhelming than agw

the right seems to be wrong on a lot of different counts

could it be genetic, or do they practice being wrong?

[troy2000]

I am left speechless.:)

Yep, just as I figured. You weren't speechless for long....:p

[Boston]

Guillermo we have been over this whole solar thing before several times, you were unable to accept that there is simply not enough data or correlation between the various data sets in order to justify making more wild claims concerning total solar iradiance.

the shorter your data set in terms of time the more small errors in the data become large enough to invalidate the findings to at least some degree and sometimes entirely

I've presented several articles by world renowned scientists stating as much before and once again you have simply ignored what actual climate scientists are saying and drawing your own wild conclusions based on limited information

information that is limited to what you were hoping to hear anyway or cherry picked from an incredibly vast pool of data

I'd recommend that you maybe go to university and learn the scientific process so you can comprehend these kinda of answers better, cause a lot of this seems to fly right over your head

you seem to think cherry picking is a form of science and its not

cheers and dam that was another easy one
I'm kinda hoping eventually you have a challenging question
our game of "find the flaw" is way to easy these days

http://www.jeffpidgeon.com/uploaded_images/george-newx-large-778550.jpg

love
B

[wardd]

I'd recommend that you maybe go to university and learn the scientific process so you can comprehend these kinda of answers better, cause a lot of this seems to fly right over your head

B

He's a fast ducker

[Boston]

are you suggesting he's a quack :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

[wardd]

No, my ducks are quackers and they accept reality

[Boston]

ay but they sound so similar

[wardd]

no, if you listen carefully the ducks make sense and when it's hot they know it's hot

[hoytedow]

Yep, just as I figured. You weren't speechless for long....:pI am right speechless.:)

[Boston]

ya but dont they sometimes run around flapping there little stubby wings quacking like mad

now go read a couple of Guillermo's richer posts and tell me there are no similarities

[hoytedow]

when it comes to healthcare the numbers are more overwhelming than agw

the right seems to be wrong on a lot of different counts

could it be genetic, or do they practice being wrong?Go have some Kool-Aid.

[wardd]

ya but dont they sometimes run around flapping there little stubby wings quacking like mad

now go read a couple of Guillermo's richer posts and tell me there are no similarities

I refuse to accept that about my ducks, now turkeys are another matter

[wardd]

Go have some Kool-Aid.

if agw continues we all will need some cold koolaid

[Boston]

but Guillermo isn't one of your ducks now is he and I believe I've used the term Jive Turkey fairly recently if you look a few posts back
I'm just agreeing with you that there are similarities
feathers
honking noises
running around aimlessly
panicky tendencies
that look of total bewilderment
all well within G's normal range if you have been following along

I realize that you feel this in some way besmirches the good name of ducks everywhere but really I think you are taking it a bit far

[wardd]

but with ducks that's an act, I'm not so sure about the g man

[Boston]

well

hmmmmm

ya kinda got me on that one

poor ducks
they didn't really deserve the comparison after all
my apologies
if you could throw them some of those little yellow fish crackers they like so much maybe they will forgive me

cheers
B

[wardd]

well

hmmmmm

ya kinda got me on that one

poor ducks
they didn't really deserve the comparison after all
my apologies
if you could throw them some of those little yellow fish crackers they like so much maybe they will forgive me

cheers
B

no, but they love the grapes i give them, so it's grapes

[Boston]

cool
just something of an apology might be in order

my bad

[mark775]

"Global Climate Disruption" is not my bag, nor any of yours (Get your dictionaries warmed up. But, you can remove the echerché "antipastipogenic" from the abstract, and that strikes Troy, and others from the rolls of those pretending to have had that big word in their repertoire antecedent to the discussion) but... When utter nonsense is adduced in argument, especially by simple folk putting on airs to win over their peers or to inflate their own ego (I'm not doing this) first, it begs the question with "why wud any sane person introduce "anthropopogenetic" as a concise substitute for "man made"" (if not simply to conflagrate the nascent embers of younger mental siblings' sencience, thus snuffing them out before they can grasp more advanced concepts like... "truth"), second, how F'ing evil can one be to decree ukase edicts (by peer, if not by government yet) that have not withstood the test of scientific scrutiny - nay, not only "not withstood the test" but bypassed the test, apple on teachers desk, and graduated magna cum-laude? Anthropodagenic, my ass.

This is my bag (scratching): I preface by stating that no amount of progressive, unionized hogwash will convince me that we don't, here, have the best healthcare in the world. The best schools, therefore the best doctors, the best, most available technology, the best research, ALL - the total package (can it be argued that the US, Australia, and Japan don't lead the world in U education - specifically research and not just churning out drivel, papers and drones? I think not.). This is not to say that there isn't room for improvement. There is - we could improve it by getting government out of the way. "...because employers are refusing to chip in enough..." - this demonstrates a plebeian's understanding of economic theory (and hence nullifies all attempts at rebuttal). "Third party" is the very thing that causes healthcare costs to skyrocket whilst suppressing the drive for quality. Troy almost had me in one of his intermittant contacts with reality (old corroded aluminum wiring, Troy?) ("In the first place, there isn't nearly as much competition as you apparently believe there is. Are you aware that it's generally illegal to sell health insurance across state lines? The companies in Florida, for example, are only competing with each other; everyone else is blocked out. So it's a cozy little relationship inside each state, where each company is careful not to upset the apple cart by undercutting its so-called competition enough to matter.
It baffles me that you think anything could be worse than the way the health insurance companies are stuck between us and our doctors, with their hands stuck out both directions.
I don't think anyone expects health coverage to be 'free;' obviously it has to be paid for somehow...") - but he lapsed into his unionbabble and I was dismayed and deflated once again at how he "knows so much that just isn't so" ( -RR)... Troy, with all due respect, I am not going to regurgitate my entire education here but... can it suffice to point out that (I'm using one of your vaunted fallacies here) it simply can't work that way ("because employers don't chip in enuf")? The entire history of the world says it can't! Employers, employers/government, cannot provide a sustainable product in competition with the free market. There is not enuf money, there is not enuf incentive, and there is too much artificial demand generated (tooth whitening, maternity leave for the husband, pills, pills, pills, every scratch needs an ER visit, etc.). Can this ever be driven thru the thick bone skull of someone who needs to believe? No, I expect not. That's why I'll dive in and kibitz for amusement or dialectic (funny, huh?) practice but weary of debate with someone not grounded in economics. May I recommend that you, at least, steer her back to climate disruption?

[hoytedow]

Hear, hear(applause).

[wardd]

no one said we don't have quality, we don't have quantity

and for the average person it's not quality if he doesn't have access to it

why shouldn't unions have the same free speech as the republican party, the chamber of commerce and other business associations and wall street?

after all the unions represent more people/voters than all those others combined

shouldn't workers/people be free to organize for their best benefit?

or is this a selective democracy?

[hoytedow]

Unions have more free speech than the Republican Party, at least on main stream media, where their point of view gets much more air time, Comrade.

[mark775]

Democracy is for people, not entities.
"the unions represent more people/voters than all those others combined" - false.
Unions are another matter, and have overplayed their usefulness thru growing too strong, to be sure, but at least you are coherent today. Thank you.

[mark775]

Tag in for me, Hoyt. Have a good one.

[wardd]

Unions have more free speech than the Republican Party, at least on main stream media, where their point of view gets much more air time, Comrade.

surely you jest, or are you just talking about that liberal media, fox?

mainstream media is as big business as you can get, they don't express views, they make money

when you realize that no big business got that way not by altruistic means, you'll begin to understand why there has to be laws and regulations. or is your perfect society the 17th and 18th century england

i always laugh at something i read years ago where a colledge professors wife was complaining about not being able to get decent help for a party she was throwing and that 200 years ago that wouldn't be a problem where upon he quipped, 200 years ago she would have been the help

most here carrying water for the right wing pols and big business don't understand that they are as well off as they are because of those that came before them fought those big business types for the life they enjoy now

an old saying " wanna live like a republican vote democratic"

[Boston]

its a corporate oligarchy if you ask me
the people have very little influence at this point

[hoytedow]

Without a fair and unbiased media, our Republic is doomed, but that is what you want, no?

[wardd]

I'm a liberal we can't agree on anything

lockstep is the republican march, just ask karl rove

[Boston]

you mean a corporate owned and operated including foreign ( soudi arabian ) holders media

or can you show me a fair and unbiased media somewhere on this planet

cause it looks like they are all owned and operated by corporations who by definition are in it for themselves

and yes I am referring to that soudi prince who bought up a chunk of fox news in order to quell ( ah the vernacular raises its ugly head so that the more astute protagonists might maintain there interest ) the backlash from 9/11

[hoytedow]

I'm a liberal we can't agree on anything

lockstep is the republican march, just ask karl roveGoosestep is the liberal march. Ask your goose. They loved the axis gang. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to shake them into reality.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fCNpXKbV9WwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=albert+speer+liberal&source=bl&ots=lnTg0fc46A&sig=ETHSghMn_FmEdsIFh0f0O_HbRtQ&hl=en&ei=VoiWTIuePI_QsAPMpoHBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=albert%20speer%20liberal&f=false

[wardd]

Goosestep is the liberal march. Ask your goose. They loved the axis gang. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to shake them into reality.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fCNpXKbV9WwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=albert+speer+liberal&source=bl&ots=lnTg0fc46A&sig=ETHSghMn_FmEdsIFh0f0O_HbRtQ&hl=en&ei=VoiWTIuePI_QsAPMpoHBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=albert%20speer%20liberal&f=false

au contrair it was the right that was in love with hitler, lindbergh was far from a liberal

we wont count the english aristocracy

wasn't it rosevelt that died in the wool republican that led us into the war?

[hoytedow]

au contrair it was the right that was in love with hitler, lindbergh was far from a liberal

we wont count the english aristocracy

wasn't it rosevelt that died in the wool republican that led us into the war?Au contraire mon frere. Go soak your head.

http://www.traces.org/charleslindbergh.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=XLSa_RIDHMUC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=albert+speer+political+inspiration&source=bl&ots=xqIBHzSHXv&sig=EecCt56GLY_ibY7S2mg8m0TDbPo&hl=en&ei=_I6WTLqeEofSsAPx5ojACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[wardd]

your history is about as accurate as your climate beliefs

[hoytedow]

your history is about as accurate as your climate beliefsYou have no grasp of either. You are a "blowhard":P where either of these are involved.

[wardd]

You have no grasp of either. You are a blowhard where either of these are involved.


put quotes here to back up your position

[hoytedow]

Done.:P

[troy2000]

"Global Climate Disruption" is not my bag, nor any of yours (Get your dictionaries warmed up. But, you can remove the echerché "antipastipogenic" from the abstract, and that strikes Troy, and others from the rolls of those pretending to have had that big word in their repertoire antecedent to the discussion) but... When utter nonsense is adduced in argument, especially by simple folk putting on airs to win over their peers or to inflate their own ego (I'm not doing this) first, it begs the question with "why wud any sane person introduce "anthropopogenetic" as a concise substitute for "man made"" (if not simply to conflagrate the nascent embers of younger mental siblings' sencience, thus snuffing them out before they can grasp more advanced concepts like... "truth"), second, how F'ing evil can one be to decree ukase edicts (by peer, if not by government yet) that have not withstood the test of scientific scrutiny - nay, not only "not withstood the test" but bypassed the test, apple on teachers desk, and graduated magna cum-laude? Anthropodagenic, my ass.

This is my bag (scratching): I preface by stating that no amount of progressive, unionized hogwash will convince me that we don't, here, have the best healthcare in the world. The best schools, therefore the best doctors, the best, most available technology, the best research, ALL - the total package (can it be argued that the US, Australia, and Japan don't lead the world in U education - specifically research and not just churning out drivel, papers and drones? I think not.). This is not to say that there isn't room for improvement. There is - we could improve it by getting government out of the way. "...because employers are refusing to chip in enough..." - this demonstrates a plebeian's understanding of economic theory (and hence nullifies all attempts at rebuttal). "Third party" is the very thing that causes healthcare costs to skyrocket whilst suppressing the drive for quality. Troy almost had me in one of his intermittant contacts with reality (old corroded aluminum wiring, Troy?) ("In the first place, there isn't nearly as much competition as you apparently believe there is. Are you aware that it's generally illegal to sell health insurance across state lines? The companies in Florida, for example, are only competing with each other; everyone else is blocked out. So it's a cozy little relationship inside each state, where each company is careful not to upset the apple cart by undercutting its so-called competition enough to matter.
It baffles me that you think anything could be worse than the way the health insurance companies are stuck between us and our doctors, with their hands stuck out both directions.
I don't think anyone expects health coverage to be 'free;' obviously it has to be paid for somehow...") - but he lapsed into his unionbabble and I was dismayed and deflated once again at how he "knows so much that just isn't so" ( -RR)... Troy, with all due respect, I am not going to regurgitate my entire education here but... can it suffice to point out that (I'm using one of your vaunted fallacies here) it simply can't work that way ("because employers don't chip in enuf")? The entire history of the world says it can't! Employers, employers/government, cannot provide a sustainable product in competition with the free market. There is not enuf money, there is not enuf incentive, and there is too much artificial demand generated (tooth whitening, maternity leave for the husband, pills, pills, pills, every scratch needs an ER visit, etc.). Can this ever be driven thru the thick bone skull of someone who needs to believe? No, I expect not. That's why I'll dive in and kibitz for amusement or dialectic (funny, huh?) practice but weary of debate with someone not grounded in economics. May I recommend that you, at least, steer her back to climate disruption?

If you want the working classes to have health care, it has to be paid for somehow. If the employer doesn't want to pay for it himself and doesn't want the government collecting taxes to pay for it, he needs to pay his workers enough for them to buy their own.

When employers keep dumping their share of the medical benefits onto the workers without raising their pay to cover it, it's called a pay cut: the workers take home less money on payday.

Even a business major should understand that you can't make something from nothing. That's what you're trying to do when you self-rightously proclaim that employees should stand on their own two feet and buy their own health benefits, but don't pay them enough to let them afford it.

Why are you claiming tooth whitening raises the cost of health insurance? I've never seen an insurance plan that covers tooth whitening. And if people have health insurance and a doctor, they don't need to go to the emergency room for scratches. What you're insinuating is that there's no point in seeing that working people and their families get access to health care, because they'll just abuse it. That's a contemptible attitude.

[Boston]

you guys both need to read Upton StClair's "Jungle"

[troy2000]

you guys both need to read Upton StClair's "Jungle"I read it years ago.

And despite Mark's snotty little sideswipes at my supposed illiteracy, I've also read Ayn Rand - who was on the other side, glorifying the capitalists who created the world seen in The Jungle.

Mark, I use the term anthropogenic because it's the proper term, not because I'm trying to impress simple-minded Alaskans who resent people using words they don't understand.

Anthropogenic isn't just a fancy substitute for 'man-made;' a sweater or an omelette is man-made. Anthropogenic describess effects, processes, or materials derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in biophysical environments without human influence. More specifically, it refers to the byproducts or unintended consequences of purposeful human activity.

You might as well sneer at me for telling people a couple of weeks ago that I was diagnosed with a deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism, instead of saying, "doh...I have some big blood clots in my body, that aren't supposed to be there."

There's nothing wrong with using language correctly and precisely, and I see no reason to dumb it down for the likes of you.

[Marco1]

........
What's irrational about pointing out that you seem to be more worried about what doing something about AGW might cost you, than you are about whether it's real or not? I think any objective person reading your posts would come to the same conclusion.

Your warning about not giving the government money for the environment because it won't spend it wisely makes little or no sense, because you could (and probably do) make exactly the same blanket argument about each and every dollar the government collects, no matter what the purpose.

And after some of the ranting you've done about fraudulent science, dishonest scientists, power-hungry greedy politicians, and the brainwashed fools who believe them, you're in a poor position to complain about 'diatribes.':rolleyes:

Troy:

You believe the world climate is heating up due to my choice of car, my extravagant use of electricity and my err toilet indiscretions.

Government around the world have cottoned on to your belief (which I will not question this time) and are telling all of us, that the way to go about it is to charge a new carbon tax to all industries who have CO2 as a byproduct of their activities and let it go into the atmosphere.
Trillions of dollars will be collected by a bunch of different and disconnected government and end up in their "general revenues"

The same governments are telling you and me that this is so that we "Do something" to save the planet.

However when detail about how much we will be charged is abundant and it is also abundantly clear that many industries will go broke with an incredibly severe social cost, the detail of how this massive amount of money will be used and to what extent this money will actually "cool down" the earth is scant or non existent.
And it couldn't be any other way because andropogenic CO2 does not heat up the planet, so quadrillions of dollars wouldn't do boo to the climate.

Yet you are defending this forcible collection by false tax exactors that have no other purpose than a shift in wealth and power and are using your belief only for that purpose and couldn't care less about the environment. Certainly less than I do.
If you can't see that I don't think I can help you.

And as far as your philippics, yes, you make it very hard to have any cilvilised discussion... you are not alone there ...however ... "Mal de muchos, consuelo de tontos"

[Marco1]

If you want the working classes to have health care, it has to be paid for somehow. If the employer doesn't want to pay for it himself and doesn't want the government collecting taxes to pay for it, he needs to pay his workers enough for them to buy their own.

When employers keep dumping their share of the medical benefits onto the workers without raising their pay to cover it, it's called a pay cut: the workers take home less money on payday.

Even a business major should understand that you can't make something from nothing. That's what you're trying to do when you self-rightously proclaim that employees should stand on their own two feet and buy their own health benefits, but don't pay them enough to let them afford it.

Why are you claiming tooth whitening raises the cost of health insurance? I've never seen an insurance plan that covers tooth whitening. And if people have health insurance and a doctor, they don't need to go to the emergency room for scratches. What you're insinuating is that there's no point in seeing that working people and their families get access to health care, because they'll just abuse it. That's a contemptible attitude.

Troy, I understand that in the US you don't have a universal and free medicare system. We do.

Anyone regardless of income has a medicare card and can go to any General Practitioner and pay zilch, nichts, nada. Medicare pays $35 or 63 if long consultation to the doctor who bulk bills the government at the end of the day. If one needs to go to the specialist, they charge between $150 and $300 you must pay from your own pocket and get a refund from a Medicare office of about $100. The rest you have to foot, but if you go over $1000 a year you get the lot back again from Medicare. Public hospitals are completely free if you don't have private health insurance. If you do, you get a choice in the doctor that will treat you, and perhaps a private room but you must pay a small "gap" in your cover.
The above may sound idyllic to you but I can tell you it is far from it.
GP surgery are clogged up with the idle and the unemployed who go to the doctor for the most stupid of reasons, (no this is not my opinion but fact) or to ask for a certificate pretending to be sick so the unemployment office will get off their back telling them to look for work. The worker who needs to see the doctor can not afford to wait 2 or 3 hours and so chooses to go to a doctor that does not bulk bill but charges $50 or $60 per consultation. Medicare will only refund $30.
A free hospital means that governments need to bribe, give incentive or even threaten people with increased premiums late in life to avoid people dropping off private health insurance and getting themselves onto the "free for all".
The result is that more and more medium income earners choose to go the "free" path and the public hospitals who are the only with high complexity, have to prioritise and so we now call a heap or knee replacement an "elective" surgery, and so you may wait one year or two for the operation.

And I can go on and on. Free for all is clearly not the way to go as demonstrated by the UK and the Australian experience

[mark775]

Yes, Marco. Misery loves company.
Troy, It is not called "Anthropogenic Global Warming" any longer. Nor is it called "Global Climate Change", nor "Rapid Global Climate Change", nor any similar. The latest incarnation of the topic at hand is "Global Climate Disruption". Get it together brother - It's been that for almost a week! Sheez!
Deposits can be made directly into my trust fund in remuneration for sparing you the humiliation of rubbing elbows with Barbara Streisand in a Hollywood party and being overheard uttering the "A" word (anthropogenic) - It is SO last week! (I can't do anything about your blue tuxedo).

[Marco1]

PS
Please let us know how your phlebitis is progressing

[troy2000]

Troy:

You believe the world climate is heating up due to my choice of car, my extravagant use of electricity and my err toilet indiscretions.

Government around the world have cottoned on to your belief (which I will not question this time) and are telling all of us, that the way to go about it is to charge a new carbon tax to all industries who have CO2 as a byproduct of their activities and let it go into the atmosphere.
Trillions of dollars will be collected by a bunch of different and disconnected government and end up in their "general revenues"

The same governments are telling you and me that this is so that we "Do something" to save the planet.

However when detail about how much we will be charged is abundant and it is also abundantly clear that many industries will go broke with an incredibly severe social cost, the detail of how this massive amount of money will be used and to what extent this money will actually "cool down" the earth is scant or non existent.
And it couldn't be any other way because andropogenic CO2 does not heat up the planet, so quadrillions of dollars wouldn't do boo to the climate.

Yet you are defending this forcible collection by false tax exactors that have no other purpose than a shift in wealth and power and are using your belief only for that purpose and couldn't care less about the environment. Certainly less than I do.
If you can't see that I don't think I can help you.

And as far as your philippics, yes, you make it very hard to have any cilvilised discussion... you are not alone there ...however ... "Mal de muchos, consuelo de tontos"

Baloney. I've never said a single thing about your car, your use of electricity or your toilet habits. Nor have I ever claimed we need new taxes. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said, then jump on me for them.

As a matter of fact, I haven't advocated any particular course of action at all; all I've tried to do is point out that AGW is real whether you like it or not. Apparently that's a fact you don't want to hear -- but it isn't my fault it's real, and it isn't my fault you can't handle reality.

My 'phillippics'? Dang, boy. You been sneakin' into da Webstah's again? Better be careful... Mark doesn't like it when people do that, you know.:p:p

A philippic is a fiery, damning speech or tirade. You know, like the hysterically angry post you just made about governments and false tax collectors. It certainly doesn't describe the way I've talked to you. In fact, compared to your tantrums about evil conspiracies to take your money, my posts are downright mild.

[troy2000]

Yes, Marco. Misery loves company.
Troy, It is not called "Anthropogenic Global Warming" any longer. Nor is it called "Global Climate Change", nor "Rapid Global Climate Change", nor any similar. The latest incarnation of the topic at hand is "Global Climate Disruption". Get it together brother - It's been that for almost a week! Sheez!
Deposits can be made directly into my trust fund in remuneration for sparing you the humiliation of rubbing elbows with Barbara Streisand in a Hollywood party and being overheard uttering the "A" word (anthropogenic) - It is SO last week! (I can't do anything about your blue tuxedo).

Kind of sad, the way you keep up with fads, fashions and trends like that. And the way you know all the fancy language for ordering at Starbucks, and all the latest video dance games....

I take it you don't have a real life?;)

[troy2000]

PS
Please let us know how your phlebitis is progressing

It had its shot at killing me, and seems to have muffed it. The clots that broke loose from my leg hung up in the main part of my right pulmonary artery, instead of going on into my lungs or into my brain. And although I'm glad to still be around, I'm getting desperately tired of hearing how lucky I am; if I were lucky I wouldn't have had the problem to begin with.

Anyway, everything seems to be stabilized and under control. I'm on warfarin for a few months until my system clears out the existing clots. I didn't even miss work; the two days I spent in the hospital came on my normal days off.

[troy2000]

Democracy is for people, not entities.
"the unions represent more people/voters than all those others combined" - false.
Unions are another matter, and have overplayed their usefulness thru growing too strong, to be sure, but at least you are coherent today. Thank you.
Wrong. Unions are weaker than they've been for a couple of generations. They've gotten progressively weaker since the 1950's, when they hit their peak.

If democracy is for people, not entities, how did political contributions from corporations get declared Constitutionally-protected free speech, as though a company is an individual American citizen? And why would you think that's fine, but bitch about unions wanting the same rights as the Chamber of Commerce and international corporations?

[mark775]

Yes, they are weaker than a decade ago, thank God. Now, if we could get them out of our government, beat the living **** out of card-check proponents, and do something about the service unions (teachers, secretaries, etc.), we'd be getting somewhere! (Pray tell, why does a secretary need a union?)

[troy2000]

Yes, they are weaker than a decade ago, thank God. Now, if we could get them out of our government, beat the living **** out of card-check proponents, and do something about the service unions (teachers, secretaries, etc.), we'd be getting somewhere! (Pray tell, why does a secretary need a union?)
Why shouldn't a secretary need a union as much as any other worker? You think they never get screwed over on the job?

I'm a big proponent of card-check, because companies have completely subverted the election process. They stall them off for years, while they find excuses to get rid of the pro-union workers and intimidate the rest. If that doesn't work they challenge the results in court, tying up things for a few more years. Finally, they stall contract negotiations, thereby keeping the elected union out of the workplace indefinitely.

If a majority of workers have signed a card (petition, actually) saying they want a union, why do you need a friggen election? The petition acts as an election, and you've clearly shown what the workers want. And please don't start the usual nonsense about workers being intimidated into signing cards by union thugs. The intimidation actually works the other way around: everyone who signs a card has put a bullseye on his back for the company to aim at, and will be damned lucky to keep his job long enough to be able to vote in an election.

[Guillermo]

Cloud Experiment. View inside the chamber with Jasper Kirkby, Head leader of the project.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221293/?ln=es

CLOUD has been running since 2006 and proved that cosmic rays bombarding Earth's atmosphere may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets).

This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. Understanding the microphysics in controlled laboratory conditions is a key to unravelling the connection between cosmic rays and clouds.

The CLOUD collaboration brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change.

The first beam data with the full CLOUD experiment is expected in 2010.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/cerns-cloud-experiment.html

[mark775]

Like oil and water, Troy. We're like oil and water. Cya

[Guillermo]

Reconstruction of the Earth’s surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 2. Experimental data analysis

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1250440760034545/

Original Russian Text © V.A. Dergachev, O.M. Raspopov, 2010, published in Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya, 2010, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 412–422.

Abstract
The effect of the natural factors (solar activity) on the long-term variations of global temperatures has been analyzed based on studying the borehole thermal regime in a time interval of 1000 years ago. It has been indicated that the temperatures started rising about 500 rather than 150 years ago as adherents of the anthropogenic impact on climate consider. The temperature maximum, the amplitude of which is larger than the present-day rise of temperature, is determined about 1000 years ago. The appearance of this maximum corresponds to the time interval of a long-term increase in solar activity according to the data of the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes. The stabilization of the global temperature in the last decades at a constant increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contradicts the concept, according to which an increase in the global temperature in the last decades is only explained by the anthropogenic impact.

[Guillermo]

I had commented the importancy of knowing how much of the present global warming can be attributed to the coming out of the LIA, to be able to properly understand the current instrumental data epoch mean temperature behaviour.

We already saw Ole Humlum's opinion: The question remains, how much of the surface air temperature changes since the end of the Little Ice Age actually are derived from oceanographic changes? (Climate4you's 'Climate Models' page)


Well, this work deepens in the possible causes of the LIA and the subsecuent coming out of it.

Was a change in thermohaline circulation responsible for the Little Ice Age?

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1339.full

From there.

One aspect of the debate with regard to the extent of global warming generated by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases has to do with the contribution of natural climate change. Those opposed to emission restrictions are quick to conclude that the warming during the past century may be dominated by the relaxation of cold LIA conditions. Although we are still a long way from being able to assess whether or not this interpretion is correct, were thermohaline circulation to be implicated, a step toward this goal would be taken.

[Boston]

quack
quack quack

quack

[Marco1]

Baloney. I've never said a single thing about your car, your use of electricity or your toilet habits. Nor have I ever claimed we need new taxes. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said, then jump on me for them.

As a matter of fact, I haven't advocated any particular course of action at all; all I've tried to do is point out that AGW is real whether you like it or not. Apparently that's a fact you don't want to hear -- but it isn't my fault it's real, and it isn't my fault you can't handle reality.



It appears that you can not discern between a figure of speech, a simile, and example or simple logic, nor can you realise when your opinions are being exploited. Like I said before, sorry I can not help you with that.

As for your battle with the cloth, once you are off warfarine, go on an aspirine a day (100) and drink plenty of water. And I mean plenty.

[wardd]

quack
quack quack

quack


gobble gobble gobble!!!!!!!!!!


i thought we cleared that up

[Boston]

it just kinda had a ring to it

my bet is the ducks appreciated the grapes and might be thinking
"any time"

after all
at least they are not being serious when they run around flapping there wings and quacking up a storm

gobble bobble just seems
maybe a little to close to the mark
wouldn't want to upset anyone you know

[Marco1]

Boston, is the sea rising already?
I am tired of waiting.

[wardd]

it just kinda had a ring to it

my bet is the ducks appreciated the grapes and might be thinking
"any time"

after all
at least they are not being serious when they run around flapping there wings and quacking up a storm

gobble bobble just seems
maybe a little to close to the mark
wouldn't want to upset anyone you know

you're right, the truth about warming does seem to upset some

[troy2000]

It appears that you can not discern between a figure of speech, a simile, and example or simple logic, nor can you realise when your opinions are being exploited. Like I said before, sorry I can not help you with that.

As for your battle with the cloth, once you are off warfarine, go on an aspirine a day (100) and drink plenty of water. And I mean plenty.
Figures of speech, similes and logic?

No. What I saw was the unfounded assumption that if I believe AGW is real, I must have some nefarious political and social agenda that I want to cram down people's throats because of it.

And now you say I'm being exploited, on top of that.:rolleyes:

Would you care to explain who's exploiting me, and how they're doing it?

As far as the medical problem goes, I think it was a double whammy that caused it. First I was careless, and let myself get dehydrated in the desert heat. Then I fell asleep in front of my computer after a graveyard shift, with my leg curled back under the chair. You better believe I'll be careful about not repeating either of those....

[Guillermo]

quack quack quack...?
gobble gobble gobble...?

How funny, now we have two muttering idiots here, Warddy Duck and Boston The Lying Weasel!
....or are they Warddy Weasel and Boston Duck?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Guillermo]

I had posted this already in december 2009:

Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity
by William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/...s/gray2009.pdf

From the abstract:
"This paper discusses how the variation in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) resulting from changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and deep water Surrounding Antarctica Subsidence (SAS) can be the primary cause of climate change. (MOC = THC + SAS) is the likely cause of most of the global warming that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution (~1850) and for the more recent global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Changes of the MOC since 1995 are hypothesized to have lead to the cessation of global warming since 1998 and to the beginning of a weak global cooling that has occurred since 2001. This weak cooling is projected to go on for the next couple of decades."

From the introduction:
"General Circulation Models assume that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause weak global warming and an increase in global precipitation that will lead to a large increase in upper-level water vapor and cloudiness. They simulate that this increase in water vapor and cloudiness will block large amounts of infrared radiation emitted to space. New observations by satellite and reanalysis data, however, do not support these GCM assumptions. The global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s has been associated with a modest decrease of global upper tropospheric water vapor and an increase of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). These measurements contradict model predictions."

And from corpus:
"The global warming that has been experienced over the last century (~0.7oC) has been primarily due to a slowdown in the MOC from what was experienced in the 19th century and during the period of the Little Ice Age. The 30-35 year periods of up-and-down global temperature change over the last century are due to shorter multi-decadal variations of the MOC. There is typically a 5-10 year lag before one is able to detect a noticeable globe surface temperature change from the initial onset of a stronger to weaker MOC or vice-versa.

The CO2 increases that have been experienced with the globe’s growing industrialization over the last century could have accounted for only about 15-20 percent of the warming that has been observed. The expected doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial background state by the end of the 21st century should by itself be expected to increase global temperature by no more than about 0.3-0.5oC. It will be possible for humankind to adjust to this degree of warming.

The MOC could either enhance the late 21st century CO2-induced warming or act to cancel it out. It would not be wise to engage in expensive national and international efforts to reduce CO2 for the purpose of preventing global warming when nature through its MOC variations is holding the trump cards which can overwhelm anything CO2 increases can accomplish. AGW advocates of CO2 reduction strategies do not understand the physics of global climate change. Humankind would suffer severe economic hardships to follow the path advocated by the AGW advocates. There is very little humans can do to effect climate change. We must, as we have in the past, adjust to it."

(for sure this guy didn't go to the University, either! :rolleyes:)

P.S.: Link seems not to be working anymore, so I attach the paper here.

[hoytedow]

quack
quack quack

quackSo, are you a duck, or are you just quackers?

[hoytedow]

you're right, the truth about warming does seem to upset someDid Guillermo upset you?

[wardd]

naw, people like beck, hainity and oreily upset me, hard as I try i cant watch a complete program without feeling soiled and embarrassed for my species that some swallow what they say

I'm sure you feel the same way

[hoytedow]

naw, people like beck, hainity and oreily upset me, hard as I try i cant watch a complete program without feeling soiled and embarrassed for my species that some swallow what they say

I'm sure you feel the same wayI feel the same way that some people swallow what other denizens of the media, such as the CNN gang, say.

[wardd]

i watch msnbc with joe scarborough

[hoytedow]

i watch msnbc with joe scarboroughSo YOU are the other watcher! I wondered who that was! You two should get together and have a game of checkers!

[wardd]

that be me

[Guillermo]

From Prof. Gray's paper:

6. PAST AND FUTURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGES
We are seeing glaciers receding and arctic ice melting because we have been in a general
warming period over the last century and particularly over the last quarter century period (from the
mid-1970s to 2000). The generally increased global temperature we have witnessed over this
warming period should, of course, be expected to bring about a degree of sea ice and glacier
melting. The overall northern hemisphere middle-latitude winter wind patterns of most of this
warming period (i.e., a positive North Atlantic Oscillation – positive Pacific North America pattern)
caused warming in Alaska, northwest Canada, reduced snow in the European Alps, and general
global glacial retreat. This is to be expected from such a weak THC or MOC flow regime. Similar
warming conditions occurred from 1910 to the early 1940s. The Arctic Ocean and Greenland
experienced a similar melting in the late 1930s and early 1940s as has recently been occurring in
these areas. These are natural back-and-forth shifts in multi-decadal climate. But this recent
warming pattern has now begun to reverse itself to a cooler pattern. Historically, multi-decadal
cooling and warming trends such as we have seen over the last century typically do not maintain
themselves for much more than 3-4 decades.

I judge our recent global ocean circulation conditions from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s to have
been similar to that of the period of 1910-1945 when the globe had shown a large warming. There
was concern in the early 1940s as to whether this 1910-1940 global warming would continue. It
did not. A weak global cooling began from the mid-1940s and lasted until the mid-1970s. I predict
this is what we will see in the next few decades. Since 2001 there has been a weak cooling.
The globe has been gradually coming out of the Little Ice Age since about 1850. The author views
this long period change to be a result of a multi-century slow-down in the Atlantic THC and the
MOC due to a general lowering of Atlantic upper ocean salinity. CO2 increases are judged to have
played only a very small role in the temperature rises that have been observed since we came out
of the Little Ice Age.

Century Scale Perspective. It is hypothesized that on sub-orbital time scales (where solar activity
does not significantly vary by time and place), such as the last 1000 years or so, that the primary
force driving global climate change has been an internal one – namely, the long period multicentury
and multi-decadal variations of the MOC as driven by global salinity variations on these
time-scales.

I surmise that the medieval warm period was a result of a multi-century slowdown of the MOC in a
similar fashion to the apparent slowdown of the MOC in the 20th century when we have had similar
warming. I diagnose the Little Ice Age to have been a period of the MOC being stronger than
average. Figure 28 portrays my suggested explanation for the global temperature changes we
have seen over the last 130 years. I believe these temperature changes to be a combination of a
20th century general slowdown in the MOC together with various approximately 30-year multidecadal
speed-ups and slow-downs of the MOC. The top curve of this figure fits reasonably well
with what we have seen for the global temperature curve over the last 130 years. Figure 29 gives
an idealized portrayal of the THC (or MOC) being stronger in the 19th century as compared to the
20th century. It is to be expected that a weaker 20th century THC (or MOC) is associated with a
warmer globe. There is some evidence (Figure 30) that the salinity contents of the upper ocean
were higher in the 19th century then they were in the 20th century

[Guillermo]

7. SUMMARY DISCUSSION
I believe this deep ocean circulation hypothesis offers the best explanation for the global
temperature changes of the last century. I have not been a fan of variations in solar and sunspot
activity, cosmic rays, dust, ozone, volcanic activity, etc. as being adequate explanations for the
global temperature changes that have been observed over the last century. One of the primary
seasons that the CO2 warming hypothesis has been accepted by so many people for so long that
their has not been an appealing alternate hypothesis to CO2 increase to explain the 20th century
warming. I suggest this salt-driven ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) provides a
much more believable and much more realistic explanation of the temperature changes that have
occurred than does CO2 variations.

[Guillermo]

(Cont. Prof Gray)

I have been studying weather and climate for over 50 years and have been making real-time
seasonal hurricane forecasts for a quarter-century. I and many of my colleagues with similar
experience have been dismayed at the untrue and exaggerated media hype about impending
catastrophic global warming that has been so prominently discussed since the hot summer of
1988. We decry this alarmism. We do not believe we are in climate crisis! There are many other
more serious national and global problems that need to be confronted.

Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions
by as much as 20 percent (by 2020) and 80 percent (by 2050) of current emissions would lead to a
large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have little or no
significant impact on the globe’s future temperature. Such policies should be rejected.

[Boston]

quack

quack quack
quack

more grapes Ward
your going to need more grapes

B

[troy2000]

Guillermo, there are statements in Professor Gray's paper that simply aren't true. for example, '[s]ince 2001 there has been a weak cooling.' And, '...this recent warming pattern has now begun to reverse itself to a cooler pattern.' Not on this planet, it hasn't.

He also speaks of the Medieval Warm Period as though the entire world warmed, even though we now know better. he North Atlantic area warmed up, but other parts of the planet cooled. Overall, the period was cooler than the late 20th century.

OK, now I know why he's making no sense; I just looked at the 'paper' itself. Shame on you, Guillermo.

This is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It's simply a position statement, prepared for a Heartland Institute conference in 20009.

The Heartland Institute is not a scientific organization of any sort; it does no research and it sponsors no research. It's a bunch of professional lobbyists, who take money from large corporations to push their agendas. And Gray is just another aging hooker in their stable of scientific whores.....

edit: I just looked up the good doctor. He's a specialist in hurricanes and tropical storms. Apparently he made a name for himself by inventing seasonal hurricane forecasts in the 80's, and issuing them to the public each year since. The media makes a big deal out of them, even though they're notoriously inaccurate. So inaccurate, in fact, that they're basically useless for anything but filler on a slow news day.

And apparently the years haven't been kind to Dr. Gray's little gray cells... For an intelligent critique of his voodoo climate science (i.e., his claim that the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the main driver of climate change), see the following review of Gray's 2006 paper. It still applies, because the 2006 paper has most of the same unsupported, irrational claims as his 2009 paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

And here's an interesting bit from the comments section of the critique:

Jan Rooth says:
26 April 2006 at 5:44 PM
For what it’s worth, I mentioned some of Dr. Gray’s recent comments to my dad (see Fig. 4 of the Marotzke paper linked above) and his first comment was “Well, Bill Gray never was too strong on the physics. He’s more of a pattern recognition guy.”

[Response: And that Dad, I presume, is Claes Rooth, who (I believe) is the fellow who introduced the corrected picture of the THC discussed in Marotzke's paper. Certainly, good pattern-recognizers, like Gray, have an important role to play in science in terms of suggesting new ideas, but without the next step of rigorous formulation and testing pattern recognition can be a quick route to fooling oneself. Think of Schiaparelli and the Martian Canals. --raypierre]

[Boston]

quack

quack

quack quack
quack

Ward I was wondering
it may be possible that the term simply does not translate well
what say I present our feathered friend with a definition


quack

A
1.
the harsh, throaty cry of a duck or any similar sound.
–verb (used without object)
2.
to utter the cry of a duck or a sound resembling it.

B
1.
a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to Medical skill.
2.
a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.
–adjective
3.
being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems.
4.
presented falsely as having curative powers: quack medicine.
5.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a quack or quackery: quack methods.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to treat in the manner of a quack.
7.
to advertise or sell with fraudulent claims.

cheers
B

PS
quack quack

pps
Snipe hunt anyone

[Marco1]

....... I think it was a double whammy that caused it. First I was careless, and let myself get dehydrated in the desert heat. Then I fell asleep in front of my computer after a graveyard shift, with my leg curled back under the chair. You better believe I'll be careful about not repeating either of those....

True, however as for any medical condition, you must be predisposed to it, so prevention is good. Research aspirin, there is a lot of studies and water goes without saying to also protect the kidney.
Aspirin tends to stay in the body for almost a week, so you don't need to take 100 mg a day really, one every second or third day will still do the trick and you diminish the possible side effects.

[troy2000]

True, however as for any medical condition, you must be predisposed to it, so prevention is good. Research aspirin, there is a lot of studies and water goes without saying to also protect the kidney.
Aspirin tends to stay in the body for almost a week, so you don't need to take 100 mg a day really, one every second or third day will still do the trick and you diminish the possible side effects.

Thanks for the advice.

[PAR]

When the steam powered train first appeared, notable scientists of the era insisted that human bones would explode if they traveled over 20 MPH. This was looked on much like the non-global warming scientists of today as silly, because a horse in full gallop could exceed 20 MPH and though there was internal pressures noticed (gulp), no one exploded.

Archimedes calculated the diameter of the earth in Greece and couple thousand years before Columbus's grand discovery. He was only off by a single percent, which was impressive, if not believed by the masses being whipped up by future exploding bone doctors of the world who in spite of this insisted it was flat (like their heads).

Cars with internal combustion would blind a person if they went over 40 at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. Sweet God, I'm glad I've been a dutiful goggle wearer.

Mass production would eliminate the job market for the majority of the country, if not the world and the metric system was a communistic plot as I remember the conservative press. This was the same well informed bunch, that had me under my desk as a school boy, because we all know the plywood top would protect us from the radiation. I think they had us under there to prevent embarrassment. No one wants others to watch as we respectively kiss our asses good bye.

Printing presses and news papers where doomed with the advent of the radio broadcast. Ditto when TV showed up, then again when computers showed up, then again when the internet was invented and now yet again with the advent of digital book viewers. I shutter to think of all the extra trees we'll have, because printing is dead and houses are built of plastic studs!

Currently we are experiencing the highest global temperatures that mammals have ever experienced including the last Holocene optimum and the medieval warm period. I suppose we can take a wait an see approach on the advice of the human bone exploding experts, or possibly a more direct approach, based on empirical observation, core sampling and modeling. This isn't a debate any more folks and no reputable scientist will have you believe otherwise. 10 years ago, maybe, now, even after the botched evidential screw ups and misdirections, no reputable school of thought will support the contrary. Those that do are clearly well in ignorance of the evidence, core samples and modeling.

http://www.ways-to-stop-global-warming.com/images/temp_co2_levels_graph.gif

[mark775]

Wow - That sheds a new light on things! It is uncanny how the temperature correlates with and precedes the CO2 content in the atmosphere. How much CO2 is there? - Something like 390 ppm? THAT'S A LOT! And over the span of one of the supplied graphs (one must select ONE, because the dates and scales in the comparison charts, for some reason, don't jibe), it increased to 400 ppm?
Impressive, indeed, but bear with me. Let's see...400ppm. I can't relate well to that. Here, I'll draw that to scale.

Here's the atmosphere according to some accounts (I'll make it in full spectrum rainbow because it feels right):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me draw out the CO2. I'll just make it red to emphasize the critical nature (this shud be good!):
.

Uh oh, thats a bit off because my keyboard has nothing smaller than a period and we wouldn't see it were I to find a keyboard that typed the "1/8 period". Wow, that does give perspective! Stand back and absorb THAT ('cuz the trees certainly culdn't!). So, the change in CO2 is 1/40 of the 1/8 period bar graph. With all of that CO2, it's no wonder that we are all frying! Holy heatwave!

I wonder if solar activity has anything to do with Global Climate Disruption. Perhaps somebody shud look into that but, in the short term, we had better put the brakes on Western economies because I can't stand the thot of finally finding the "1/8 period keyboard" only to then need the "1/7 period keyboard" in another hundred years.

[PAR]

Wow are you really that naive or just one of the flat world believers, in spite of noticing the mast always appears first on the horizon.

[mark775]

Who is the naive one here? This stuff has been battled by the most avid proponents of both camps for 650 pages and you think you are going to post two charts from the Utne Reader and change someone's mind?

[PAR]

The only battle now is among those that are paid to misdirect or the blatantly misinformed. Even the most ardent of non-warming types have backed off in the last few years. Only the well paid still pontificate this ridiculousness. Even George Bush, who's policy makers had banned the words global warming from utterance in the White House, eventually had to come around, admit that there was such a thing and actual utter the words, as he directed expenditures toward the very thing that he insisted and his experts had assured him was just leftest hype. Damn, the pinko, commie bastards where right? He must have cried for hours, probably blew something up (unilaterally of course), just to cleanse his sensitive palate.

[mark775]

Are you thirty yet?

[Guillermo]

....
as for the weather in Brittan I believe it was predicted that the UK would cool down with the slowing in the gulf stream and shortly after that winters in western Europe would also become harsher

that slowing caused of course by freshwater entering the marine thermohaline system due to exesive melting...

and yes the overall effect of global warming is cooling resulting in an ice age with the initial stages being the slowing and collapse of the thermohaline system

not the prolonged extreme high temps that are often associated with the misinformed

the higher temps are a short term obvious result
the longer term result is a ice age
and a big one

can you say snowball earth theory



quack, quack, quack !

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing021.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[troy2000]

Wow are you really that naive or just one of the flat world believers, in spite of noticing the mast always appears first on the horizon.
You aren't going to get anywhere with Mark. He fights ugly and stupid....

You can't teach him anything, because he already knows it all. He actually tried to tell Alan Rockwood (Scientific Director for a mass spectrometry laboratory) that the chemistry classes he took as a business major put him within a few hours of having a science education equivalent to Alan's Phd.

What he'll do when you push him a little is get aggressively nasty, and start launching attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. When he found out I'm a Vietnam veteran, he accused me of being a draftee and 'thanked' me for not deserting. When he found out I'm a union official, he accused me and my 'rattlesnake brothers' of being personally and singlehandedly responsible for bankrupting California. When he found out Alan teaches college classes, he accused him of molesting coeds instead of doing his job.

[Marco1]

Troy, your objections on Mark aside, I read PAR's post convinced he would end with a punch line ridiculing the warmist camp.

Honestly, to write that many lines with simile on doomsday and catastrophe used as an illustration for the warmist is a very strange line to take and deserves no credit, even from you that are on his side apparently.

The mast can be seen first therefore the earth is round...meaning?

The temperature is rising therefore...what?
Since Microsoft started selling DOS and then Windows the temperatures have been rising therefore Global Warming is due to the rubbing between the bits on the world's computers.
FACT! LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS YOU GUYS IGNORAMUS, More computers, more temperature rising. IT's the bits that do it!!!!
STOP THE COMPUTERS, SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!!

[Guillermo]

2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool
Delia W. Oppo1, Yair Rosenthal2 & Braddock K. Linsley3

1.Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA
2.Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901, USA
3.Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany–State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222, USA

Abstract:

Northern Hemisphere surface temperature reconstructions suggest that the late twentieth century was warmer than any other time during the past 500 years and possibly any time during the past 1,300 years (refs 1, 2). These temperature reconstructions are based largely on terrestrial records from extra-tropical or high-elevation sites; however, global average surface temperature changes closely follow those of the global tropics3, which are 75% ocean. In particular, the tropical Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) represents a major heat reservoir that both influences global atmospheric circulation4 and responds to remote northern high-latitude forcings5, 6. Here we present a decadally resolved continuous sea surface temperature (SST) reconstruction from the IPWP that spans the past two millennia and overlaps the instrumental record, enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends. Our record from the Makassar Strait, Indonesia, exhibits trends that are similar to a recent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction2. Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about ad 1000 to ad 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period. SSTs during the Little Ice Age (approximately ad 1550–1850) were variable, and ~0.5 to 1 °C colder than modern values during the coldest intervals. A companion reconstruction of δ18O of sea water—a sea surface salinity and hydrology indicator—indicates a tight coupling with the East Asian monsoon system and remote control of IPWP hydrology on centennial–millennial timescales, rather than a dominant influence from local SST variation.

[Guillermo]

Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age
Erica J. Hendy,1* Michael K. Gagan,1 Chantal A. Alibert,1 Malcolm T. McCulloch,1 Janice M. Lough,2 Peter J. Isdale2

https://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5559/1511

Abstract:

A 420-year history of strontium/calcium, uranium/calcium, and oxygen isotope ratios in eight coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, indicates that sea surface temperature and salinity were higher in the 18th century than in the 20th century. An abrupt freshening after 1870 occurred simultaneously throughout the southwestern Pacific, coinciding with cooling tropical temperatures. Higher salinities between 1565 and 1870 are best explained by a combination of advection and wind-induced evaporation resulting from a strong latitudinal temperature gradient and intensified circulation. The global Little Ice Age glacial expansion may have been driven, in part, by greater poleward transport of water vapor from the tropical Pacific.

1 Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
2 Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Townsville M.C., Queensland 4810, Australia.

[Marco1]

Talking about getting paid...I'll post a question I posted earlier but with no takers.

It is blatantly obvious that no one can put the finger on what causes the temperature to oscillate up and down. Lots of theories, lots of assumptions but no certainty, and rightly so, the variables and the unknowns are many and lets face it, we are not that smart yet.
So everyone is in disagreement as to the cause of either warming or cooling.

However...

The whole world is in agreement as to what can cure the problem and that is a great new big tax on everything.

Can someone enlighten me as to:
A) how can trillions of dollars in the hand of broke corrupt and cynical politicians be of any use to adjust the thermostat of the atmosphere?
B) Can someone tell me who will decide the "right" temperature for summer and the right one for winter in Sydney please? Do I have a say? Do we go to a referendum?
Last: C) What is the cost in dollars per degree centigrade of this exercise and is it cost effective?

[troy2000]

Troy, your objections on Mark aside, I read PAR's post convinced he would end with a punch line ridiculing the warmist camp.

Honestly, to write that many lines with simile on doomsday and catastrophe used as an illustration for the warmist is a very strange line to take and deserves no credit, even from you that are on his side apparently.

The mast can be seen first therefore the earth is round...meaning?

The temperature is rising therefore...what?
Since Microsoft started selling DOS and then Windows the temperatures have been rising therefore Global Warming is due to the rubbing between the bits on the world's computers.
FACT! LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS YOU GUYS IGNORAMUS, More computers, more temperature rising. IT's the bits that do it!!!!
STOP THE COMPUTERS, SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!!


Obviously you didn't understand the simile: PAR was comparing climate change deniers to other people in history who were stuck in outdated, incorrect science, and tried to deny reality when it was right in front of their faces.

[troy2000]

Talking about getting paid...I'll post a question I posted earlier but with no takers.

It is blatantly obvious that no one can put the finger on what causes the temperature to oscillate up and down. Lots of theories, lots of assumptions but no certainty, and rightly so, the variables and the unknowns are many and lets face it, we are not that smart yet.
So everyone is in disagreement as to the cause of either warming or cooling.

However...

The whole world is in agreement as to what can cure the problem and that is a great new big tax on everything.

Can someone enlighten me as to:
A) how can trillions of dollars in the hand of broke corrupt and cynical politicians be of any use to adjust the thermostat of the atmosphere?
B) Can someone tell me who will decide the "right" temperature for summer and the right one for winter in Sydney please? Do I have a say? Do we go to a referendum?
Last: C) What is the cost in dollars per degree centigrade of this exercise and is it cost effective?

If it's so 'blatantly obvious,' why can't the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world see what you can see so easily?

You're completely wrong, you know. While every last detail isn't understood to the nth degree (scientists are mortals), there is really no serious disagreement in the scientific world about what is fueling this particular temperature surge, any more than there's any real disagreement on evolution or the existence of gravity.

What you've mistaken for a genuine debate is merely background noise created by non-scientists, professional agitators and paid shills.

As for your three questions, they're obviously rhetorical ones rather than requests for information. I see no reason to indulge you by trying to answer them....especially since as usual, the only part of the subject you can really see is the possibility that some evildoer is going to raise your taxes. You're more than a little fixated on that one....

[Guillermo]

An alternative view would suggest that rather than the MOC being a consequence of radiative and subsequent atmospheric change, it was in fact the sole factor and that this observed shift was just part of a multi-centennial oscillation. That implies that the southern Atlantic might be expected to warm slightly instead of cool and that the peak cooling would be in the North Atlantic rather than further afield. Of course, it is also conceivable that some combination of both mechanisms are required to explain the observed changes.

We look forward to further research that might further test these intriguing hypotheses.

Michael Mann & Gavin Schmidt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/a-linkage-between-the-lia-and-gulf-stream/

[Guillermo]

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm


Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Documents/NoClim_sluttrapport06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

[wardd]

one other possibility is the permafrost melting then abruptly releasing entrapped methane

co2 raises temp, melts permafrost, permafrost releases methane raising temp, melts more permafrost :::::::::::::::::

[troy2000]

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm


Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Documents/NoClim_sluttrapport06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

For starters, there is no well-developed theory that explains abrupt climate changes by sudden changes in the Thermohaline Circulation, Dr. Gray's somewhat senile meanderings notwithstanding. He has no real explanation for how or why a change in the THC could cause overall temperature changes worldwide, or what causes change in the THC to begin with, and his musings barely add up to a hypothesis. They certainly don't qualify as a scientific theory.

[Guillermo]

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm

(cretin...! :rolleyes: )

[Guillermo]

Ladran, luego cabalgamos.

Let's go on...

These guys also predict no warming will happen till at least 2018, based only in SST analysis. And if the asumed anthropogenic warming comes to be not there, what is going to happen is a net and discernible cooling.

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2

1.-Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
2.-Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstraße 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html


Abstract:

The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

[Guillermo]

North Atlantic climate and deep water variability since 600 AD
Helga Kleiven(1,2), IV Johansen(2), U Ninnemann(1,2)
(1) Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
(2) University of Bergen, Norway

Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 072036 doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/7/072036


An increasing number of paleoclimate archives provide evidence that there is significant natural climate
variability on multi-decadal to millennial timescales. Understanding the source and expression of these low
frequency modes of natural climate variability is crucial for determining their role in current and future
climate changes. The most recently recorded climate oscillations such as the Little Ice Age (LIA) are
particularly well described and thus offer a natural starting point for understanding how they come about.
Low frequency climate oscillations are often postulated to result from changes in the ocean's meridional
overturning circulation (MOC). Testing this hypothesis for historically recorded climate changes such as the
LIA requires decadally resolved constraints on the state of ocean circulation spanning these events.
.......
The foraminiferal oxygen isotopic
results reveal significant centennial-scale variability in the near-surface and the deep water masses over the
past 1400 years, suggesting a large magnitude natural variability similar to that found in many of the more
sensitive climate models. Superimposed on the centennial variations are higher frequency oscillations, which
are similar in duration and amplitude to those of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The oxygen
isotope records resolve several distinct cooling episodes, the most pronounced being an abrupt cooling
around 1400 AD in both surface and deep water records. Thus, there is evidence for persistent deep water
circulation and temperature (or salinity) changes over the past 1400 years, suggesting an active role for deep
water - surface coupling in shaping our climate on multidecadal to centennial timescales. In particular, the
results of this study highlight that the convergence of both internal (MOC) and external (solar & volcanic)
forcing around 1400 AD may have triggered the particularly widespread and severe cooling initiating the
Little Ice Age.

(bolded is mine)

[troy2000]

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm

(cretin...! :rolleyes: )

Nothing in there that explains sudden changes in the THC, either. Despite the authors' ungrounded claim, there is no 'well-developed theory.' it's simply ungrounded, unsupported conjecture.

The link is to a proposal to investigate and study any connection between THC and climate change, not to the results of any such research or study. And since they proposed to conduct their study from 2003 through 2006, it's safe to conclude that either nothing significant came of it, or they never conducted it.

Be careful who you call a cretin, pendejo. At least I read things and understand them, before I cut and paste them or provide links to them. And tell me: what ever happened to your promise not to insult people and call them names?

[Guillermo]

A model study of the Little Ice Age and beyond: changes in ocean heat content, hydrography and circulation since 1500

Sedláček Jan (1 2) ; Mysak Lawrence A. (1) ;
(1) Earth System Modelling Group, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, QC, Montreal, Canada
(2) Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

Climate dynamics ISSN 1432-0894
2009, vol. 33, no4, pp. 461-475 [15 page(s) (article)]

Résumé / Abstract
The Earth System Climate Model from the University of Victoria is used to investigate changes in ocean properties such as heat content, temperature, salinity, density and circulation during 1500 to 2000, the time period which includes the Little Ice Age (LIA) (1500-1850) and the industrial era (1850-2000). We force the model with two different wind-stress fields which take into account the North Atlantic Oscillation. Furthermore, temporally varying radiative forcings due to volcanic activity, insolation changes and greenhouse gas changes are also implemented. We find that changes in the upper ocean (0-300 m) heat content are mainly driven by changes in radiative forcing, except in the polar regions where the varying wind-stress induces changes in ocean heat content. In the full ocean (0-3,000 m) the wind-driven effects tend to reduce, prior to 1700, the downward trend in the ocean heat content caused by the radiative forcing. Afterwards no dynamical effect is visible. The colder ocean temperatures in the top 600 m during the LIA are caused by changes in radiative forcing, while the cooling at the bottom is wind-driven. The changes in salinity are small except in the Arctic Ocean. The reduced salinity content in the subsurface Arctic Ocean during the LIA is a result from reduced wind-driven inflow of saline water from the North Atlantic. At the surface of the Arctic Ocean the changes in salinity are caused by changes in sea-ice thickness. The changes in density are a composite picture of the temperature and salinity changes. Furthermore, changes in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) are caused mainly by a varying wind-stress forcing; the additional buoyancy driven changes due to the radiative forcings are small. The simulated MOC is reduced during the LIA as compared to the industrial era. On the other hand, the ventilation rate in the Southern Ocean is increased during the LIA.

[Guillermo]

.... it's safe to conclude that either nothing significant came of it, or they never conducted it.

Be careful who you call a cretin, pendejo. At least I read things and understand them, before I cut and paste them or provide links to them.

Post 9707:

Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

cretin...! :rolleyes:

[Guillermo]

No hay peor pendejo que el pendejo esférico: es pendejo lo mires por donde lo mires.

Are you spheric, my dear "understanding what I read" Troy? :P

[troy2000]

Post 9707:

Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

cretin...! :rolleyes:
"The requested URL /ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf was not found on this server."

A bad link is their final report? Wow. I'm impressed....

But tell me: if you have access to their conclusions, why didn't you link to those instead of their proposal to begin with?

You know, I'm not Boston; I get tired of your crap pretty quick. Either start making sense, or shut up for a while.

[Guillermo]

You know, I'm not Boston; I get tired of your crap pretty quick. Either start making sense, or shut up for a while.

Look how shocked and afraid of you I am:

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

You are the one who needs to begin to make sense. Your "true believer" attitude is so blind, full of furious frustration and lack of clear understanding, that you did not realize the paragraph:
"One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes."
was not from Prof. Gray, to whom you was scorning as you use to do when you do not have arguments, but from the norwegian page (just because you had not taken the time to read it).

Then you did not realized, once again because of your blind fury, I had posted the link to the final norwegian paper asking for a translation (it doesn't matter if it worked or not to the purpose of showing your blindness. Anyway I'll fix that: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Documents/NoClim_sluttrapport06_final.pdf).

Why the hell do you think you are superior to Boston, or to whoever here? You are just a ludricous bag of preconceived ideas, whithout the lesser ability to think outside your well stablished "faith" as you yourself have stated. The most conspicuous case of "global warmist" -as defined a few posts ago- in this whole thread.

You should be the one to shut up and make things much more useful and easygoing for all of us here, I'm afraid.

[troy2000]

Look how shocked and afraid of you I am:

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

You are the one who needs to begin to make sense. Your "true believer" attitude is so blind, full of furious frustration and lack of clear understanding, that you did not realize the paragraph:
"One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes."
was not from Prof. Gray, to whom you was scorning as you use to do when you do not have arguments, but from the norwegian page (just because you had not taken the time to read it).

Then you did not realized, once again because of your blind fury, I had posted the link to the final norwegian paper asking for a translation (it doesn't matter if it worked or not to the purpose of showing your blindness. Anyway I'll fix that: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Documents/NoClim_sluttrapport06_final.pdf).

Why the hell do you think you are superior to Boston, or to whoever here? You are just a ludricous bag of preconceived ideas, whithout the lesser ability to think outside your well stablished "faith" as you yourself have stated. The most conspicuous case of "global warmist" -as defined a few posts ago- in this whole thread.

You should be the one to shut up and make things much more useful and easygoing for all of us here, I'm afraid.

You're the 'true believer,' Guillermo. You spend your life scrabbling around the internet, desperately looking for something, anything that will let you claim that almost all the scientists in the world are liars, charlatans or completely incompetent. You bounce from solar radiation to ocean currents, from 'no causes at all because the world is actually cooling instead of warming,' to whatever else will let you avoid reality.

That's why I generally don't even bother to read your posts anymore, much less answer them. How many hours of your life do you spend on your self-appointed crusade to blindly cut and paste things you don't even understand, in order to annoy me for five minutes a day? There's something seriously wrong with your priorities....

You need to pick a story and stick to it, son; you can't tell a different whopper every day of the week and expect anyone to keep believing you. Global warming can't be caused by the sun yesterday, by the ocean today, and not be happening at all tomorrow.

[Guillermo]

...sigh! :rolleyes:

OK, let's go back to work, as we have still a lot to do:

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model

Holger Braun1, Marcus Christl1, Stefan Rahmstorf2, Andrey Ganopolski2, Augusto Mangini1, Claudia Kubatzki3, Kurt Roth4 & Bernd Kromer1

1.-Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, c/o Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
2.-Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
3.-Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bussestrasse 24, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
4.-Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Nature 438, 208-211 (10 November 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04121; Received 26 May 2005; Accepted 10 August 2005

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/full/nature04121.html
and
http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Research/Research_Divisions/Climate_Sciences/Paleoclimate_Dynamics/Modelling/Methods/PossibleSolar.pdf

Abstract,
Many palaeoclimate records from the North Atlantic region show a pattern of rapid climate oscillations, the so-called Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a quasi-periodicity of ~1,470 years for the late glacial period. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain these rapid temperature shifts, including internal oscillations in the climate system and external forcing, possibly from the Sun. But whereas pronounced solar cycles of ~87 and ~210 years are well known a ~1,470-year solar cycle has not been detected. Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of ~87 and ~210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation. For Holocene conditions, similar events do not occur. We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.

[Guillermo]

Variability of the Thermohaline Circulation (THC)

J. Meincke1*, D. Quadfasel2, W.H. Berger3, K. Brander4, R.R. Dickson5,
P.M. Haugan6, M. Latif7, J. Marotzke8, J. Marshall9, J.F. Minster10, J. Pätzold11, G. Parilla12, W. de Ruijter13 and F. Schott14

1 University of Hamburg, Institute of Oceanography, Troplowitzstr. 7,
D-22529 Hamburg, Germany
2 Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Physics and Geophysics, Juliane Maries Vej 30
DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
3 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCLA, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0215, USA
4 ICES/GLOBEC Secretary, ICES, Palaegade 2-4, DK-1261 Copenhagen K, Denmark
5 Centre of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, The Laboratory,
Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR 33 OHT, United Kingdom
6 University of Bergen, Geophysical Institute, Allegaten 70, N-5007 Bergen, Norway
7 Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Bundesstr. 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
8 University of Southampton, School of Ocean and Earth Science,
Southampton SO14 3 ZH, United Kingdom
9 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Science, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139 /USA
10IFREMER, 155 rue Jean-Jaques Rousseau, 92138 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex, France
11 University of Bremen, FB 5, Klagenfurter Straße, D-28359 Bremen, Germany
12 Instituto Español de Oceanografia, Corazón de Maria 8, E-28002 Madrid, Spain
13 Utrecht University, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 80005,
NL-3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
14 University of Kiel, Institute of Oceanography, Düsternbrooker Weg 24,
D-24105 Kiel, Germany

WEFER G, LAMY F, MANTOURA F (eds), 2003, Marine Science Frontiers for Europe. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 39-60

http://www.ifm.zmaw.de/fileadmin/files/images/Staff/Quadfasel/8MSFfE_meincke.pdf

From there:
The existing data sets indicate a global cooling of about one degree Celsius during the "Little Ice Age", the most significant climate event of the past
1,000 years for the northern hemisphere. This phenomenon lasted from the 15th to the beginning of the 19th century (Bradley and Jones 1995). The
subsequent period of natural global warming overlaps with the effects of increased industrial carbon dioxide emission and is used to study in detail the
anthropogenic influence on the carbon cycle over the past 200 years. The natural and anthropogenic influences on the climate trend of the past 100 years are not easily distinguished. The "Little Ice Age" will be at the center of future Holocene climate research because it can be applied as a natural climate experiment, acting as a background upon which to interpret the anthropogenic influence on climate (Broecker 2000).

[Guillermo]

Essay
Climate Change: Sources of Warming in the Late 20th Century
Gerald E. Marsh, 2009
Argonne National Laboratory (Ret)
5433 East View Park
Chicago, IL 60615

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Climate%20Change-NorthAtlanticOscillation.pdf

Some excerpts:

The Visbeck, et at. argument that “anthropogenic climate change might influence modes
of natural variability, perhaps making it more likely that one phase of the NAO is
preferred over the other” cannot be decided by correlation over the limited period
available. Most of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere after
~1940. The period from ~1940 to 1976-1977 was dominated by a large negative NAO—
see Fig. 1—followed by a large positive NAO. Since similar positive NAOs have
occurred in the past, it cannot be said that the latest is due to human activity simply
because it correlates with rising carbon dioxide concentrations.

.......................................
The Arctic is purported to be the region of the earth most sensitive to radiative forcing by
rising carbon dioxide concentrations. The temperature rise there is often cited, usually
without consideration being given to the PDO shift in 1976-1977, as proof of the climate
impact of rising anthropogenic concentrations of greenhouse gases. But other factors,
even if one excludes the PDO shift, may be responsible for most if not all of the
temperature rise.
................................
Shindell and Faluvegi12 have looked at the impact of aerosols on Arctic climate and
concluded that “decreasing concentrations of sulphate aerosols and increasing
concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming
during the past three decades.” They estimate that some 45% of the warming during this
period was due to this change in both types of aerosol concentrations. What this means is
that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are not responsible for almost half of arctic
warming.

................................
the very strong correlation between galactic cosmic rays, solar
irradiance, and low cloud cover: When solar activity decreases, with a consequent small
decrease in irradiance, the number of galactic cosmic rays entering the earth’s
atmosphere increases as does the amount of low cloud cover. This increase in cloud
cover results in an increase in the earth’s albedo, thereby lowering the average
temperature. The sun’s 11 year cycle is therefore not only associated with changes in
irradiance, but also with changes in the solar wind, which in turn affect cloud cover by
modulating the cosmic ray flux. This, it is argued, constitutes the strong positive
feedback needed to explain the significant impact of small changes in solar activity on
climate.
............................
One thing that should be clear at this point, however, is that the recent rise in global
temperature is probably not due to rising carbon dioxide concentrations as is generally
assumed. Given the uncertainties outlined above, even this basic assumption behind the
findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is probably incorrect.
And while rising carbon dioxide concentrations are likely to be responsible for a small
portion of the warming since the mid-1970s, the IPCC has been using far too high an
estimate for climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide in its projections.
..................................
SUMMARY
The conclusion of this essay can be stated in a single sentence: Much, if not all, of the
warming during the late 20th century was most likely due to natural rather than
anthropogenic causes.

[Guillermo]

Enough for today.
Have a good night those of you on my side of the planet. :)

[hoytedow]

Good night, Guillermo. You did mean north of the Equador, right?

[wardd]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/why-big-business-is-defending-californias-climate-regulations/63213/

[Boston]

quack quack

[mark775]

Troy, F off...but first, relate where I stated this: "the chemistry classes (I) took as a business major put (me) within a few hours of having a science education equivalent to Alan's Phd." Alan is just as much of a dipshit as you. Are you flattered?
Thanks for not deserting.

[mark775]

For the rest: Okay, It has started and I am converting. After the following unmistakable photographic evidence, I am convinced that Climate Disruption is underway. On ITV's West Country breakfast bulletin, Miss Lloyd informed astonished viewers that an animal more commonly spotted near the North Pole had turned up in the seaside town of Bude. "A walker in Cornwall has caught an extraordinary sight on camera. A polar bear has washed up on a beach near Bude...". Dang. I guess I'm eatin' crow.

47791

[troy2000]

Troy, F off...but first, relate where I stated this: "the chemistry classes (I) took as a business major put (me) within a few hours of having a science education equivalent to Alan's Phd." Alan is just as much of a dipshit as you. Are you flattered?
Thanks for not deserting.

Shame on me for maligning you. You only claimed your Bs as a business or economics major was pretty much the equivalent of a Bs in chemistry, not that it was the equivalent of a Phd. I humbly beg your pardon....:rolleyes:

Here's what you actually said to Alan on a few occasions, and his responses.

I repeat, a four year chemistry degree is not much different than liberal arts or whatever - please don't consider yourself "a scientist" and do realise that your off-the-cuff joke and opinion about fusion carries NO weight.


Actually Mar[k], I am a scientist. I have a PhD in physical chemistry, and I make my living as a scientist working as a faculty member at a medical school and as director of a mass spectrometry facility in a clinical testing lab. I have published over 80 scientific papers in peer reviewed journals in a range of journals and on a range of topics (physical chemistry, clinical chemistry, physics, mass spectrometry, and analytical chemistry,), and I have 14 patents. In a few minutes I will be leaving to chair a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

Maybe you're right. Maybe your degree (was it finance?) is not much different from a chemistry degree. If so it didn't show in your response to the quiz questions on carbonate chemistry and Henry's law.

However, I'll tell you what. Since you don't actually have a chemistry degree how about if you show us how similar your program was to a degree in chemistry by listing the chemistry courses you took in college. No grades please, just list the names of the courses and the semester hours. Math, physics, biology, and statistics classes should probably also be listed, since they are either required or recommended for chemistry majors. That w[ay] you can show us all that you were close to satisfying the requirements for a degree in chemistry, as you have claimed.

Statistics, yes, tough but yes, Logic, yes, Calculus, Yes, Biology, yes, Chemistry beyond 100, no, Physics, no.

I'm sorry, but your coursework comes nowhere close to fulfilling the requirements for a major in chemistry at any accredited university. Specifically, if we assign some generous credit hours to your transcript you would be something like 42 semester hours short just on the chemistry requirement alone, not to mention some of the other required coursework such as physics.

and your point? five classes instead of three? You are an idiot - get to class.

...I hold that there is hardly any difference in any four year degree at US accredited universities.

He [Alan] is a f'ing teacher....molding influential minds to his ends and getting the next coed (?) into the sack in exchange for grades....Screw him and the office hours at school he uses to be on this forum. He is another Troy but with five more classes and a beret and corduroy jacket instead of Carhartts and a rattlesnake-band hat.

You are a rare gem indeed, Mark.

[Guillermo]

Livestock consumes carbon from plants. Humans consume carbon from livestock (and also directly from plants). The only source in the planet for alimentary carbon are plants. And carbon for plants comes from CO2 in the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Animals just recycle carbon in the system through digestive and breathing processes. Increasing populations of humans and livestock (1,2 billion humans and 750 million cows in 1850 vs. 6,8 billion humans and some 1,5 billion cows in 2010, as an example) has had a net contribution to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere by incorporating it to the total animal mass.

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is greening the planet. Plants are expanding and growing bigger and faster, because of the temperate climate and more food (CO2) available. This, in conjunction with better cropping producing techniques, is what is allowing humankind to grow at its present rate without collapsing. There has been no more food available in the planet since the appearing of homo sapiens on it as it is today. Distribution of food is the real problem.

Cheers

[mark775]

And you are an Fing idiot I'd throw down the gauntlet for - You F'ed up, skinny, washed up union bonehead piece of dirt. You have nothing better to do than look up old posts now? You have no problem telling damned lies, then obfuscate your culpability with similar and out-of-context quotes. To what avail is this - to impress Par or Wood? What, you fancy yourself the new Nylex or MasStupido? Go strait to hell and take Soros with you, scum of the Earth - and do it on your own time.

[troy2000]

And you are an Fing idiot I'd throw down the gauntlet for - You F'ed up, skinny, washed up union bonehead piece of dirt. You have nothing better to do than look up old posts now? You have no problem telling lies, then obfuscate your culpability with similar and out-of-context quotes. To what avail is this - to impress Par or Wood? What, you fancy yourself the new Nylex or MasStupido? Go strait to hell and take Soros with you, scum of the Earth.

As I said, a rare gem indeed. And one who lets his alligator mouth overload his parakeet ass....

edit: skinny?!? If only....:p

Trust me, Mark. I don't qualify as skinny anymore. I lost my girlish figure years ago.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d47/troybytheriver/HPIM0435-2.jpg

[mark775]

Easy to say from your den in the desert, snake.

[troy2000]

Easy to say from your den in the desert, snake.
Did I tell you I bought ballcaps for everyone at the compressor station, with a coiled rattler surrounded by "Rattlesnake Brothers in the Desert"?:p :p :p

Our supervisor wanted one too. Since he's management he can't be a true rattlesnake, but we gave him an honorary membership.

[Marco1]

Hum...I see more philippics, vituperations and assorted verbosity, but Guillermo aside, no much in the line of research on the problem at hand.

I have yet to get an aswer on my genuine question.

Wh yis it that we have no agreement on the origin of temperature changes either up or down, lots of theories no real conclusions, but seem to have a solid consensus as to the soultion.

The solution is to collect tax.

How will such collection reduce (or increase) the temperature when needed?
Who decides which is the "correct" temperature?

Genuine answers only please.

Calling me names is not counted as an answer.

[troy2000]

Livestock consumes carbon from plants. Humans consume carbon from livestock (and also directly from plants). The only source in the planet for alimentary carbon are plants. And carbon for plants comes from CO2 in the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Animals just recycle carbon in the system through digestive and breathing processes. Increasing populations of humans and livestock (1,2 billion humans and 750 million cows in 1850 vs. 6,8 billion humans and some 1,5 billion cows in 2010, as an example) has had a net contribution to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere by incorporating it to the total animal mass.

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is greening the planet. Plants are expanding and growing bigger and faster, because of the temperate climate and more food (CO2) available. This, in conjunction with better cropping producing techniques, is what is allowing humankind to grow at its present rate without collapsing. There has been no more food available in the planet since the appearing of homo sapiens on it as it is today. Distribution of food is the real problem.

Cheers

So now you're claiming that the rise in CO2 is actually saving mankind and the Earth? Careful....you're going to hurt yourself stretching like that, Guillermo.

[troy2000]

Hum...I see more philippics, vituperations and assorted verbosity, but Guillermo aside, no much in the line of research on the problem at hand.

I have yet to get an aswer on my genuine question.

Wh yis it that we have no agreement on the origin of temperature changes either up or down, lots of theories no real conclusions, but seem to have a solid consensus as to the soultion.

The solution is to collect tax.

How will such collection reduce (or increase) the temperature when needed?
Who decides which is the "correct" temperature?

Genuine answers only please.

Calling me names is not counted as an answer.

You're asking a trick question, Marco. The truth, as I pointed out last time you asked it, is that we have massive agreement on the 'origin' of this particular global temperature change: anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, it's pointless and disingenous to ask why there is no agreement.

[Marco1]

You're asking a trick question, Marco. The truth, as I pointed out last time you asked it, is that we have massive agreement on the 'origin' of this particular global temperature change: anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, it's pointless and disingenous to ask why there is no agreement.

Well...I don't think I asked why there is no agreement. I simply say that when there seems to be no agreement on the causes...there is a complete consensus ( oh that word) in the solution. Don't you think this to be a tad strange?

I am focusing on the proposed "solution" here clearly NOT on the origin since we had countless pages on causes and have not progressed much.

I want to know if anyone is aware as to HOW will tax collection produce a reduction in temperature and by how much and who decides how much....and dare I ask the cost effectiveness of such method?

[troy2000]

Well...I don't think I asked why there is no agreement. I simply say that when there seems to be no agreement on the causes...there is a complete consensus ( oh that word) in the solution. Don't you think this to be a tad strange?

I am focusing on the proposed "solution" here clearly NOT on the origin since we had countless pages on causes and have not progressed much.

I want to know if anyone is aware as to HOW will tax collection produce a reduction in temperature and by how much and who decides how much....and dare I ask the cost effectiveness of such method?

And again, you're making sweeping generalizations, and asking unanswerable questions. Tell me: where do you find this 'universal agreement' that the simple act of collecting taxes will somehow fix the problem? I've never heard anyone make such a claim.

You'll have to get a lot more specific: who's proposing collecting what taxes where, when and from whom, and what do they plan to do with the taxes after they've collected them?

[tunnels]

Simple if Global warming is mans problem and he has caused it all from ignorance and stupidity then get rid of man and that problem solved !!
Its all the hot air thats spouted here !! :eek:

[Marco1]

Tunnels, you may think your proposal is original but it is not. The greens want to reduce humanity to one billion. They are not saying how though.

[Marco1]

.....You'll have to get a lot more specific: who's proposing collecting what taxes where, when and from whom, and what do they plan to do with the taxes after they've collected them?

Where have you been the last 10 years?
Carbon credits, Carbon tax, Emissions trading scheems are already collecting false taxation in some european countries. Your government is planing to hit you with a price on carbon and so are many other broke countires who see in this a new source of money for their starved coffers. That is old news.

The question I ask is the same you do.
Who?
When?
From whom?
What are they going to do with it to "solve" this problem?

My question precisely.
But it get's worst if you ask yourself the following:

Lets assume for a second the following fallacy, the collective action of governemts around the world accumulates a quatrillion dollars that can be used to reduce the temperature around the globe.

Ask yourself, who decides by how much will we be lowering the temperature?
When do you we stop?

What is the cost per each degree we lower the temperature versus, the cost of letting it go ad libitum?

Legitimate questions to an economic problem. A VFTrain needs to have an economic feasibility study. Somehow and emission trading scheem that will paralise the electricty generation industry does not, and no one is aksing how will such scheem improove on this (assuming it exists) "problem" of global warming.

[troy2000]

Where have you been the last 10 years?
Carbon credits, Carbon tax, Emissions trading scheems are already collecting false taxation in some european countries. Your government is planing to hit you with a price on carbon and so are many other broke countires who see in this a new source of money for their starved coffers. That is old news.

The question I ask is the same you do.
Who?
When?
From whom?
What are they going to do with it to "solve" this problem?

My question precisely.
But it get's worst if you ask yourself the following:

Lets assume for a second the following fallacy, the collective action of governemts around the world accumulates a quatrillion dollars that can be used to reduce the temperature around the globe.

Ask yourself, who decides by how much will we be lowering the temperature?
When do you we stop?

What is the cost per each degree we lower the temperature versus, the cost of letting it go ad libitum?

Legitimate questions to an economic problem. A VFTrain needs to have an economic feasibility study. Somehow and emission trading scheem that will paralise the electricty generation industry does not, and no one is aksing how will such scheem improove on this (assuming it exists) "problem" of global warming.

OK, now you're giving me some specifics. For starters, emissions trading programs (cap and trade) are not taxes, and they aren't collecting money for starved government coffers. They're exactly what they're called: trading programs. Private individuals and companies will be doing the buying and selling, not the government.

And since the same sort of cap and trade programs have been very successful in lowering NOx emissions in this country (meeting target results ahead of schedule for less than projected costs), it isn't completely far-fetched to think they'll work on CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

How will trading programs paralyze electrical production, or otherwise destroy productivity and the economy? I see absolutely no reason to believe such results are inevitable. As I recall, people were making the same sort of dire predictions about the NOx cap and trade programs too. They were wrong.

[wardd]

co2 will be paid for one way or another, the only question is by whom and when.

if you have all the medical professionals saying it's that and 3 faith healers saying it's this, does that constitute a controversy?

not all points of view have equal weight.

[hoytedow]

You're asking a trick question, Marco. The truth, as I pointed out last time you asked it, is that we have massive agreement on the 'origin' of this particular global temperature change: anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, it's pointless and disingenous to ask why there is no agreement.There is no agreement. There are 2 camps. You may agree with your retarded camp and we will agree with our enlightened camp of rational reasonable people.

[hoytedow]

Tax and crap doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell after you charlatans are chased of the political stage and into the septic tank of history.

[Marco1]

OK Hoyte, I agree, however I don't see much talk about this. Australian government is preparing an ETS against the will of 80 % of the population. A price on Carbon means that our coal fired electricity generators will stop being competitive and electricity bills will double. It also means shutting down coal export and uranium mining and export if we follow the will of the greens that will hold the balance of power in six month time.
Short of a civilian revolt, this may actually happen.

No one is saying what this will achieve but the deranged vision of a few charlatans that have never worked one day in their lives, live in alternative straw huts and hug trees for entertainment and who's support put a minority party in power that has lost 50% of the primary votes.

This means once again that Global Warming is a tool used for political purposes and its "scientific" base if valid or not is irrelevant because it is pushed with the force of political power in order to achieve power shift and not the reasons purported.

[wardd]

Tax and crap doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell after you charlatans are chased of the political stage and into the septic tank of history.

the right wing nuts are in their last generation, what's the average age of the tea party

the right may have a couple of more gasps but the tide is against them and so are demographics

the pity is what damage they can do in the mean time

[Guillermo]

SOLAR ARCTIC-MEDIATED CLIMATE VARIATION ON MULTIDECADAL TO CENTENNIAL TIMESCALES: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION, AND TESTABLE CONSEQUENCES

Willie W.-H. Soon, 2009
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsCambridge, Massachusetts 02138

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/SunClimate09-d/Soon09-June4-PGEO_30n02_144-184-Soon.pdf


CONCLUSION
This paper proposes three interrelated causes for natural climate variations on multidecadal to centennial timescales through a solar–Arctic connection mechanism.

The first, Cause A, is that a persistent and systematic variation of the solar TSIand related insolation gradient modulates the atmospheric heat transport from the tropics to the Arctic, and hence modulates the Arctic temperature change itself with little or no delays.

The second, Cause B, is that thermal perturbations lead to both natural modulation of the Arctic sea ice and to transport of fresh water through the Bering Straits and from the Arctic through both the Greenland Sea and Denmark Strait and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago pathways to deep water formation sites spread across the North Atlantic from the Greenland–Icelandic–Norwegian (GIN) Seas to the east and at the Labrador Sea to the west.

The third, Cause C, is that further effects are:
(1) thermal, freshwater, and salinity perturbation of the Atlantic MOC-THC;
(2) the delayed connection of about 5 to 20 years with the tropical Atlantic SST and the InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ); and
(3) coupling of the affected tropical Atlantic processes feeding back to the MOC-THC.

This three-part solar–Arctic climate variation mechanism emphasizes plausible physical arguments rather than statistical correlations. The proposed solar–Arctic connection chains from Causes A–C have good empirical support, and this mechanism appears to explain the operation of coupled air–ocean–ice responses over broad areas connecting the Arctic and North Atlantic to other locations on multidecadal to centennial timescales.

This proposal offers the opportunity for a rejectable scientific hypothesis of a physical Sun–climate connection. The new synthesis should be viewed as a step forward in the long quest to understand how the full weather–climate continuum varies on multidecadal to centennial timescales by highlighting the role of solar irradiance forcing upon the Arctic region, in not only sustaining and amplifying the natural climatic oscillation

[Boston]

OK children we have all done it but hey
no reason to walk away with any hard feelings regardless of how lame we think the others opinion might be ok

I'd like to hold up my friendship with Guillermo and the fact that our banter is not to be taken personal regardless of what petty jokes we play on each other

same for Mark and Troy, you guys really should take it a bit easier on each other, your both OK in my book and we can all benefit from your presents on the forum.

those last few were a bit over the top so how about if we just call it even and not muck up this thread to much
cause hey
I'm not done humiliating Guillermo yet

he's bound to post more quackery and I always enjoy a nice game of "find the flaw"

cheers

and lets at least try and not drive the readers away ok

B

[Boston]

speaking of which

oh lord not Willy Soon again

Soon has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming. Many of the papers he has published on the topic have been co-authored with Sallie L. Baliunas and sometimes with her and other co-authors.

Between December 1998[7] and September 2001[8] he was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[9] While Soon remains listed on the websites of various think tanks noted for disputing global warming -- such as the Fraser Institute in Canada and the George C. Marshall Institute in the U.S. -- Soon has not written for them for a long time. (For example, the last paper by Soon published on the website of the Fraser Institute dates back to January 2003[1] and for the Marshall Institute the last published paper was in May 2003[2].) (Baliunas was one of the other "scientific advisers").

As of early 2009, Soon's current biographical note states that he "is chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute".[10] Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF)[11] funded, at least in part, by Exxon.[12]