What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

"We have mandated cleaner air through the controls of VISIBLE pollutants,
but failed to address INVISIBLE pollutants, the green house gas's
as the atmosphere gets even clearer
and the levels of co2 and of other green house gas's rise {{{for whatever reasons}}}
the temperature also rises, fast"


at no point did I suggest that we know exactly what the mechanism for climate change is
what I do suggest is that
climate change is happening
and that we may be able to influence those changes by altering our behavior

while it is true that one volcanic eruption can pound out more co2 than all the cars can over one year
it doesnt mean that that additional equivalent of an extra volcanic eruption makes no effect on the environment

the co2 issue is up in the air
what isnt is that co2 is rising fast
and the effects of that co2 are unknown
but there is some kind of correlation

personally I think old all gore should have done his homework
he is not a scientist
and since there was conflicting info
not have used the argument in his lecture
and the Nobel committee made an error in awarding a prize
before the research was in

in the end
you are correct
co2 appears to follow not proceed co2 levels

but you have missed the point
Im not basing my statements on co2
Im basing them on the combination of criteria that we are faced with
global dimming
global warming
and simple fluid dynamics
criteria that appear to play significantly in the historical stratification of the oceans
that stratification
is considered to be the most likely cause
our two largest extinction events

the circumstances leading up to those events
appear to be existent today

the point is
that if we change our behavior
we have a chance to modify the changes that are occurring
if we do nothing
then the changes occur and we live or die with them

the first and most important thing
is that we realize things are changing
and realize that we can effect those changes

we have an opportunity
do we squander it
and go the way of the dodo
or do we make effective and beneficial change
for all

B

[Boston]

interesting point
I agree
the end result of a disturbance in the grand oceanic current may be general cooling event
that is historically known in the fossil record
but look at all the black shales we have throughout the world
all laid down in the last anaerobic event
hundreds of feet thick
so both have happened before and may happen again

however
I would point out
at no point did I suggest that this was not a possibility
I merely didnt take the events through to that degree
what I suggest is that

the criteria for another major extinction event are in place
that those criteria are presently observable
and that we appear to be influencing those factors

if we were to influence them in a different way
could we not change the system for the better
instead of for the worse

throughout my previous missive I alluded to being optimistic
I am
I genuinely feel that the hundredth monkey will wake up
and a fundamental change will occur

I lecture as harshly as I do in order to wake students up
ok Im not talking to students
but an awakening still needs to occur

but I really mean it
I think we can beat this
if we pull our heads out of our buts
admit its happening
quit bickering over why
and make effective change

I genuinely appreciate both you gentleman responding to what was
now that I reread it
a pathetic first draft

my apologies
B

Ill categorize it and try to clean it up in future

oh
taking global cooling one step further
you get total crustal shift
major catastrophe
lots of evidence for it in the fossil record
a guy named Hapgood came up with it
was friends with Al
uncle Al
and it was pretty much rejected by the community
awesome theory
imagine the globe as a spinning top
now at present there is an equatorial bulge balancing that top
what if the ice caps were to grow to such a degree
that they place more weight on the poles than what is at the equator
would the earth not topple like a spinning top unbalanced
now
I ask you
why are there frozen fruit trees in the arctic
were there isnt enough light for them to grow
and why is there a berm of frozen animals around the Taiga forest
that is still mined today for fossil ivory
how do you explain the frontus finius map or the pie riece map
( I definetly spelled that wrong )
how is it that people long ago seem to know what the land mass under the ice caps looks like

kinda a mind f@%k isnt it
but it doesnt need to happen again
we can change

[freesail]

I'm strongly in support of conserving resources and trying to minimize the impact we have on our planet.

What I am not in support of is hippies and "environmentalists" who try to use this otherwise worthwhile cause to push forward other political agendas and increase taxes whilst not doing much actual conservation work.

As said by Patrick Moore: "I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human"

[the1much]

I'm strongly in support of conserving resources and trying to minimize the impact we have on our planet.

What I am not in support of is hippies and "environmentalists" who try to use this otherwise worthwhile cause to push forward other political agendas and increase taxes whilst not doing much actual conservation work.

As said by Patrick Moore: "I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human"


"other political agendas",,,hippies??????,,,,dont you mean politicians????ya know,,,the ones that in the middle of a bill about,,oh lets say enviro clean-up,,,that stick a paragraph in that states that with this clean-up bill for 100 million bucks,,,we'll hide a bill for our retirement.???
you mean THAT kind of "other" agenda??
and hippies dont raise taxes,,,,who to f@k ever heard of that???,theres 545 people in the united states that raise our taxes,,,,thats it,,,,not you,,,not me (hippie) and not anyone in this forum.
dont stick hippies in with lying politicians,,,and the next time you say i DO something,,,,be right about it.
and ANYONE that doesnt think our smokestacks and our poisons dont hurt the earth is about as smart as those politicians.

[Boston]

what really sucks is that the political push and pull game detracts from the needed meaningfully change
and is used to gain profit instead of progress

Hippies
bunch of F%^$Dng hypocrites driving suv's and livin off mummies and daddies oil wells
haveing no idea what it meant to actually be a hippie

environmentalists
little or no sense of middle ground
radicals as damaging to the cause as the profiteering oil and plastics industry

but is it radical to ask
what are we to do
when ocean fish stocks are so strained they are on the verge of collapse
and we have subsidized our population on protein from the sea
if we stop or slow down fishing
some of us starve
if we wait untill the fisheries collapse
a lot more people starve
what is more humane

what decision would lead you to say of the man
making that hard choice
he did his best

[Boston]

well Im not likely to speak out against the one person on here who seems to be in support of what is
an other wise
no brainier
but
I gotta admit
Im dog sick of hippies
hippies hid in the university setting cause it gave them a way out of a war
I can dig that
but it gave the university a bad name
in that it led people to believe that the university was a political statement
its not
politics has no more place in the educational setting
than a dog in an opera

[the1much]

your thinking of the FAKE hippies,,,the "wannabe's" ,,real hippies believe in no war,,or harming,,,,but they also fight next to the farm boys during war,,,,i have ALOT of hippie friends that are in the service,,,,,,,,and even though i cant stand the people that HID from the war,,,,,,,,where did all the non-hippies hide?,,ya know,, the rich peoples kids?,,,ohhh,,, thats right,,they ran out of country to canada,,,,,,,and even saying that hippies "back then" are anything like hippies now is wrong,,,,,is like saying noone has changed since 1965,,,,,do doctors think the same as they did back then?how bout our fiberglassing techniques??,, are the old glassers the same and think the same as the new glassers?,,, you guys are just stereotyping,,,which in this day and age we should know that IT doesnt work,,,,,,,kinda like when the public gets pissy bout cops do it to us. kinda like gender bias,,,,,and all others,,,,,,,now i know a few IDIOTS that mess with metal,,,and i mean they are IDIOTS to the fullest,,,and here in the oilfields,,welders are a dime a dozen,,,and the MAJORITY are total idiots,,,,,so,,, by you guyses standards,,,i should think metal workers are ALL IDIOTS?

[freesail]

"other political agendas",,,hippies??????,,,,dont you mean politicians????ya know,,,the ones that in the middle of a bill about,,oh lets say enviro clean-up,,,that stick a paragraph in that states that with this clean-up bill for 100 million bucks,,,we'll hide a bill for our retirement.???
you mean THAT kind of "other" agenda??
and hippies dont raise taxes,,,,who to f@k ever heard of that???,theres 545 people in the united states that raise our taxes,,,,thats it,,,,not you,,,not me (hippie) and not anyone in this forum.
dont stick hippies in with lying politicians,,,and the next time you say i DO something,,,,be right about it.
and ANYONE that doesnt think our smokestacks and our poisons dont hurt the earth is about as smart as those politicians.

My case in point: Al Gore, who preaches environmental friendliness whilst flying around in a private jet and using more electricity in a month living in his "green" house than 10 average households use in a year.

And I find people who have to react in such manner as yours when somebody offers a different point of view to be extremely immature and impolite. I'm sure we can all share point of views in an educated manner.

Also, my comment was in no way saying smokestacks and poisons don't hurt the earth. My apology for the not stating what I meant by hippie.

[the1much]

hahahaha,,free,,,,al isnt a hippie,,,he's a politician that makes money saying what people wanna hear,,,hahahaha :D:D:D

[the1much]

and like its been said a million times,,,,either side can find idiotic radicals on the other side,,,you pick gore,,,,, i pick the so called geniuses that say we're not doing ANY harm to the earth.,,,, so give me the excuses that the "non-hippie" side has for their radicals and idiots.

[freesail]

No, the people who think we shouldn't conserve resources are idiots.

[Boston]

ya Im guilty
I just have trouble with what passes for hippies round here
kinda drives me nuts
some filthy punk who figures they got it down
when in the end they know about enough to be dangerous
and have no clue of middle ground

as apposed to the opposite spectrum of folks
the pseudo scientists
speaking what the man tells him to speak
blindly
long enough that that man finally believes it himself

check this
we are on the edge of an extinction event
all the cards are in place
and are falling fast
there's not much of an argument about that

why they cards are falling is another question
but does that really mater

its like staying in a burning building
arguing who set the blaze
just long enough to die of asphyxiation

stupid

we can change the direction of the fall
if we try
maybe not prevent it
but maybe make it a lot more palatable
should we
or is it more important to determine who set the fire

industry
and the public
have got to find middle ground

those hippie types
tend to be relatively intransigent
as well as the industrialists

thats not a formula for change

and we dont have time for that

[freesail]

What we need is to have people who are educated running the show, not politicians with the aim of simply pleasing green voters.

e.g. improving public transport whilst, at the same time, working with automakers to develop environmentally friendly cars. Personal transport will always coexist with public transport. Its about using resources smartly (e.g. don't drive when you can walk to somewhere close).

[the1much]

ive said it a few hundred times on this thread,,,but,,, no matter what, we're gonna go through the mass kill off,,,,its nature to start again,,,,we've had 1 huge kill off... and many small ones,,,and we WILL have another big 1 soon,,,theres nothing we can do bout it,,,,,,
what we CAN do,,,is postpone it ( because we HAVE made it come faster then it should) and we can make it easier for the earth to "recover" after,,,,even though we wont be here,,hehe,,,,
and its not WHAT we're putting in the enviro. that harming us the most,,,because alot of that "stuff" does occur naturally,,,,,,but its the AMOUNT we're putting in,,,,,,,,,like per. always saying,,,,look at volcanoes,,,( these numbers are just numbers to show something,,,NOT real numbers) say in 1000 years the earth spits out clouds of toxic gas from em,,,,lets say 100 tons of yuck,,,,,well,,,, the earth is used to that,,,it happens almost every day,,,,,so 100 tons aint no biggie to earth,,,it can handle a thousand of tons at once and deal with it,,,,,,,well,,,today WE"RE putting in 975 tons,,,then,,,opps,, a volcano went off,, and splurt another 100 tons,,,,,uhoh,,,, now we're up to 1075 tons today,,,,thats 75 more then we can handle,,,,BUT IT WAS NATURAL,,,,the volcano didnt harm us,,,it did what it was SUPPOSE to do,,,,, so what put us over the safe amount?

[the1much]

What we need is to have people who are educated running the show, not politicians with the aim of simply pleasing green voters.

e.g. improving public transport whilst, at the same time, working with automakers to develop environmentally friendly cars. Personal transport will always coexist with public transport. Its about using resources smartly (e.g. don't drive when you can walk to somewhere close).

sad thing is,,,,, most the radicals are educated,,,,book smats just a cover-up for people who are lazy,,,hehe :D
both sides have their experts,,,,and both sides play with whatever # helps their cause.

[Boston]

so again the question
how do we conserve resources
when to do so
feeds less people
than to not do so

for instance
the salmon fishery on the west coast just collapsed for a reason
without going into it
it bodes ill for the hole industry
and I mean fish farming industry not just salmon

we do not have a great substitute for the protein we have mined from the sea

its running out

what do we do

what resources can we conserve
we can pollute less
sure
but can we eat less
or bread less

does that reality make us anti human
or realist

how do we join together and prevent the loss of our oceans

there is no effective governing body watching over the oceans
its a free for all

we are on the brink
we have a choice

what we dont have is middle ground

without at least realizing we are on the edge
and most people are oblivious
how do we fix this

hint
the key element is saving the oceans

[the1much]

the "key" is BIRTH CONTROL
nother thing on educated people,,,,,,,,,they use numbers to disguise they have NO common sense. and yes im talking bout ANY side,,hehe ;)

[Boston]

all good but to little to late
the globe it warming
the ocean currents slowing down
people are multiplying
food is not
fish are on the brink
it takes 260 lbs of grain to make one tank of gas
thats enough food to feed a man for a year
so
how is taking the buss going to fix this

its not
is it radical to say
we need to do more

[the1much]

nature is suppose to be "the strong survive,,,,the sick weak and stupid animals are suppose to be eatin, or killed, or let to die,,,,,,,,,,,,we're the ONLY animal that dont live by that rule,,,,,,,we PROTECT idiots and the weak,,,,,,,hence our pollutants are WAY higher then they should be. killing off a few billion people should be all thats needed for humans to survive,,,,,,,but,,,,thats common sense,,,so it'll work, but we cant let that happen,,,heh

[Boston]

bingo
now
why is it you think the w.h.o. demanded all Africans get inoculated
and then failed to provide the same number of needles as doses of inoculate
resulting it 3/4 Africans with aids getting it from needle contamination

[the1much]

it takes 260 lbs of grain to make one tank of gas
thats enough food to feed a man for a year <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,,that used to be true when our grain was food,,,,,,,,but our grain isnt food anymore,,,,its fuel,,,,,,they dont grow "food" corn,,,,,,the corn we have now has almost NO value as food,,,its been genetically altered to produce MORE un-eatable corn to humans,,,,,its a "filler" and cattle food, and fuel.,,,,,theres only 1 place that has corn that was here 100 years ago,,,,the REAL food corn,,,,,we've been using corn for everything except for CORN as food for us. so now,,,,for us to "live" off from corn,,,we'll need at least 3 times what it used to take.

[Boston]

actually they jam corn syrup down our throats cause they have more of it than they will ever know what to do with
its kinda like fluoride
they had but loads of it
they knew it was mildly toxic
but had nothing else to do with it
so they stuck it in toothpaste and municipal water systems
and claimed it was good for teeth
stuff sure does seem to kill cavities
but
same reason it kills cavities means it kill other **** as well
ever wonder what that other **** is

corn
now that is a can of worms I should not have opened
why is it bee's are dropping like flies
or in this case like bee's

[the1much]

the bee problem will kill us before pollutants do,,,,,next year we'll have a bee population that is 60% less then 3 years ago.,,,,,and YES thats not the exact %,,, its something like 64 or so,,,but im not smat nuff to look it up again,,hehe :D;)

[Boston]

so I would reiterate

aerobic stratification of the oceans
you dont need an explanation as to why carbon is rising
it is
and it doesn't mater weather it proceeds or follows temp rise by a few hundred years
they are closely related
and
if you calculate the temp vs carbon ratio
our present temp has some catching up to do if you accept that they are related
and that does seem to be what’s happening
but carbon isnt really even the question
nor is it necessary to believe in the carbon cycle

why will aerobic stratification occur
for whatever reason
( personally I think we have a lot to do with it )
the ice is melting
fast
really fast
that rapid influx of fresh water into the marine environment overwhelms the oceans ability to mix the additional water
and the currents slow
eventually fragmenting
end of little Billy's soccer game

fishing the oceans to extinction
it wont be next year
or in ten years
its today
95/100 fish over 12 inches long are gone from the sea
we ate them
enter the theories of of Darwin's debt and trophic cascade
and the observations that prove them true
those fish species we have taken to ecological extinction are not likely to be back any time soon
name one fishery that has ever come back from commercial extinction
oh you may get some small recovery in some areas
but overall the niches once inhabited are gone
down to the bottom of the chain
trophic cascade

polluting the oceans to extinction
in 1999 visible plastic in the ocean outweighed plankton by 6/1
in 2002 the number had risen to 10/1

what do you suppose it might be today
( oh and visible plastic only makes up about 15% of the plastic load in the sea )
( the rest has turned into a snow shower of molecular plastic )
what happens if you dump 60,000,000,000 tons of plastic into the ocean
once it photo-degrades into its more indestructible constituent components
it goes into what appears to be a relatively permanent cycle of accidental ingestion
the digestive process does not break down the plastic
but plastic is a great bio toxin accumulator
and the toxins do get released by the digestive process
so not only do the animals dependant on plankton starve due to accidental ingestion
but they become so contaminated they in turn are not safe to eat by the next guy in the food chain
course the next guy doesnt know that
and down the hatch it goes
in the end
polar bears and killer whales today would qualify for burial in an epa approved barrel
penguins arent far behind

enter the rise of the microbial sea
in the gulf of mexico alone
twenty or so years ago
150 million or so green sea turtles once ate 500 billion or so pounds of turtle grass annually
and thats just counting the adults
what do you think happens when you choke the turtles out of existence with plastic bags indiscriminately dumped into the sea
aside from a tragic loss you end up with a but load of turtle grass
10.000.000.000.000 or so pounds of rotting grass in the gulf alone
what happens to that now overgrown turtle grass
it becomes diseased
virus and bacteria thrive on the biological leak from the turtle grass
and the jelly fish population explodes
now free from the predation of the turtles
who ate the plastic bags thinking they were a jellyfish sandwich
its not a pretty picture
but thats just one small scenario that has already happened
the jellyfish now own the niche that the turtles once did
except that the system is unstable as eventually the turtle grass will rot itself out of existence

enter anaerobic decline
you dont even need to have a stratification event to have an anaerobic cascade
but the global anaerobic event
has happened twice before
look at all the black slates throughout the world
the geologic record tells that tale loud and clear


give it twenty years
maybe ten
and we are going to make a lovely black slate ourselves
with little plastic inclusions
that Im sure some one will find quite attractive
on the space ship bath room floor

[Boston]

well Jimbo
I found this and couldn't resist
its just seldom I ever actually meet any one with these attitudes any more


Quote:
By most accounts CO2 in the atmosphere takes on the order of 200 years to equilibrate with the surface ocean. Hence the pH drop we've been recording is just the proverbial tip of the dry-iceberg.

( Jimbo says )
Inaccurate. The science on this subject WAS well established that co2 had a very short life in the atmosphere. The idea that it is much longer came along AFTER the AGW alarmism took on political legs and when the lab toys we call "Global Climate Models" could not produce sufficiently scary predictions with the established science, so the postulated new 'science' of 200 year old CO2. Evidence for this: NON-EXISTANT.

Quote:
Those hundreds of billions of tonnes of anthropogenic CO2, the bulk of which we've prescribed and put en route in the past 75 years, are slowly dissolving into the surface ocean.

( Jimbo says again )
Inaccurate. Large scale CO2 releases started after WWII. WWII ended 63 years ago. AGW alarmists have for years tried to stretch the time frame for anthropogenic CO2 releases. There's a simple, (and COMPLETELY scientifically dishonest) reason for doing this; it gets them around explaining why atmospheric CO2 levels were rising BEFORE significant anthropogenic CO2 releases began, meaning those increases were (and still are) due to natural causes. You'll even hear them say that "CO2 has been rising since the start of the industrial revolution, since circa 1850". This is true of course. What is NOT TRUE is that humans were releasing CO2 in any significant amount since circa 1950, and not for circa a hundred years later. Yet CO2 was indeed rising during that century. In fact, the more recent increases fit nicely on that same trend line

We wouldn't put up with such factual sloppiness from politicians. So why should we put up with it from eco/ploitical pressure groups? ******** is ******** no matter who says it.


could you please identify the “ AGW ALARMISTS “ for me Ive not met them and Ild like learn more about this agenda you speak of

so here is one of hundreds of corresponding graphs

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/carbonem.gif


Im curious about your assessment of the rise in carbon
your saying its not human caused ok
so were did it come from
what natural causes are you talking about
if you were to identify them for us we could end this hole global climate change thing right here and now
but you refuse to point the finger at the 14,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of co2 we know humans spew into the atmosphere every year just threw burning fossil fuels
not including the rest of human activity
natural causes can best be measured in era’s proceeding the industrial revolution
and in those recent era’s carbon in the atmosphere was roughly .75% of what they are now
what natural events are you noteing
has there been a dramatic rise in termites
there has been a rise in cattle
hmmmm
must be the termites
sooooo
were are you getting your data
and were do you attribute the additional carbon as having come from

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/co2_graph_rt.gif

Im looking at about a hundred graphs on atmospheric carbon
and they all show pretty much the same thing

how about one relating temp to carbon

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

looks like a steady rise to me
no catastrophic natural events that I can see
just a steady correlation between fossil fuels, carbon and temp
proceeding or preceding is irrelevant

I will readily admit there are anomalies in the data
but the idea that our present rise in carbon is anything other than caused by man
simple flies in the face of hard data
there is no evidence of a natural event leading to such a dramatic rise in global carbon
occurring with in the time period noted
doesn't mean there isnt something we missed
but its becoming less and less likely every day

I think what you are saying concerning the longevity of carbon in the atmosphere
is that at some point it will level out based on the idea that as we dump carbon into the air the carbon that is already there will be metabolized out leaving a stable condition
doubtful
sounds like the classic oil industry pseudo scientist jargon
and it doesnt look like anything is leveling out to me as we should by your numbers be starting to metabolize some of that ww2 carbon right about now

that logic is kinda like the cigarette companies pseudo scientists when they told us for years cigarettes were harmless
hell the pseudo scientist cronies working for the cigarette companies still spout that crap

[the1much]

cigs aint harmless?:confused: :rolleyes: :p
theres ANOTHA thing for my list,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ya know,,,, its hard to quit smoking, when all your life EVERYBODY has told you "never be a quitter!"
hehe ;)

[brian eiland]

Just curious Boston, why is it your postings are so disjointed in terms of text structure?? Is it some sort of 'text wrapping' function...I'm not a computer expert.

It's just a bit troubling reading your post...but I do find them very interesting

[Boston]

thanks
Im kinda one of those people who is border line savant
I speak fine
I read fine
I can walk and talk and eat and chew
I cant write to save my life
I dont use contractions well
the notation process just never made sense to me
it seems I have some wiring defect with random systems analysis
spelling and grammar fit that mold
I also get lost a lot
its frustrating
but there is an upside
I tend to have a nearly photographic memory
and facts and graphs come easily to me
I can read a paper and years later remember what is in it
being able to refer even to the given page
or see a blue print and understand about 90% of it with out the need for a second referral
it has its ups and downs
once the various universities I attended got over it
they quit trying to torture it into me
and this is best I can do

I wish I could fix it for you
I wish I could fix it for me

thanks for the ask

B

remember
all is not lost
we can effect positive change
if we only admit there is a problem to solve
and act
now
together
I do not advocate disaster
but there is a cliff ahead
we need only turn the wheel

[brian eiland]

No problem, don't worry about it....content is much more important.

I only wish my memory served me as well as it use to...I can certainly detect some loss in capability, and the need to reread many things

[Boston]

cool
but its also nice to forget some things
I often wish I could
seems Ive got sticky brain syndrome

[safewalrus]

So we're all going to die!

Wow whats new?

[Butch .H]

No all the ice is going to melt and we are going to have more sea cool I got a yacht or two works for me. Um but then the Atlantic conveyor is going to stop and the world will freez um ok yes we are going to die but not befor I use that extra sea:D

[artemis]

Your days are numbered! All of you! :P :D

[Butch .H]

Not befor you guys run out of fuel.Will make interesting TV:P

[safewalrus]

the Altantic Conveyor was sunk in '82 not far from you Butch

[Butch .H]

Yes but the good old yanks named their mid ocean current the same.:D

[Fanie]

Butch, did you sink that Altantic Conveyor in '82 ? Bloody South Africans. Can't take them anywhere :(

[Butch .H]

Yup used your boat thats why you building a new one. By the way Chris Bonnet is marketing the 23.5 Aventura Cat. Going to see it befor the week is out. See Sailing mag

[Petros]

I have read that antropogenic CO2 is only about 4-6 percent of total planetary CO2 output. Most of it appearently is coming from forest fires, natual gas vents, decomposing plants, volcanos and decomposing sea life.

If CO2 is the culpret, how is it that humans can have any significant impact even if we have never put any CO2 into the air?

Also, water vapor causes something like 95 percent of all greenhouse effect, CO2 contributes only about 2-3 percent. So how is stopping CO2 output (even if it is possible) going to have a noticable impact?

There have been a number of studies exmining the long term history of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in the last 10,000 years CO2 was 1600 percent higher than it was today, which was also during the last ice age. None of the studies could draw any correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, and in-fact during the last two ice ages CO2 was many times higher than it is today. So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

My questions are simple: what is the causal link between CO2 and climate?
What is the impact, as a percentage of the total, can human activity make to it?

[Jimbo1490]

The number is more realistically about 2%. As with other estimates, this is usually presented as a range of values. The press picks up on the high side of the range and presents this as fact without the perspective of the low side of the range, thus slanting the reporting.

It's interesting to note that the estimate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is smaller than the error bars for the estimates of total CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, anthropogenic CO2 is 'in the noise'' of the measurements.

These are only the facts; I invite you to draw your own conclusions from these facts.

Jimbo

[Boston]

levity appreciated
we only go the way of the dodo
if cant laugh it off and make a few changes
hey
has any one noticed a rise in sail augmenting diesel in commercial aplications
other than the tourist industry
Im not on the water these days
but will be getting back soon
B

[Boston]

one side wants to marginalize things
the other sensationalize
both sides loose face not finding middle ground and finding a solution
one of the best arguments I heard concerning the warming issue was this
what’s worst case scenario on both sides and pick your poison

facts suggests an absolute known
science tends to avoid this
data admits the possibility of error
and the desire for more information


1st scenario )
we do nothing
and global climate change
is a farce
result )
then the scientific community looks the fool
and we go on with our lives
big **** eating grin on our faces

2nd scenario ) ( minority of evidence questions global warming )
we take short term measures and spend money to alter our course
and global climate change
is again a farce
result )
we suffer short term economic hardship having spend about 1% of the world GNP and gaining nothing
short term possible economic collapse and world wide depression
assuming the worst
third world countries suffer from hunger and disease and developed countries economies grind to a halt ( again for the short term )

3rd scenario ) ( majority of evidence suggests this is true )
we take measures and spend money to alter our course
and global climate change is real
result )
we avoid long term disaster while taking a short term step back economically
science is vindicated and we go on with our lives
big grin on our faces

4rth scenario )
we do nothing
and global climate change is real
result )
( worst case again )
the oceans ability to subsidize the human race fails
agricultural growth zones alter so fast we cant keep up and grain crops fail
the ocean currents halt and a cascade of events leads to near ttl destruction
industrial civilization as we know it ends

so what is the prudent thing to do
given the potential of the problem


I liked the mention of the forest fires
friend of mine is an environmental endocrinologist
we get a lot of fires in the hills here
we were having a fire party and he went off on how forest fire smoke is worse for you than cigarette smoke
Allan always manages to surprise me with some jewel like that when ever he is around

the carbon issue
temp rise
and water vapor

hmmmm
let me try the disarming approach
lets say carbon has nothing to do with global climate change
but admit the climate is changing

so we ignore carbon
what can we change
that can definitely be attributed to human activity
that will make an immediate difference
and cause the least short term pain for the economy

plastic is in no way a naturally occurring material
which is choking the life out of the oceans
and five of the top six most prevalent toxins in the environment are ones primarily used by the plastics industry
also plastic is a great bio accumulator
so the animals that accidently eat plastic end up contaminated
farm raised salmon have levels of dioxin
ten times that of there wild counterparts

and ripping 95/100 fish out of the ocean is definitely a human event
there is a correlation between farm raised fish and collapse of neighboring wild stock
we need a revamp of fishing regulations and enforcement practices

there is an obvious problem with petrochemical run off from agriculture
industrial farming has focused animal waist
lots of room for positive change

how about we quit arguing about who caused warming and admit its happening
cause it is
so
lets do some thing about it
together
for once

[Boston]

" None of the studies could draw any correlation between CO2 and global temperatures"

I would direct you to the Vostoc core samples data chart
and ask any one to please point out the inconsistencies in the graph leading one to believe there is no correlation between temp and carbon levels
I would also ask to see the studies you cite as I am curious how any reviewed and published paper could claim there is no correlation
be it pre or post temp rise there does appear to be a link between carbon and temp

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/vostok.jpg


in-fact during the last two ice ages CO2 was many times higher than it is today. So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

I would direct you to this following graph showing specific events can lead to a rise in carbon and a fall in temp
such as has been recently observed in volcanic eruption data

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/volcanoes_cooling.gif

also this next showing that common eruption events cause little effect to the overall system

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/volcanoes_co2.gif


also
there is adequate evidence of historic catastrophic clathrates eruptions as noted by the respected Richard Cowen Dep of Geology U of C Davies campus
these are green house gas's released into the atmosphere alone and with out additional particulate mater typical of volcanic or burn events
it is unlikely these eruptions represented more than a few percent of the partial gas content of the atmosphere

quote
HEAT: CLATHRATES
Clathrates are methane hydrates, and they can build up in seafloor sediments, or in permafrost, through the action of methanogens on buried organic sediment.
Clathrates are metastable, and have dangerous potential for rapid release, flooding the atmosphere with a greenhouse gas directly, and indirectly with breakdown products that are themselves greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and water vapor). That release could be triggered by climate warming; by volcanic eruptions into massive clathrate deposits; and by sealevel change. The number of potential scenarios is large. Examples that have been suggested, in decreasing order of probability:

End of Paleocene (the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum)
Contribution to sudden Pleistocene climate fluctuations
The Late Permian extinction, triggered by the Siberian Trap eruptions flooding permafrost areas
The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction (perhaps the stupidest of the formally published hypotheses).
HEAT: CARBON DIOXIDE CATASTROPHES
For this, we need a release of carbon dioxide that would overpower normal feedback mechanisms such as photosynthesis, so it has to be sudden. There is a huge reservoir of carbon dioxide in ocean water, much larger than that of the atmosphere. (That's why planting trees won't help to solve global warming.) The trick is to keep the ocean and atmosphere reservoirs separate, build up carbon dioxide in the latter, than release it quickly into the atmosphere.
To do that, shut off the normal circulation of the oceans that involves surface water sinking and deep water upwelling. That way, the deep ocean can build up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and carbon. Then find a way to release it quickly.
There is a modern-day analog: the Black Sea. It is anoxic below the surface, which is less saline than regular ocean water because of the huge rivers that pour into it (Danube, Dnepr, Don). The surface water cannot sink, as regular ocean water does off Antarctica and in the North Atlantic; and deep water cannot upwell, as it does, for example, in the Southern Ocean. If the ocean as a whole were to lack vertical circulation, over 90% of the water on Earth would be anoxic.
Panthalassa, the giant world ocean, could well have gone anoxic after the Late Paleozoic glaciations had gone. There would be no supercold water at or near the poles to sink, and the lack of isolated ocean basins would not provide much supersaline water to sink (as water from the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf does today).
This loaded the gun, and all it would take would be a trigger that would turn over the oceans and release their load of carbon dioxide quickly. There would be a carbon dioxide catastrophe, followed by a prolonged period of global warming. It looks as if this happened at the P-Tr extinction, probably triggered by the Siberian Traps eruption and/or a clathrate release.
end quote

so the historical evidence for naturally occurring catastrophic hydrate events is established as occurring in conjunction with dramatic extinction events and radical climactic change


the argument of modern global climate change theory is that we are artificially recreating these historic events

So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

because green house gas's come in a variety of flavors and under a number of conditions co2 is not often available in its more pure form other than in clathrate scenarios
those scenarios have been shown in conjunction with catastrophic extinction events
we are artificially recreating those events when we pollute the atmosphere with even a few percent of pure co2 although we are substituting co2 for ch4 in this argument



I have yet to hear a decent scientific acquittal of any opposing theory
nor is it often the research is made public

love B

ps
I do't wish to imply that there is not anomalous data
just that the detracting opinions are chalk full of holes
and represent what is at best
grasping at straws
in a seeming effort to stall meaningfully change
I would suggest that the POLITICAL agenda
is the effort to desperately dream up a viable competing theory
and allow those few but powerful and most damaging industries to profit for as long as possible before they are forced to change by an outraged public
Edit/Delete Message

[Knut Sand]

Hear hear! (Boston's latest posts).

Do you want any more info? A National park in Canada:
The Auyuittuq - which means The Land that Never Melts...

Well, that has happend;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7538341.stm

Quote:
"Melting ice threatens Arctic park" and
" it is thought that the melting ice is linked to climate change, as temperatures in parts of the Arctic have risen far faster than the global average in recent decades".

Well, I will (probably) say that we're not the only the only cause to this temperature rise, we're probably only adding our (significant?) share to the problem.

Can be seen as driving on the road, hitting a speed bump at 50 km/h, will probably be ok, but if any jerk adds 40 cm extra height to that speed bump....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37cTokAq54g

(just tooo glad to be up here.... )

[Knut Sand]

seems Ive got sticky brain syndrome

wow....
I, on the other hand, have the slippery brain syndrome, I remember everything but not for long...:p

One fine day, when I blow my nose... I'll get that stuff analyzed, patented.... Put in production, sell it as a non stick product, think of the possible uses...:rolleyes:

[masalai]

Nice video on SBS Tue 5 August 08 - on Canadian research / coastguard vessel - your current summer season - NW passage may be permanently open sooner than you pessimists care to acknowledge....

[Boston]

a piece in a lecture by a DR J Jackson pointed out that the insurers and the operating body of the panama canal is quite concerned about the nw passage opening up
and is using predictions that would even made the "ALARMISTS" look alarmed
in determining how much to spend on maintenance and modernization of the canal when it may be seeing a significant drop in traffic in the near future

hmmmm
wonder what they know that some of the rest of us dont know eh

Ive heard some hog wash in this thread that sounded surprisingly similar to junk run up the flag pole on a show called
the great global warming swindle
this piece was exactly that
a veritable jewel of shining crap
any one remember this show that aired a short while back
it pro-ported to explain the problems with global warming theory
well they are getting sued
by a hole bunch of scientists who they misrepresented as questioning global warming in the movie
the first step in the law suet is to register a complaint and get a retraction
first step accomplished
after all the main thing is to spread the good word
we can change our future for the better
all it takes is a little courage to escape the status quo

here is a portion of an article were one of the scientists describes his fight against big business and the media


Dave Rado, who co-ordinated a formal complaint to Ofcom, explains why he felt compelled to challenge the programme's contents.

"When I sat down to watch the screening of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 in March last year, I had no idea how much of an impact it would have on my life.
Fifteen months later, after a 176-page complaint involving more than 20 scientists and other distinguished academics, the film's contents have now been scrutinised by the UK media regulator.
I was initially wary of doing anything public regarding my involvement with the Ofcom complaint - I'm merely a concerned citizen, and what's important is the quality of the other contributors, who include many of the world's most respected climate scientists.
But when I was told that it was possible that the film-maker might try to portray himself as the "David", being ganged up against by the "Goliath" of the scientific establishment, I reconsidered.
I'm simply a person, unconnected with any environmental or scientific group, who believes that a public service broadcaster should not be allowed to deceive the public about science - particularly on issues that have profound implications for our future.
Natural Sceptic
My interest in climate science and my subsequent involvement in this project were sparked several years ago.

Channel 4 said it aired the film to show that the climate debate was not over
A friend told me there was a global conspiracy involving nearly all of the world's governments, most of the world's scientists and the media to convince the public that there is a major human influence on climate when they were well aware there was no evidence for this.
I am a natural sceptic, and find it hard to take conspiracy theories seriously; but out of respect for my friend I decided to research the issue in depth.
After reading hundreds of scientific papers and summaries I was struck by the quite extraordinary amount of evidence - and more importantly, the many completely independent lines of evidence that all point in the same direction - that human greenhouse gas emissions are indeed profoundly changing the climate, and that the problem is going to become extremely serious in the long run unless emissions are cut drastically.
Moreover, all of the papers I read disputing this premise used the cherry picking of evidence as a tactic. Many of them recycled long discredited myths, while others used statistically flawed techniques, in an apparent attempt to massage data in order to support their desired conclusions.
This also led me to find a number of high profile websites devoted entirely to peddling misinformation about climate - many of them run by, and most of them funded by, lobby groups that campaign against action on climate change. Many of these lobby groups are partly funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.
So my friend was right that there are many people actively engaged in a well-funded attempt to subvert mainstream science and to mislead the public; although he seems to have been mistaken about which side is doing most of the subverting.
So by the time I watched Swindle, after all the reading I'd done, I was flabbergasted by both its brazenness and its unprecedented number of deceptions.

I hope that in some small way the complaint...provides inspiration to others who would challenge questionable assertions made by certain sections of the media
We have a right to expect broadcasters not to set out to mislead us; yet to me, this was exactly what Channel 4 and Wag TV appeared to be doing.
Where Channel 4 claimed the film was an attempt to give a minority a voice, I saw it as a systematic attempt to deceive the public, an out and out propaganda piece masquerading as a science documentary.
The morning after the broadcast, I posted on the blog of the British Antarctic Survey's scientist William Connolley, saying that I wanted to complain to Ofcom and asking whether any scientists could help me write a comprehensive complaint.
Nathan Rive and Brian Jackson responded to my post and became my two co-lead authors. William Connolley also agreed to peer review it. I wrote the same morning to Carl Wunsch, who confirmed to me what I suspected - that he had been duped.
There followed a frantic three months, in which most of my spare time was devoted to co-ordinating, editing, recruiting authors and peer reviewers, and managing the peer review process.
Humbling experience
I was astounded by how many of the world's most distinguished scientists and other academics in relevant fields were willing to devote time to the project.


For example, Bert Bolin, widely regarded as the world's most distinguished climate scientist until his sad death from cancer last December, agreed to peer review some sections. Many other academics of similar standing also made huge and very time-consuming contributions, in some cases giving up several weekends in order to do so.
I found this very humbling.
The complaint was submitted in early June last year. Much of it related to individuals and organisations having had their views unfairly misrepresented without being given an opportunity to respond in the film.
In October, after receiving the sections of our complaint relating to former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Channel 4 responded with a very long document that we felt was packed with misinformation. Our response was written and reviewed by as distinguished a group of scientists as the original complaint had been, including one former and one current IPCC Co-Chair.
Largely because of Channel 4's tactics - which included trying to have our complaint thrown out - the entire process dragged on for more than a year, a huge waste of public money.
The experience has left me feeling that the odds are greatly stacked in the broadcasters' favour.
How often would ordinary members of the public have the time, inclination or support from scientists to jump over so many hurdles? And unlike the anti-Al Gore court case, there has been no rich benefactor behind this complaint - just the time and goodwill of a large number of academics who object to their fields of study being misrepresented.
In February, I began building a website called Ofcom Swindle Complaint containing our complaint, which I hope will become an educational resource for the public.
Given that many of the inaccuracies and misleading arguments in the Swindle are widely used elsewhere, I thought that the detailed response in our complaint, with thousands of links to supporting evidence, should be available to the public in an easily accessible format. I'll continue to improve the website as time goes on.
Mixed feelings
Now that Ofcom has published its ruling, I'm looking forward to getting back to my life again.
While I am very pleased that the regulators upheld our complaint that a number of scientists who contributed to the programme were unfairly treated, I am surprised and disappointed by its accuracy verdict.
Ofcom says that it was only able to consider the documentary's accuracy in terms of whether it was misleading enough to cause harm.
The issue of whether or not a programme is factually accurate only applies to news media, they explained.
Because The Great Global Warming Swindle fell outside of this category, they were not in a position to make a ruling on the accuracy of some of the assertions that the programme presented as fact.
If this is the case, then I would argue that Ofcom's remit needs to be revised in order to protect the public when it comes to programmes' accuracy on matters of science."

[masalai]

My perception of - the 'popular American media' is, if it is presented on a show like, - what is it called - 'springer' - or something, - as a 'comedy skit', - then it is regarded as the Gospel truth, and accepted, as a well researched and true fact by the American populace...?

I do my due diligence, find trusted non-commercial sources, and maintain regular updates from there and ignore the ijits and other hype sources.... and try to keep my own counsel.....

[Jimbo1490]

Boston:

The Vostok Core temperature reconstruction is at the 'core' of the problem with AGW theory; The cause and effect is bass-ackwards. Temperature rises precede CO2 rises by several hundred years. You cannot blithely blow off this undisputed fact. To even try to blow it off as unimportant is dishonest and disingenuous.

If the relationship was as predicted by your camp, you can bet your life the AGW alarmists such as you fine self would be crowing from the rooftops! But the universe seems disinterested in your pet theory. One of your long-winded, preachy posts won't make this rather large incongruity go away, either.

The Vostok Cores show the opposite relationship predicted by AGW alarmists. The theory rests on the idea that CO2 drives temperatures, the empirical facts show otherwise.

Jimbo

[Landlubber]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

[Boston]

am tonight blessed with a fine evening on the town
and a lovely drinking companion
to continue my eveni g
maybe in the morrow I will adress these points
but for now
Im working on not passing out
best
B

hhoiuld have frank less
'hope all is ewll
gottago
:-)_
B

[Knut Sand]

Boston:

The Vostok Core temperature reconstruction is at the 'core' of the problem with AGW theory; The cause and effect is bass-ackwards. Temperature rises precede CO2 rises by several hundred years.

I do not think that we're talking in terms of several hundred years her, (as in; I don't think it matters...). To me, there seem to be some connection here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Which came first; the hen or the egg? (probably the egg...?)

I did my math earlier, pissed as I was at these screaming environmentalists, and brain dead journalists feeding us with this as an entertainment issue, no numbers, just the statements. As a result of that I got a bit worried (and at first I got only 25% of what I end up with nowadays...). What's happening now, will however have natural variations, we will have cold days, we will have warm days... Short terms, and long terms, business as usual, no matter what we do...

But;
The amount of energy warming our waters, is frightening. I have not considred the 25-30% land areas, nor the insulation effect by rising CO2... There is no way, that all this rise in temperature is caused only by human activity. Increased temperatures will give more evaporation, what goes up, comes down, more dry weather, more rain (snow, that white things..) more extreme weather....

We're adding our contributions to this problem. Just because we can do somthing; does that mean we have the right to do so?

And should we continue with it, or change? Worst case scenario, what was that again..... :rolleyes:

And yes.... I'm a cynical sceptic.... Or vise versa.

I believe oil companies, car manufacturers, and others actually have seen this writing on the wall earlier, way far earlier than most of us. They have at least "some" interest in knowing the long term predictions for theyr industry. I believe they are determined to milk our stupid ass way of living to the last drop.... Then they finally end up in the best possible position for presenting green energy, green transportation, green whatever.....

Bottom line... Is it murder? (or at least a tiny bit unethical?);
If I use 20-40 years to kill a person? If I kill many persons? If I get a lot of other stupid asses with me on this killing mission? Manage to do so without leaving a single fingerprint, leaving no DNA...? Extreme weather will kill people... How much/many is natural, acceptable killings? How do we partition out the responsibility for the extra no of kills? (caused by our added effect to the extreme weather?).

Have a nice day....:D

[safewalrus]

To add to te entertainment seems the British Admiralty has checked the logs of Nelson and Cook and a few others, appears there was global warming then too - you ain't going to tell me that was down to the invention of cannon are you? and the other nasty things 'umans do - guess the end of the last ice age was down to the invention of the bow and arrow.......

Yes Ugg nothing good will come of this letting go of the spear thing!!

[Jimbo1490]

~400 years was the minimum lag noted and the longest was ~900, the average is quoted at ~800 years since the lag slants more to the long end of the range most of the time. The lag was *NEVER* as little as 20-40 years as you suggest. The AGW camp got it wrong; pure and simple. Let's just wait and see how long it takes them to admit it.

As for the lawsuit against Martin Durkin and company, I mean they (the IPCC and cronies) couldn't very well COUNTER-sue the groups of scientists that had ALREADY sued the IPCC for misrepresenting THEIR work for that body by counting them in with the so-called "Consensus" of scientists that believe global warming is caused by human activity, when in fact they believed (and wrote) the exact opposite opinion in their contributions to the IPCC report!
(Especially so since the IPCC capitulated; neither side had neither grievance no damage any longer)

Rather than sue those scientists, sue a film maker! Sounds like a plan to me :)

[the1much]

only if the "film maker" wrote the script,,,if he told the scientist to say what they have "found" then they should be.

[Jimbo1490]

[QUOTE=if he told the scientist to say what they have "found" then they should be.[/QUOTE]

The IPCC is known for pressuring scientists and attempting to influence their writings much more do than Martin Durkin ever could. On top of that, they (the politicians at the UN, not the scientists) HEAVILY influence (oversee, really) the writing of the "Executive Summary for Policymakers", the only part the majority of people will ever see or even hear quotations from.

The thing is the tone of this summary often bears little resemblance to that found in the body of the report, you know, the part with the ACTUAL FACTS.

I bet most people don't even know that there is significant uncertainty in the latest IPCC report as to whether humans have actually warmed the climate AT ALL; in fact we may have COOLED IT! But you can bet that little bit didn't make the executive summary :D

Jimbo

[masalai]

Time will tell - - - The "Do nothing" protagonists will likely suffer badly if "warming" turns out to be a disaster.... If the "do nothing / no problems" lobby is quiet then the "Look out the sky is falling" global warming lobby will be likewise persecuted for stifling / strangling economic growth....

The observant ones who keep their own counsel can jump on which-ever bandwagon was right hehehehe - - - I cannot see that anyone has the definitive proof yet....

[the1much]

thats what i find sooooo amusing,,,is there ANYBODY that can prove either way?,,,,with facts that are observed by EVERYONE?,,,,we have 24 hour web cam in millions of places,,,,,,we have thousands of film crews,,,,,how come noone can SHOW ( without a graph saying,,"this is what i observed"),,,,,,,,set up a cam,,, do your test, get results.......and film or broadcast every second of the WHOLE process.?????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Jimbo1490]

thats what i find sooooo amusing,,,is there ANYBODY that can prove either way?,,,,with facts that are observed by EVERYONE?,,,,we have 24 hour web cam in millions of places,,,,,,we have thousands of film crews,,,,,how come noone can SHOW ( without a graph saying,,"this is what i observed"),,,,,,,,set up a cam,,, do your test, get results.......and film or broadcast every second of the WHOLE process.?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Jim,

The trouble with that approach is that we are talking about a process where even a decade of time is way too small a sample to really observe meaningful trends. On the scale of hundreds or thousands of years we can observe trends, but nobody lives long enough to do that, so we have to depend on what came before. We have to look to the past. Fortunately, the past has much (he he) to say and it ain't so kind to the AGW crowd.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Jim that still wouldn't prove anything.... either side will claim "a regular anomaly, proves nothing....."

[Knut Sand]

Time will tell - - - The "Do nothing" protagonists will likely suffer badly if "warming" turns out to be a disaster.... If the "do nothing / no problems" lobby is quiet then the "Look out the sky is falling" global warming lobby will be likewise persecuted for stifling / strangling economic growth....

The observant ones who keep their own counsel can jump on which-ever bandwagon was right hehehehe - - - I cannot see that anyone has the definitive proof yet....

No definitive proof, true MAS, true.. but personally I got a nasty feeling... feeling is normally not good enough to make good judgements on... but I believe we're warming up (water temps tell that pretty clearly), but probably caused by a natural variation, which would happen anyway if humans hadn't been around also... But our way of living is probably adding to this. (nagnagnag... sorry :rolleyes: ).

Another argument against global warming (while I'm at it; why not shoot my own leg also..); I was told (on the street, he was collecting money) by a pretty bombastic fellow that the no of people killed by bad weather/ storms har increased by a pretty high no. And that this was caused by global warming. (I don't recall the no now). But me, just beeing who I am, skeptic to all who have found the one TRUTH, told him that its pretty natural that more people will be killed by bad weather, got his attention....

If the weater is a constant, each year...
This globe has pretty much a constant area to spread this weather on.... The no of people has increased dramatically, increasing the no of people actually beeing in the wind, so to speak.

More peoples in the areas where low income is the average, low income = badly built houses. Badly built houses (or no house) + bad weather, can be fatal. More of "canbefatal" will increase the no of people killed by bad weather.
If we have had an increase in the earth's population from 4 000 000 000 to 6 000 000 000 in a certain period then it's natural that we also have an increase in weather kills by at least 30%, doesn't mean the same as we're not supposed to help, but don't blame it on the weather....

I'm glad I'm not a schitzo; I (we) would then had at least 4 opinions... :P

[Boston]

Temperature rises precede CO2 rises by several hundred years. You cannot blithely blow off this undisputed fact. To even try to blow it off as unimportant is dishonest and disingenuous.

If the relationship was as predicted by your camp, you can bet your life the AGW alarmists such as you fine self would be crowing from the rooftops! But the universe seems disinterested in your pet theory.

The Vostok Cores show the opposite relationship predicted by AGW alarmists. The theory rests on the idea that CO2 drives temperatures, the empirical facts show otherwise.

sorry but there is no thorn in lions toe as you would describe it
but at some point I have to wonder how many myths concerning the inaccuracy of global climate change do I have to bust
how much reviewed research need I present when we obviously have no common ground with in the empirical method

facts
spare me
Im also starting to get curious what an agw alarmist is
and are they in charge of the camp fire
cause thats the only camping I do
Im an independent scientist not affiliated or even familiar with any of the various groups squabbling over minutia while watching our home go up in flames
climatology isn’t even remotely my area of research
I just try and keep up on things

ok so it sounds like we are done arguing that there is no relationship between co2 and warming and are now questioning the nature of the relationship
while somehow avoiding admitting there is a relationship
kinda makes me wonder why Im having this conversation

its simple and the answer was in a previous post
it just got ignored


the theory is that an initial relatively small temperature trigger (for example, sudden changes in the earth's atmospheric chemistry), result in the release of CO2 and additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (for example, release of even more CO2 from the ocean as it warms)
as the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere builds up it results in more warming and further release of greenhouse gases (i.e. a feedback cycle).
the end result of that feed back cycle is a large measurable quantity of co2 following a rise in temp

so what was the trigger
it’s obvious like it or not that there is a cycle and a relationship
so how do they fit together
turns out there is a smoking gun and it just hasn't gotten a lot of play
because most people outside of the oil and gas industry havent even heard of the stuff
and what incentive do the oil scientists have to report in an unbiased manor
clathrates
methane hydrates tend to form in cold water and at depths between about 150 to 800 meters ( about )
(Im about done spending to much time noting this since no ones reading the notes any way )
methane hydrate is like a slush that forms on the bottom of the ocean and kinda just builds up into a strata of volatile hydrates
looks kinda like muddy snow
some disturbing force wrecks the equilibrium and its eruption time
this was explained in my previous
guess my detractors just didnt read it
methane also has a very short half life as an atmospheric gas
some thing like 7 years (I think)
and is about 20 times more powerful as a green house gas than co2
since large methane eruptions are one time events it taking millennia to replenish large clathrates deposits
science relies on fossilized eruption sites to note significant past events
as mentioned and apparently ignored in my last
those historic eruptions coincide with both extinction and warming events
and are being widely accepted as the natural trigger for the global warming event we are now artificially recreating when we mimic a sudden hydrate eruption by indiscriminately pounding co2 into the atmosphere

in summary
it is not relevant what green house gas begins the cycle of destruction
any green house gas will do
we have plenty of evidence of relatively small green house gas eruptions altering the chemistry of the atmosphere by some small amount
a percent or two
that coincide with the start of a run away green house feed back cycle
and results in additional green house gas’s being produced
one of which we can easily measure in the fossil record
co2

what the green house gas is
is not as relevant as that it is
if we add a green house gas
( lets just say we add co2 for the sake of argument )
to the atmosphere
we know what is going to happen
because we can see what’s happened when a green house gas was added in the past

the truth will out my surly friends
and no amount of refusing to see reason will stop it
global climate change is happening like it or not

and we are the trigger this time

in reference to one of the calthrates studies I found this little jewel

“This new study nails it,” said J.R. Toggweiler, an oceanographer at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who was not involved in the study. “If there were any doubters, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.”

[Jimbo1490]

the theory is that an initial relatively small temperature trigger (for example, sudden changes in the earth's atmospheric chemistry), result in the release of CO2 and additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (for example, release of even more CO2 from the ocean as it warms)
as the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere builds up it results in more warming and further release of greenhouse gases (i.e. a feedback cycle).
the end result of that feed back cycle is a large measurable quantity of co2 following a rise in temp

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison. A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium which would mean the atmosphere would be unable to return to it's equilibrium state and a runaway greenhouse condition would have resulted. Since CO2 concentration were at times 10X and even 20X what they are now and yet the oceans did not boil shows that this scenario is certainly far from likely now.

Not that any of this will affect you beliefs/opinions one iota, for you are a true believer. The empirical facts have long ago ceased to be important to you:rolleyes:

Jimbo

[Boston]

inaccurate

you are desperately grasping at straws again

data already presented directly contradicts your latest assertion
and yet you make no proper defense of this in your claim
again you haven’t presented a single supporting article in your favor
those papers I have already cited clearly state co2 and methane can do exactly what you are claiming they cannot

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2.

that is pure bunk
please reread the data provided and learn some thing about calthrates before you make such a patently misleading statement
I have established my case on preponderance of evidence through pier Reviewed and published research presented
you have not read the data provided or you simply dont understand it
in either case
you are embarrassing yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence

methane hydrates or co2 can and do build up in colder environments
and are subject, to catastrophic eruption events

kinda like we are doing now
when we pump gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere

please for the love of simple sanity
research your statements before you make em
it will go a looooooonnnnnnnggggggg way towords shortening my responses

wow

I can site miles of evidence from respected scientists concerning this issue


Nature 453, 642-645 (29 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06961; Received 24 September 2007; Accepted 18 March 2008
Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate
Martin Kennedy1, David Mrofka1 & Chris von der Borch2
1. Department of Earth Science, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
2. School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
Correspondence to: Martin Kennedy1 Correspondence and requests for

Abstract
The start of the Ediacaran period is defined by one of the most severe climate change events recorded in Earth history—the recovery from the Marinoan 'snowball' ice age, 635 Myr ago (ref. 1). Marinoan glacial-marine deposits occur at equatorial palaeolatitudes2, and are sharply overlain by a thin interval of carbonate that preserves marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions of about -5 and +15 parts per thousand, respectively3, 4, 5; these deposits are thought to record widespread oceanic carbonate precipitation during postglacial sea level rise1, 3, 4. This abrupt transition records a climate system in profound disequilibrium3, 6 and contrasts sharply with the cyclical stratigraphic signal imparted by the balanced feedbacks modulating Phanerozoic deglaciation. Hypotheses accounting for the abruptness of deglaciation include ice albedo feedback3, deep-ocean out-gassing during post-glacial oceanic overturn7 or methane hydrate destabilization8, 9, 10. Here we report the broadest range of oxygen isotope values yet measured in marine sediments (-25 to +12) in methane seeps in Marinoan deglacial sediments underlying the cap carbonate. This range of values is likely to be the result of mixing between ice-sheet-derived meteoric waters and clathrate-derived fluids during the flushing and destabilization of a clathrate field by glacial meltwater. The equatorial palaeolatitude implies a highly volatile shelf permafrost pool that is an order of magnitude larger than that of the present day. A pool of this size could have provided a massive biogeochemical feedback capable of triggering deglaciation and accounting for the global postglacial marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions, abrupt unidirectional warming, cap carbonate deposition, and a marine oxygen crisis. Our findings suggest that methane released from low-latitude permafrost clathrates therefore acted as a trigger and/or strong positive feedback for deglaciation and warming. Methane hydrate destabilization is increasingly suspected as an important positive feedback to climate change11, 12, 13 that coincides with critical boundaries in the geological record14, 15 and may represent one particularly important mechanism active during conditions of strong climate forcing.

The empirical facts have long ago ceased to be important to you

the empirical method of study does not generally accept anything as fact
it divides things into what is most likely to be true or is less likely to be true
by aggregating naturally occurring data

the idea that green house gas's like methane do not precipitate out of solution at depth in colder climes or cannot be produced in colder climes and participate in altering atmospheric chemistry is absolute nonsense
definitely
less likely to be true

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources.

that statement is patently false
I would cite the following three articles

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

Wetlands Loss Fuelling CO2 Feedback Loop
Source: 2008,
Date: July 21, 2008
Stephen Leahy

this article is not public access however it is available upon request


Universe today
April 29th 2008
Ian O’Neill

These mechanisms are known as "feedback loops". Feedback loops are common in nature, should one quantity change, production of other quantities may speed up. In the case of the carbon emission from volcanic activity, levels of the stuff appear to have been controlled by a natural "negative feedback" loop (akin to a carbon thermostat, when carbon dioxide levels were too high, another process was triggered to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). However, the sustained atmospheric input of industrial burning of carbon dioxide by human activity has dwarfed historic volcanic carbon output, overwhelming any natural negative feedback mechanism.

the method of argument is decidedly unique to say the least
I particularly like how detractors ignore the published works and go on to present the same flawed issue over and over with out ever actually presenting a scientific debate of the citation

another interesting concept is an unwillingness to make a citation of your own
the readers have yet to see even one
yet i have offered countless
seems obvious the preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side of the table
and equally as obvious who is concerned with factually reporting empirical evidence

the last and my personal fave
is how my detractors have moved from question to question the premiss’s of which admit there agreement with a previous point that had been denied
for instance
the statement was made that there was no correlation between co2 and temp
so I used the data to show there was
the question was raised several more times
along with the assertion that there was no historic evidence for green house gasses driving temp
then with out admitting there was a correlation or that there was boundless evidence in the historic record
the statement was made that the historic correlation was backwards
again several times
so I used the data to show how the cycle of gas events and temp work
being careful to point out that co2 was not the only gas involved in the system
and that co2 was a marker for the correlation of temp and co2
then with out admitting anything again
that info was patently ignored and it was insisted that temp drives co2
that green house gas/temp feed back systems do not occur and that the theory has been proven wrong
wow
when the data presented also contained a detailed description of how volatile clatherates eruptions have left a fossil record coinciding with warming events and extinctions
and once again the detractors have blatantly ignored the observed data and failled to cite a single article not create a preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature

my detractors apparently didnt read or didnt comprehend the data presented



[QUOTE]This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium
/QUOTE]

I have often been intrigued by some of the attitudes expressed in this thread
but when I ask for detailed research from the scientific community supporting those attitudes I am continually ignored


I challenge you to provide multiple pear reviewed and published papers showing your claim as being supported in the scientific community
and I further say your continued failure to do so is an obvious concession of significant error in your view

I on the other hand will continue to cite multiple sources to support claims made

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8

well Im off to the pool party
and bikini clad cohorts
I do hope this all has at least enlightened some as to the reality of our influence on climate change
and the week nature of the opposing argument
love B

[RHP]

I must admit I rather like the heat, particularly when armed with a large gin and tonic with lots of ice.

[Jimbo1490]

'Pier' review is about right, since your heroes over on you fav website 'realclimate.org ' have YET (5 YEARS on now) to present the algorithms used to produce Michael Mann's (in)famous hockey stick graph, which you no doubt still point to as the gold standard. Only 'piers' have reviewed them; sadly no peers. Oh what a price to be rid of that pesky 'Medieval warm Period' :D

Boston, I know this is a long thread, AND it's also essentially a duplicate of another thread that ran last year and the year before. Go look at my older posts and see all the scientific data I presented sourced from NASA, the USGS, numerous universities and leading climatologists. I can't do the super long post thing anymore; I got into big trouble with that a few months back and I've sworn it off.

The thing is there's PLENTY of scientific data that contradicts what you are saying, in fact the preponderance of the EMPIRICAL data cuts against AGW alarmism. The alarmism is based almost solely on THEORY and computer modeling, NOT on the observed data.

[Guillermo]

Boston,
For scientific evidence on the small anthropogenic impact on recent times global warming and the strong possibility of a coming global cooling, as well as the relative small effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas when compared with water vapour, you should scroll along this entire thread and search for the wealth of links and articles posted, before saying not references have been showed. We have been discussing around here for quite a bit now and we cannot post everything again.

On a list of scientists opossing the mainstream assessment on global warming you may find interesting this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

You may be interested in reading also the attached document.

Cheers.

[Knut Sand]

Jimbo, if i recollect correctly, some of the earlier temperature data was for measures made over land. I say; screw those data, air is far too changing to be used as a measuring device for this. There will always be variations, more asphalt/ concrete, buildings halting the cooling winds, too many arguments one way or the other....

Earth is covered with approx 70 % water. If we use this, we can chose to ignore the water temperatures, they have increased... To heat 1 m3 of water 1 deg C, earth's diameter is approx 12700 km across (take that with a tblsp of salt, check for yourself...), you'll need about 4100 000 joules to heat up 1 deg. assume that the temp has increased 0,1 deg the last decade, assume that the water dept we're talking about is 100 m... On my first calculations I was wrong with a factor of even 4 (got 25% of what many scientists pretty much agree on now), and even that worried me....;)

Jimbo, you also state:
Quote:
This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison.
Quote end.

Ok, lets assume this is correct, what about the insulation effect? 1 m3 of carbon will have? It weigh a bit more than 1 m3 of standard air, but still it has an insulation effect of about twict that of air, and for instance, withe emissions from planes, in the athmosphere high up, it'll take up space, less pressure= more volume (not that space, you idjits!), and it'll insulate.... Due to the fact that it weigh more, it will come down, but in that period it will at least cause some effect in the global warming.

Some interesting views here though..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml

So, where we're heading, I don't know for certain, but maybe our kids will have a bumpy ride...? I Think we'd be better safe than sorry?:D

[Jimbo1490]

Jimbo, if i recollect correctly, some of the earlier temperature data was for measures made over land. I say; screw those data, air is far too changing to be used as a measuring device for this. There will always be variations, more asphalt/ concrete, buildings halting the cooling winds, too many arguments one way or the other....


The problem is that for the observed warming over the last century to be attributable to the greenhouse effect. It has to happen mostly high up in the atmosphere, not at the surface. Trouble is, we see exactly the opposite; lots of warming near the surface but little at altitude.

The AGW alarmist camp attempts (rather clumsily) to get around these rather incovenient facts by cooking the data. They cooked data on '"corrections"' to the surface measurements (lied and got caught) and on more "'"corrections"'" to the satellite data, which is another set of algorithms they have chose to keep secret. So much for 'peer review'. I think Boston ironically got it right when he called it 'pier review':D




Jimbo, you also state:
Quote:
This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison.
Quote end.

Ok, lets assume this is correct, what about the insulation effect? 1 m3 of carbon will have? It weigh a bit more than 1 m3 of standard air, but still it has an insulation effect of about twict that of air, and for instance, withe emissions from planes, in the athmosphere high up, it'll take up space, less pressure= more volume (not that space, you idjits!), and it'll insulate.... Due to the fact that it weigh more, it will come down, but in that period it will at least cause some effect in the global warming.

Some interesting views here though..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml

So, where we're heading, I don't know for certain, but maybe our kids will have a bumpy ride...? I Think we'd be better safe than sorry?:D


Let's try to keep in perspective that CO2 is a mere .03% of the atmosphere and for it's insulating effect to even approach that of air let alone water vapor, it would need to be several orders of magnitude more effective as an insulator, which it is not.

Jimbo

[Knut Sand]

The problem is that for the observed warming over the last century to be attributable to the greenhouse effect. It has to happen mostly high up in the atmosphere, not at the surface. Trouble is, we see exactly the opposite; lots of warming near the surface but little at altitude.

Let's try to keep in perspective that CO2 is a mere .03% of the atmosphere and for it's insulating effect to even approach that of air let alone water vapor, it would need to be several orders of magnitude more effective as an insulator, which it is not.

Jimbo

Ok, there is actually measured higher water temperatures during the last 30-40 years. I believe that's pretty proven, as they even talk about the NW passage as a trade route now... (add that to problems with the coral reefs outside Australia, large icebergs in the Antarctica area (ok I'll admit it, icebergs do have a "critical" mass...)). That's near the surface.

Ok at high altitude, you say little has happened with the temperature, ok but they report more vapour trails behind planes, more of them. If you heat a gas(air), you also improve the ability for that gas (air) to keep humidity. if you reduce the pressure (read that as pushing a wing at high speed through the gas (air) you'll have an area where there's less pressure on top of the ving, read that as vacuum... Thats why air traffic is succeeding, and not crashing...), less pressure is less ability to keep the humidity in a state of gas. So, in my opinion, an increase in the clouds caused by planes (is it contrails?) is a indication that the temperature at high altitudes has increased, at least some, more humidity in gas form at high altitudes, the planes cause vacuum, the humidity condensates...

CO2 is a mere 0,03% of the earth's atmosphere. True.
Nothing new there, But; If we stick our heads back on the exhaust fumes on a plane at high altitude, I believe we'll measure higher numbers for CO2 there, if not the pilot's probably pretty busy. The weight of 1 m3 CO2 is more than that for 1 m3 of air (with 0,03 CO2), but at higher altitude, the gas willl need to be compressed before going down, it may float a bit on the "surface" of the air below in the atmosphere, before it compresses enough to get down to us (the plants, grass, sea, algeas, us idjits...), in that time, it'll act as an insulator, and then we're talking 100% CO2, not 0,03%CO2. CO2 has close to twice the insulation effect as standard air has. We cannot ignore the fact, that we are able to cause at least some effect on the climate. Not on small scale, not on pretty large scale. :rolleyes:

Anybody have a nyumber for air traffic CO2 outlet? pr year, and at what average altitude?:?:

[Jimbo1490]

CO2 mixes rapidly within the atmosphere so it does not matter where it is released, be it at high altitude or low. High altitude natural sources are (as usual) orders of magnitude larger than anthropogenic releases. The entire human contribution to CO2 is within the error bars for the estimates for the total of CO2 in the entire atmosphere. Air transportation is a mere 3% of anthropogenic CO2. We're talking about a totally irrelevant quantity.

Jimbo

[Boston]

sorry for the delay kids had work to do
along with a few to many drinks
you would be amazed how many great scientific ideas were originally written out on a cocktail napkin

oh and thanks on the spelling tip
its a constant point of frustration for me as im not good with illogical systems
and spelling the English language is definitely not a logical system
Latin I can do
English not a prayer
its soooooo frustrating


Ill go look through the thread for what I can find
however I did get a chance to read Wikipedia and found that it was in no way a detracting opinion
although it did report that opposing opinions exist
it also clearly stated

( Im surprised any one can read that and not be relatively convinced )
( I think the poll of data was something like 97% in support with 3% anomalous )


“Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science.[16][17][18] Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.[19]
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[20][21][22] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[23] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[24] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[25] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.”

sounds like it covers this conversation perfectly
any way Im getting a little board with it all
as we are clearly not going to be able to agree on anything
which I find kinda odd given the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory
the vast majority of scientists agreeing
a statement supported in the article above

Im kinda baffled as to how otherwise intelligent people can some times refuse to believe in the most rudimentary things
hell Im sure some fool even laughed at the idea of toilet paper

there isnt much doubt
the driver for the cascade effect in climate change looks like its been found out
the release of green house gasses from naturally occurring sources like hydrates and ocean co2
its not absolutely certain
but the probability is huge 90% or better
(read that some were in all the drivel I keep looking through)
not to many people are saying its not at least possible
and Ive yet to see any anomalous data on it
so the idea gets more sound every day

Im really curious how gigatons of co2 let alone all the n2o we produce isnt going to have an effect on atmospheric chemistry
we have already driven atmospheric co2 up by 27%
thats huge

any way this is getting long and Im getting board
gotta go get my car
some watron kept pouring drinks down me last night
had no prayer of driving home

hey is there a thread in here some were about properly installing insulation in a wooded yacht
Ive never done that before and I like to learn from the screw ups of others
my theory is some one some were has fouled up just about everything
and all I need to do is find em

thanks kids its been entertaining
B

[Butch .H]

Boston you need ritalin or lithium or valium or,or ,:D or good posts lots of interesting conflicting infoloads of food for thought but I think it can be condensed a little:D

[mr curious]

What Do We Think About Climate Change

very, very, disappointing...

[Aethelwulffe]

So world climatic data means nothing to you guys? The mass agreement of mainstream science impresses you not in the least? The fact that the biggest idiot right-wing anti-science administration in history...the one that employs someone (Rice) that had to be removed from her university post because she tried to close down the astronomy/physics department funding under the aspices that "their work violates many premises of the Bible" has RECOGNIZED AGW after filling you guys heads with counterspin (actually they continue to do so) for years? Do you realize that if the subject comes up and you are sitting in a pub in Europe, they will laugh you out the front door? We are the most poorly educated in science in the first world, and it shows. Americans think of data points as being "facts" of equal merit, and rarely look at data in a holistic fashion, or get out of their house and into their local environment enough to tell the difference between one season or another. According to the semi-major and semi-minor axis of our current orbit (ecc.) and with opoapsis and periapsis being as balanced as they are, we should be in a very stable and cool environment right now. The environment SHOULD be warming a bit right now....and continue to do so for the next 25,000 years. NOT the next 5 years. Look at every Earth science. Look to the sedimentary record. Look at fossilized tree records and living tree records going back the last several ice ages. Compare them and you will NOT find a warming event (read by multi-regional tree-ring data) on the order we have today. Except for spike events (lasting 2-10 years due to major volcanic eruptions which stabilize quickly) we have NEVER had change on this scale ...ever! Compare apples to apples. Forget media versions of the psuedo-science pap you digest so easily, and go to decent sourceds to attempt to put the big picture together. It is tiring to see some dumb-ass say "well it sure is snowing here" when talking about GW. People neither understand science, nor geological scale. They can't concieve of what a multi-hundred year timescale means, much less a multi-thousand, multi- hundred thousand, or multi-million, or multi-billion timescale that describes the type of changes we are seeing over a few years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

[mr curious]

sorry, but that is far to much information

[Guillermo]

Two interesting oponent blogs:

http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/

You choose.

Cheers.

[Boston]

well ya know its hard to be thorough and still keep it short
in the end
ild rather be thorough

Im one of those who actually believes in the science
hell its my life
feels like Ive spent eons at the university
my bag is theoretical physics
so the idea that some thing that isnt
could be
is not so far out of the ordinary to me
for instance
most people dont understand that faster than light speed is possible
let alone common
I.E
Newtonian physics wouldnt even remotely work if gravity acted at anything less than a few thousand times the speed of light
( hows that for useless information )

if Im a little on the passionate side about cleaning house
ooops

its just that there is middle ground here
and no one is willing to stand on it
instead
they fight over trivialities
and make no positive change
while we descend into the inevitable tragedy
that need not be

I would contend that with in the scientific community
there is no real debate about this
because no body of data fails to support the theory
oh
as always
anomalous data exists
but
human caused global climate change is for real
its rare that a theory meet with such a consensus as this

what few detractors there are
are unable to support there disagreement with any viable hypothesis of there own
if there is one
bring it on
tens of thousands of scientists would love to her it

if that qualifies me for meds
gimme amitriptiline
and a tall blond
I promise
I wont be on for a while after that

[Boston]

never to much info

data is the key to understanding
understanding is the key to survival
survival is the essence of life
and life is a gift best not waisted

live long and prosper my friend
in wisdom and wealth
for all
B

[Boston]

lots of dialog but no refereed work here
send me data that is peer reviewed and published with in the community as a hole
industry rags are not acceptable as they virtually always exclude that most precious of prequels
"the author confirms that no competing interests exist"
without which research can only be considered as biased

I am finicky as to what papers I quote or cite
as there is a lot of pseudo science skulking about
feet muddy in an agenda less than honest
snout deep in the corporate trough
B

[Butch .H]

Boston no need to defend your self or your info.Mostly we do understand what you are saying in your posts.We (I ) am pulling your leg. I live in the most boring place in the world when it comes to climate and our geoligieys are so stable we need to go to a mining town to feel a tremor. The only thing going for this place is the fossil record.I for one think we are a little late in trying to reverce the climatic trend.

[Boston]

ok watched em
nothing all to convincing
frankly this guy would be eaten for breakfast at any conference Iv ever been to
his only real point is concerning data collection and when it boils down to it
were loosing glaciers faster than the catholic church is loosing alter boys
cant really argue with ice melting now can you
one way or another
we are warming up
and no amount of arguing the data can deny it
sorry
but no thorn in the lions paw here either
B

[Boston]

ya a lot of people feel that way
but I prefer to think we have a chance
got kids you know
at least ones Ive adopted
and Ild like to leave em some thing other than a starving hulk
oh
if the oceans stratify
it wont be boring any longer
things will change fast
and ugly
so keep the old fingers crossed
B

[Boston]

k
I just went through every post on this thing and read or watched the data you provided
the data presented was all one lecture through a institution called the Australian enviromental institute which actually isnt a school at all but a front for a right wing think tank

a DR Bob Carter lecture

I think it important to note that Wikipedia states and I quote

Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article by Sydney Morning Herald environmental reporter Wendy Frew said that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2] While Carter is a frequent commentator on climate change, he has no published peer reviewed papers providing evidence to discredit the climate change consensus.


the following article presents its opinion well concerning the Australian environmental foundation

The Australian Environment Foundation, a body founded by Jennifer Marohasy and operating from the same addess as right-wing think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs, now has a web site.

At the web site we learn that Jennifer was succeeded as AEF Chairperson by Barry Cohen (former Hawke Government Environment Minister who was replaced by Graham Richardson, in part because of Cohen’s lack of vigour on environmental issues on which Richardson was able to deliver), and then by retrenched celebrity gardiner Don Burke.

We also learn that Jennifer and Don aren’t singing from the same song sheet on climate change.

Jennifer’s blog includes a category on climate change which is basically a denialist dope show. Her self-characterisation on the issue as “I’m just not sure that greenhouse gas emissions are the principal drivers of the current warming” but the general thrust of other threads in this category suggests that she is being just a little too cute on this point.

Don Burke, however, has no such doubts:

This is a pivotal time in our planet’s history. The good news is that most people are now aware of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the political will now exists to find a solution. This is because the media has done a brilliant job of spreading the word to even the remotest areas of the planet.

Furthermore, Don thinks the problem is so severe that the environmental movement must reconsider its opposition to nuclear energy.

Perhaps the AEF will resolve the differences between Don and Jennifer at its forthcoming conference, to be held in Brisbane on 23-24 September. Let’s hope so. We wouldn’t want people thinking the AEF were the people Anthony Albanese had in mind when he said that “some of those who argue for nuclear energy to combat climate change, in the very next sentence question the very existence of climate change!�?

another gem I found on this guy

Carter trotted out all the favourite falsehoods of the global warming sceptics. Actually, Carter complains about being called a sceptic:

Such persons, and myself as you introduced me, are often termed ’sceptics’ and that’s meant to be a term of denigration, but I’m a scientist…it’s my job to be a sceptic, Michael, and those who are not sceptical towards human-caused global warming or, indeed, towards any other fashionable environmental concern, are acting in unscientific manner…religious, even.
If “global warming sceptic” has become a term of denigration, it’s because of the way they have conducted themselves, dismissing real science on the flimsiest of grounds. I guess I’ll use the more accurate “global warming denialist” to describe Carter.
Carter offers up the usual misrepresentations of the science: urban heat islands contaminate the surface record (no they don’t), equivocation about the word “consensus”, the “hockey stick” is broken (no), ice cores show that warming precedes increases in C02 (only partly), the IPCC summary does not reflect the body of the report (yes it does).

One particular misrepresentation is particularly troubling. Carter claims:

[the surface record] conflicts with independent estimates or measurements that we have of changing temperature made in the atmosphere by satellites and weather balloons. They show very little net change over the last 30 or 40 years.
But the satellite data shows significant warming over the past 30 years. The only discrepancy is that some analyses find only half as much warming as the surface record, while others show a similar amount of warming. It is wrong to pretend that disagreement somehow proves that there hasn’t been any warming.
I remonstrated with Carter when he made similar claims in a Tech Central Station article last year. Here is what he wrote in reply:

There is no conflict between the two following statements, and I stand by both of them.

“There is indeed a small, statistically significant trend.(in the MSU data as analyzed by e.g. Christy et al., 2003)”

and

“The (MSU data) show virtually no long-term trend of temperature increase despite the increased carbon dioxide levels over the last 25 years”

The first is a statistical statement. The second is a statement of scientific judgement which takes into account, amongst other factors, the statistical result.

The sort of technical detail in which you are seeking to discuss the MSU data is most usefully conducted in the relevant professional journals. For reasons of length as much as any other, it is in general not possible to go into such details in an editorial piece written for the general public. That accepted, of course it becomes even more important that the writers of such pieces take particular care with their words. That I have tried to do, and I am sorry if it has not been to your satisfaction.

By coincidence, an interesting new article on MSU results has just come out in Nature (attached). It adds some weight to your evident belief that atmospheric temperatures are rising. On the other hand, many will be concerned that it has proved necessary to selectively manipulate the data to achieve the result. Earlier attempts to make such corrections are acknowledged to have failed.

I shall be interested to see what the expert atmospheric scientists make of Qiang’s study, whilst rather doubting that it will prove to be the last word on the subject.

As I said last time, what one makes of the MSU results (i) depends upon the date and authorship of the paper one chooses to trust; (ii) requires that allowance be made for exceptional events such as the 1998 El Nino; and (ii) will be much clearer when we have another 20 years of data.

So Carter is well aware that the satellite data shows warming but did not mention this on the radio show.

another jewel in the crown of Dr Bob is the following statement he made about working for big oil

In March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday [March 14th 2007] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence." [7]
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

basically
this guy is not exactly what I would call a shining example
he hasn't submitted a single article on climate change for review
nor has any by him been published

he's a marine geologist for the oil companies near as I can tell

feel free to provide me with 3 peer reviewed and published works concerning detracting opinions of the global climate change theory
as of yet I have not seen any
even after going through all your posts in this thread

I would add that a random sampling of over 900 published works
found not one to be dissenting

pretty dam compelling if you ask just about any one

B

[Guillermo]

hell its my life...
feels like Ive spent eons at the university
my bag is theoretical physics....

I'm confused. Aren't you a carpenter?

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Testimony of Roy W. Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29)(PhD in Meteorology, a guy with several peer reviewed works on climate matters, and a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement) before the USA Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on 22 July 2008:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

From there:
"Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....
If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now."

Cheers.

[the1much]

I'm confused. Aren't you a carpenter?

Cheers.

he's a carpenters dream,,,,,,,flat as a board,,, and never been screwed
haha :D:P:D

[Jimbo1490]

Boston:

Too bad all your "Gems" were from Realclimate.org. virtually the ONLY people you can find ANYWHWERE that still defend the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, which even your much vaunted IPCC have summarily abandoned.

On the issue of so-called 'Peer Review', maybe YOU can be the one that can convince Mikey Mann to release the algorithms that he used to produce his famous temp. recon. and it associated graph, or the 'alternate sources' for the data he alluded to but has YET to produce, now 3 YEARS later.

Oh, the algorithms have been deduced forensically by McKitrick. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/hockeystick.pdf)
He has a very fine website (http://www.climateaudit.org/), BTW and I encourage all to take some time to read a couple of the articles and peer reviewed papers in pdf form. Unlike Mr Mann's 'pier review', Mckitrick lays it all out for everyone to see; no secret tricks or 'mann-o-matics' to make alarming graphs from even random number strings.

If the case for AGW case is so strong, why the ********? Didn't we see this same sort of distortion of data into propaganda with the pre-war intelligence on Iraq?

Isn't it even worse this time since new data sets and measurements keep a comin' with less and less alarming temp data? At least Iraq was a 'closed' society; you get to fill in a lot of 'blanks' with scary scenarios in that context and people will believe you. We don't have that excuse this time.

There really WAS a MWP and it really WAS much warmer than today, and it really WAS a global phenomena, despite what Realclimate.org ideologues (Mr. Mann) will tell you with straight faces.

Jimbo

[mastcolin]

The difference between science and politics (the Iraq 'intelligence" analogy) is that science is all about peer review. The Iraq thing was "intelligence" argued behind closed doors for political reason.

Scientist have no reason to argue the politics - that is for the politicians. Science is over theory, testing of theory etc etc. The peer review issue is that through arguement and testing a consensus arises ie an idea becomes a fact.

Whilst you can argue that a lot of the discussion of climate change is political, the science is not.

An analogy is contraception. You can argue the politics of it, but contraceptives stop babies (and disease). It isn't the health scientists job to argue the implication of a science.

Feel free to ignore the science if you want. Why stop there? Why not deny gravity when you are keen to play basketball?

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the heat retention in the atmosphere (this fact was discovered about 150years ago)
The CO2 level is increasing due to man (this is a fact)

Now explain to me how the above means that climate change doesn't exist?

Real climate is a forum for climate scientists and those interested in the field - this is a forum for boatbuilders with opinion. Feel free to argue the case on the basis of politics. Climate change is a fact recognised in science.

ps the hockey stick issue is addressed on the site. The McKitrick paper - a paper printed in a non-climate science journal? It's like an economist coming here and telling you how to build a boat. He's an economist (a pseudo-science if ever there was). He has an opinion - it's wrong factually. (though politically is satisfies some people opinions)

[Jimbo1490]

When scientists are serving at the whim of en ELECTED executive branch of government, then YOUR analysis is the one that fails. Did you not read the cited papers? This has been going on for decades, now.

And if statistical analysis is such a psuedo-science, then why do you give it such credence when a piker (in statistical analysis) such as Mann dabbles in it-and gets it VERY WRONG??!!

So you still believe the 'hockey stick' graph is an accurate representation of the earth's past climate? REALLY??!! What happened to the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD!!!????? How about the LITTLE ICE AGE??!!

"The CO2 level is increasing due to man (this is a fact)"

Even this seemingly basic tenet cannot be established as fact. The problem is that our contribution and the increase don't line up very well (for instance we KNOW CO2 was increasing BEFORE we started to release it in any significant way) and even if they did, it's strictly a circumstantial case, NOT a cause and effect relationship. The decline of European storks coincident with the decline of the human birth rate in Europe does not prove that storks bring babies. They are just coincident facts.

Jimbo

[Boston]

I wear a few hats
when it came time for college I got the old
" In my day we worked our way through school"
line Ild been hearing my hole life
so I did
remodel carpentry mostly
originally went to school for marine biology
then got a yernin for electrical engineering
then physics
in the end although I try and keep up on things and contribute were I may
( seem to have a knack for brainstorming others research projects )
I found that actually working rather than being an armchair warrior
was more my style
so I started a contracting biz
seriously disappointed the old man
although every once in a while I do come up with something pretty darn cool if I do say so
try playing with hv/c2=m and see what you come up with
once you get past the conversions issue
it does get interesting


getting long winded again
oops

yup Im way overeducated carpenter

[Boston]

Too bad all your "Gems" were from Realclimate.org.

I believe I have used multiple sources well
are you seriously suggesting I get more detailed

On the issue of so-called 'Peer Review', maybe YOU can be the one that can convince Mikey Mann

we got bone heads on all sides with a few in front and a few behind
my two cents
any one who fails to produce there data upon request
is full of it
that said
the hole hockey stick thing is an average that has been worked into the dirt
by a zillion people
and its still a hockey stick by all credible accounts

If the case for AGW case is so strong, why the ********?

(now we are having fun)

your AGW ing me again there brother
arent these the camping folks who forgot to bring the steaks last time round
now thats bull ****

and for my coupe de grace

Isn't it even worse this time since new data sets and measurements keep a comin' with less and less alarming temp data? At least Iraq was a 'closed' society; you get to fill in a lot of 'blanks' with scary scenarios in that context and people will believe you. We don't have that excuse this time.

funny the data on ice advance/decline is awfully dam one sided these days
I believe the wicked witch said it best


I'm melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought that some little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness

[Boston]

When scientists are serving at the whim of en ELECTED executive branch of government,

actually the bush regime detests the clobal climate change theorists
and would just assume stand around, roasting some form of endangered owl
over a campfire of scientific papers and empty oil barrels
than hear one more peep about the wellbeing of someone other than themselves

on the other hand
there are those who seem to serve old Reorge and his cronies with something
( bull pucky to the rest of the comunity )
they try and refer to as science

Did you not read the cited papers?

not yet
but I am looking forward it

the single author of the last four sources provided was so bad
he begged a back ground check
resulting in some interesting finds from three different sources
( keeping it short or Ild list em )
( list available upon request )
I did find it interesting old DR Bob had not published a single article on global climate change and yet found himself a keynote speaker at some fictitious institute for the environment
( nice touch eh )

So you still believe the 'hockey stick' graph is an accurate representation of the earth's past climate? REALLY??!! What happened to the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD!!!????? How about the LITTLE ICE AGE??!!

(in Japanese)
ok I admit
looks more like the goalies stick to me

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/Fig11000YearsTempFluct.jpg

hmmmm
still looks kinda like a goalie stick

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/dn11648-2_726.jpg

definitely a goalies stick

http://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/little_ice_age_temperature_trends.jpg

so there you have the work of about twenty different people
each using various forms of data collection
in what amounts to
dare I say
a consensus

hokey my friend
includes some time on the boards
oh
and heres your stick back

ps
( or bs, call it what you will )
the level of data available simply swamps detracting opinions
with most detracting opinions focusing on the narrow view while right in front of there faces that last pacific salmon
just got thrown on the grill

[Jimbo1490]

"that said
the hole hockey stick thing is an average that has been worked into the dirt
by a zillion people
and its still a hockey stick by all credible accounts "

Too bad you or Mikey Mann or any of the others can't seem to produce any of these alleged 'zillions' whenever pressed. Ditto for those 'Alternate Sources' for the hockey stick he claimed existed in testimony to congress. Congress is still waiting.....

Face it, the scary hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited; even the IPCC has tacitly admitted this by EXPUNGING it from subsequent reports. No MWP?! No LIA?! Those things happened during RECORDED history! Did you really think you could DO AWAY with those events and NOBODY WOULD NOTICE??!! The simple fact that you cannot even acknowledge the demise in stature of MBH98 proves this is no longer about the science. For you, it is simply a matter of faith; if the science checks out, great! If not, SO WHAT??!!

Find a new tent and preach somewhere else, pastor Elijah B. Greene :D

Jimbo

[masalai]

I am not pushing a barrow either way but in the interest of a spectrum of broad expert opinion & inputs - the following may be worthy of further research to those interested.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2339924.htm?section=justin

An expert in climate change says the world's sea levels could rise by up to four metres this century.

The head of the climate change unit at the Australian National University and science adviser to the Federal Government, Professor Will Steffen, says he believes the scientific community is underestimating the speed at which the climate is changing.

Professor Steffen has raised the concerns at the Coast to Coast Collaboration Conference in Darwin.

He says polar ice sheets across the northern shelf are melting quickly and last year was a record year in the loss of ice.

"The evidence over the past 12 to 18 months suggests that we have underestimated how fast this aspect of the earth's system can change," he said.

"We see things happening much faster than we thought."

A four-metre rise could have devastating effects on many low-lying areas in coastal Australia, including Darwin, where the Northern Territory Government was recently a major contributor to a billion-dollar waterfront redevelopment including the conference centre where today's meeting is being held.

[mastcolin]

When scientists are serving at the whim of en ELECTED executive branch of government, then YOUR analysis is the one that fails. Did you not read the cited papers? This has been going on for decades, now.

And if statistical analysis is such a psuedo-science, then why do you give it such credence when a piker (in statistical analysis) such as Mann dabbles in it-and gets it VERY WRONG??!!

So you still believe the 'hockey stick' graph is an accurate representation of the earth's past climate? REALLY??!! What happened to the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD!!!????? How about the LITTLE ICE AGE??!!

"The CO2 level is increasing due to man (this is a fact)"

Even this seemingly basic tenet cannot be established as fact. The problem is that our contribution and the increase don't line up very well (for instance we KNOW CO2 was increasing BEFORE we started to release it in any significant way) and even if they did, it's strictly a circumstantial case, NOT a cause and effect relationship. The decline of European storks coincident with the decline of the human birth rate in Europe does not prove that storks bring babies. They are just coincident facts.

Jimbo

Not all scientists work for the government. Most don't and even if they do, then only indirectly. Climate Science is build up by various fields in various countries. You are telling me that the IPCC (a non-elected body), which is a collection of the world's scientists are collectively wrong? I agree their science can be sold to us by a politician in many ways - as is happening just now by the position of the US Government, it doesn't stop the scientific position.

I never said statistics is a pseudo-science. However we all know the comment on statistics ("lies, damned lies etc"). The use of statistics is as important as the science of the method.

Example - you own a clothes shop in Beijing. A basketball team walks in for shoes. Good day for business. The next day a gymanastic team walks in. Good day for business. Now, would you predict the next day midgets would walk in on this basis? You couldn't predict what shoe size you'd need the next day. What and how you sample in statistics is important. You need to understand the area you are investigating (my criticism of McKitrick)

The increase in CO2 related to burning of fossil fuels is determined by radiotopic analysis (you'll no doubt have heard of carbon dating). Comparison can be made with air today with air frozen in ice-core samples. It is a fact.

Feel free to argue the risk of this climate change, feel free to hope that the earth or man is resilient enough. To deny the science as I say is to deny reality.

Yes, of course the earths climate does vary over time due to other factors such as orbits in space and amount of dust in atmosphere but these are out of our control. Adding something to atmosphere that changes it isn't a smart idea. I wouldn't like you polluting my garden, why pollute the air above it?


ps the 'little ice age" and 'medievel warm period" were not global phenonema. Basically it was local weather in certain areas - most probably caused by volcanic eruptions in certain regions. Also the short term and low temperature changes seen then are nothing like we are seeing even now.

ps cited papers in journals not peer reviewed are worthless. I can buy a book that says man walked the earth with dinosaurs - it isn't a fact. I can buy a bible or a koran - what it states isn't fact historically. Information of a scientific value can be only be accepted AFTER peer review and further proof through revalidation.

Hope the sun is shining on you Jim, I'm off to France next week to start topcoating 60m with black hull and metallic superstructure.

[Guest625101138]

..
A four-metre rise could have devastating effects on many low-lying areas in coastal Australia, including Darwin, where the Northern Territory Government was recently a major contributor to a billion-dollar waterfront redevelopment including the conference centre where today's meeting is being held.

We need 60m rise before I am a beachside resident - not likely to happen in my lifetime - damn.

Mind you Westfield would need to build a new shopping centre and the council new roads as all roads leading from the house are presently lower than the house. Need to make the road over the hill through the park. Maybe easier just to use a boat to get to the shops. Now boats; that is what this forum is all about. So this thread does have something to do with boats. And here I was just thinking it was the drivel thread in drag.

Thinking about Australia will need more boats because we will have lots more water. Maybe a huge canal up the middle. We might end up with lots more water frontages but in different hands. The poor blighters with beach properties now are going to have trouble selling them. Clearly lots of implications. Maybe we will see more house boats here.

Rick W.

[Knut Sand]

:confused: HeHe Rick, I'll need only 15 m, have the pullers for the boat ready for fitting on the side of the porch (correct word? Veranda)...:D

Ok, as stated above. (by Mastcolin, Boston and others...)... Level of CO2 has risen significantly. It's not rocket science to be a bit suspicious to the fact that some of our activities may help to generate some part of the change in the climate.

The age of the ice cores are pretty accurate, also the recent measures, since 1950's

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

So, that put togeter with the average temp rise the last 50 years or so....

CO2 isn't bad for plants. But CO2 has the physical property, that its pretty good as an insulating gas. Far better than regular air, that is.

We're living on a rock, floating in cold space, bombarded by sun rays, protected by a layer of gases, air, water, o2, co2, n2 and few others...

http://edro.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/how-much-co2/

ohhh, ****.....:confused:

The HP15C is your true friend, it'll show us the right ways.....

Ok; this will be a bit jumpy, so the short minded fellas can skip reading....
This rock is approx 12700 km across...
Area of a sphere is: A= pi x d x d that'll be 5,0671 e14 M2. Lots of sq mtrs. Pleeenty.
1 M3 of CO2 weight approx 2 kg (a little less actually).
This internet page states that there is today a
3008879,4 MMT thats 300887940000000 kgs... That should be something like 1,5044 e15 M3 of CO2, spread this evenly over this rock, divide this on the area of this rock, we'll find out the thickness of todays' CO2 layer. That should equal to approx 2,97 m of CO2, Can simplify and say that 1000 GMT equal one meter of CO2, not much, think of all the altitude this gas is spread upon...

But then.... They also state that since 1750, there's been an increase in CO2 equal to 1271800 MMT (1271,8 GMT). Ice core samples show that pretty accurate. I've found some pretty similar values for this other places.

So, it seem in the area of 1-1,3 m thickness of CO2 has been added, over the last couple of centuries, all over this place.... That's one helluva blanket, with almost twice the insulating capasity at the air it replaces.... My sleepeing bag is only about 10 cm at top, but it'll keep me warm to -15° C (tested... :rolleyes: ).

So, if we did like the average temperatures we've enjoyed in the period 1000 -1800 screw the "little ice age" that was for pussies and whimps, what we may enjoy here will be much more interesting. :D

I'll keep the pullerts ready for my porch/ veranda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verandah). The moorings will have to be placed on my neighbors doorstep, but I can wait with that until he moves, He'll probably be a bit grumpy if he stumbles upon those going out of his door to get the newspaper....

But I'd rather that more people wake up and realise that I'll need the exersice down to the harbour, and back. If you don't want to change your ways to reduce our impact on the climate, do it to piss me off, making my planned pullers and moorings a lost dream....:P

[masalai]

For those who appreciate information from a "higher source", perhaps this brief interview from Benny Hinn talking to Samuel Doctorian will give some different perspectives.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkbWyUApPEU

and here are some words from Samuel Doctorian http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/The.5.Angels.of.Continents.html

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,
I'm glad that you brought in the graphs from the latest IPCC report (the 2nd graph), because they illustrate my point perfectly WRT scientific bias morphing into propaganda. You stated that the graph represented the work of "about 20 different people". Actually this is not accurate, though you or any other casual observer could easily be forgiven for thinking that this is so. The graph shows lines of different color, presumably from different independent authors and studies, arriving at the same conclusion. Hundreds of independent reconstructions of the historical temperature record have indeed been accomplished by numerous authors and it certainly would have been very easy to compile a bunch of them for this composite graph. Doing so would help eliminate bias or errors; different independent scientists reaching the same conclusion independently gives that conclusion much more weight. This is the essence of peer review.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the case with this graph. Instead it reperesents the studies of only ONE scientist, Biffra, who replaced Mann as lead author after the 'hockey stick' debacle. Now he certainly could have selected reconstructions from many different authors. But instead he chose only one; himself. The graph has been carefully packaged to intentionally give the appearance of peer review with its different color lines, because the idea that the conclusions of the IPCC are the result of strict adherence to the peer review process is what is being sold.

Ok, so the IPCC compilers are clearly trying to sell the credibility of this graph, but that does not in itself mean the graph is wrong. But what if that one scientist (Biffra) was biased? If he truncated 20-30 years of data from the certain traces because they trended downward, which is less scary, would that not prove bias? I mean if he wanted to establish a mean, he should have truncated data from both the lowest trending AND highest trending traces, no? But instead, he truncated the traces which trended lower in an obvious attempt to make his graph look more scary. That is scientific bias, which makes his work so much propaganda. So much for peer review.


On the whole issue of whether or not the IPCC is biased, it stretches credulity that one even needs to ask the question. The UN is a political body. Politics is the struggle for power. The IPCC is an arm of the UN and is therefore part of its agenda. The IPCC regularly suppresses or ignores opinions from its own authors contrary to its preconceived conclusion that AGW is a reality for which we must take decisive action RIGHT NOW. Action of the kind they call for requires that the UN take on unprecedented powers. This would be a big win for any political organization.

But according to their most recent report we can expect the earth to warm about the same amount in this new century as it did in the last. Ditto for sea level increases. Nothing too scary.

Meanwhile, the AGW alarmist crowd continues to make a mockery of scientific peer review.

Jimbo

[SheetWise]

First there was the theory that CO2 was a greenhouse gas -- in researching the theory using ice core samples, it was found there is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and earth temperature.

Any first year student of logic understands that correlation is not causation -- so the research continues to determine which came first, CO2 or increased temperature? All studies I've seen show increased temperature came first, CO2 second.

If this is correct, CO2 is the result of increased temperature, increased temperature is not the result of increased CO2.

Think about all of the ice ages in the past -- not just the "little ice age". The little ice age is simply unique because it was a long term temperature fluctuation we were able to measure and record after the invention of the thermometer -- but these fluctuations have been happening since the beginning of time -- long before any man-made influences.

Consider the question -- CO2 is the result of increased temperature, or increased temperature is the result of increased CO2. Which is the case?

We all know we've had ice ages in the past -- why did they end? Could it be the sun? -- Yes. Would the sun heating the earth raise CO2 levels? -- Yes, because it would cause plankton blooms.

We all know we've had ice ages in the past -- why did they end? Could it be the CO2? -- No evidence. What would raise the CO2 levels (in the absence of man) to cause temperature increases that end the ice ages? -- There's either no answer, or the answer is "natural sources".

All of the evidence points to the sun as the source of climate change. The fact that the polar ice caps on Mars have had the same waxing and waning as the polar ice caps on Earth is seen by some as compelling evidence.

[Guillermo]

Knut, Masalai and others,
Have you read my last post (#838)? What do you think on Spencer's statements?

Cheers.

[juiceclark]

Money and war (often synonymous) drive science. In the interest of Mother Earth (puke), the US Government needs to give me a contract for at least 100 boats to further research this fascinating religion, oops, I mean scientific phenomena of global warming.

The earth cooled a record .7 degrees C in 2007.
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/surprise-the-earth-cooled-down-in-2007/

This terrifying fact means the next ice age could be upon us as well...and so much "faster than we orginally thought!" We're going to be freezing and boiling at the same time. The only living things to survive will be Florida snowbirds (OH in summer and FL in winter) and Al Gore in his mansion insulated by a foot of solid gold stucco.

So, hey Feds, get your top government scientists on this right away...in my boats! I'll give a substantial, two or three percent discount for an order of 100 or more. I'll even engineer a hybrid power situation so you can "save us money too!" <now that's funny!>

p.s. Sheetwise has the smoking gun in my humble opinion. More warmth, more growing area, more plants and, then, more CO2. The record is quite clear. Doh!

[Guillermo]

Since 1998, there has been no ‘global warming’, despite the fact that, during this same period, atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise, from c. 368 ppm by volume in 1998 to c. 384 ppmv in November, 2007. Moreover, another ‘greenhouse gas’, methane, has also been rising, following a period of relative stability, by about 0.5% between 2006 and 2007.

Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, comments: “Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.”

Dr. Velasco Herrera predicts a soon coming new Little Ice Age:
http://banderasnews.com/0808/eden-littleiceage.htm
Cheers.

[bntii]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

""Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

[Guillermo]

depends a bit on whose data you c&p eh? ...

Yes.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_noaa_press_release_in_total_disagareement_with_nasa_satellite/

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

From Spencer's presentation:

"...we have stumbled upon clear and convincing observational evidence of particularly strong negative feedback (low climate sensitivity) from our latest and best satellite instruments. That evidence includes our development of two new methods for extracting the feedback signal from either observational or climate model data, a goal which has been called the “holy grail” of climate research.
The first method separates the true signature of feedback, wherein radiative flux variations are highly correlated to the temperature changes which cause them, from internally-generated radiative forcings, which are uncorrelated to the temperature variations which result from them. It is the latter signal which has been ignored in all previous studies, the neglect of which biases feedback diagnoses in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity).
Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100."

Cheers.

[Guest625101138]

I guess you could argue it has something to do with a solar boat. But otherwise not much boating in this post.

The Australian BOM has some great data available in weather. Here is one example:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cli_var/area_timeseries.pl

The value of this site is its lets people play around with recorded weather data over the continent themselves without having to rely on individual "scientific" manipulation of the data. You are simply relying on the voracity of a collection of half trained offsprings of cow cockies or some such and the accuracy of their instruments. Remembering their existence depends on the vagaries of the weather so they are keen observers.

The unique thing about Australia is that there is not much in the middle apart from maybe one or two cattle per square kilometre and the occasional kangaroo. These are not likely to have changed the country side much in the past 50 years. (Keep clear of the western side of Mt Isa because no doubt it has impacted the landscape for a good distance.) Also not much on either side apart from vast expanses of ocean. I have attached an example of annual average temperate for a spot in the middle of NSW. I guess near Cobar.

The data on the particular page linked goes back to 1950. Some of the individual locations go back to late 1800.

So without going into all the peer review nonsense that has become such a feature of this nonsense thread (notice I did not say crap) you can just do your own analysis and make up your own mind based on unbiased data.

I have also used similar data available for South Africa and less so with the USA data. I know SA is trending drier like Oz.

I should point out that my main interest in this topic is if I will have beach side at the house frontage in my lifetime.

Rick W

[bntii]

Congratulations-
You have managed to find a real champion of "science".

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[

Who in all fairness also says this:

"Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately."

[Guillermo]

Good post, Rick.

bntii,
So, what do you find in Spencer's words that make you doubt about him being a good scientist? Look at his background: the guy doesn't seem to be an stupid or ignorant. I agree with what he says on evolutionism and creationism, which just is we can consider nothing as an absolute truth and we should have an open mind and consider all possibilities. Even on evolutionism.

And anyhow we are only discussing here climate change, and is not fair to try to scorn other opinions by using his/hers thoughts on other subjects. That's fundamentalism, in my opinion.

The very root of scientific development lies on what the ancient greeks called 'epojé' or the 'permanent doubtness condition'. That's what makes us advance.

There is a nice saying: a conclusion is when we get tired of thinking. :)

Cheers.

[bntii]

There is no way for me to gracefully back out other than to say I will endeavor to 'play the ball, not the man'.

Cheers your self!

:)

[Jimbo1490]

And anyhow we are only discussing here climate change, and is not fair to try to scorn other opinions by using his/hers thoughts on other subjects. That's fundamentalism, in my opinion.

Agreed. If you want to go that route, then the AGW crowd better run and hide because their camp has a lot of real ani-human wackos; the stuff they say when they think nobody is listening (but their own) could peel paint, so let's just not go there. Stick to the science.

Jimbo

[bntii]

The UAH website has this which I feel is a balanced summary of Dr. Spencers thoughts on the topic of climate change:

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

To the Senate he allows:

"And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research."

This comment is the broadest possible misrepresentation of this field of study.

[Guillermo]

Pretty interesting link, bntii, thanks.

From there:

"If artificially-enhanced global warming at potentially damaging levels isn't happening, what might that mean in terms of environmental and conservation priorities?

At hearings before Congressional committees and in other settings, we have often been asked the hypothetical question: "If you were in charge, what would you do about climate change and the environment?"

The first thing is to do no harm. With the threat of catastrophic climate change, many proposals have been put forward to limit energy use.

A fundamental point that needs to be understood is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.

None of these proposals will change what the climate is doing enough to notice.

Those are good reasons not to artificially force energy prices up. While raising energy costs might damage the economy, it would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially those people living on the world's social and economic fringes.

While no direct evidence of ecological damage from carbon dioxide has been found, that is no excuse for reducing environmental protection.

We shouldn't undo the good things that have been done to clean the air and water. More should be done, especially in developing countries.

Beyond quality of life issues, human life itself is significantly more threatened by polluted water, polluted air, habitat destruction, unbridled population growth and a host of related ecological problems than it is by global climate change on the scales that we have seen in the past 28 years.

Millions of children around the world die every year due to water borne diseases. Tens of millions of people are forced to breathe air that is blackened and made toxic by fumes from leaded gasoline, industrial pollution and cooking fires.

Women and girls in some developing countries are forced to walk miles each day from their villages to the receding edges of the forests to harvest green wood and other low-energy biomass for the fires they use to cook their meals and heat their homes.

A U.N. report estimated that 1.6 million people — most of them women and children — die each year due to indoor pollution from cooking fires

While the extent of human impacts on global climate change remains uncertain, research by our colleagues at UAH confirms that deforestation and land conversion are changing regional weather patterns and the local climate over some parts of the world.

We should also do what the U.S. does best: We should encourage and support the scientists and engineers who will develop new sources of low-cost energy. Just as transportation was "de-horsified" in the last century, we believe energy in the 21st century will continue to be de-carbonized.

Ironically, actions that artificially inflate the cost of energy might hamper those efforts, as healthy economies can better afford to find and develop alternative energy sources and cleaner energy technologies.

We should also enhance the national and international infrastructure for dealing with climate and weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. We know these events will continue to happen whether the climate changes or not. Everyone would benefit if we were better prepared when they happen.

Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately. Perhaps, at some point in the future, we might even be able to reliably forecast what the climate will do in future generations."

— Dr. John R. Christy & Dr. Roy Spencer
Earth System Science Center
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Amen.
Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

The UAH website has this which I feel is a balanced summary of Dr. Spencers thoughts on the topic of climate change:

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

To the Senate he allows:

"And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research."

This comment is the broadest possible misrepresentation of this field of study.

I'm taken aback by this comment. After all, AGW proponents have all but admitted that they look at climate processes that they now understand (like the GH effect) and make predictions as to what the earth's temperature "should be" given their current understanding of those natural processes. Any temperature they observe that is "excess" to their predicted temperature is AUTOMATICALLY attributed to anthropogenic causes! If that's not both bias and hubris, I don't even know what is :(

Imagine if we did that with ALL natural phenomena we don't understand? Oh wait; the greens already do that :D Remember DDT VS bald eagles? The deformed frogs? Now we have the decline in bee popuations. The first two are now known positively NOT attributable to anthropogenic causes; third item is still pending but the greens have already weighed in with their opinion, LONG before the science is anything like conclusive-as usual.

Until only the last decade or so, the GH effect was the only known driver of global temps; no other mechanisms were even acknowledged to exist, let alone understood. ALL temperature fluctuation past and present were said to be explainable through this effect.

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

I'm so glad that global warming stopped in 1998, it means I won't have to throw away a couple of nice wooly jumpers I have! Probably also explain this absolutly 'shiite' summer we're having

[masalai]

Maybe all you northerners will enjoy the freezing zone and us clever dicks will bask in the warmth of the southern oceans? 'cause it is warming down this way - slowly and steadily.....

[bntii]

"Taken aback"

Oh my!

How you doing Jimbo?- been awhile but figured I was missing the fun here at the old global warming thread.

Still checking your facts I see:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:6.2
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/366.html

[safewalrus]

Maybe Mas, there again if it gets that good down there maybe we'll all come down and the world will turn upside down and you'll be a Northener and we can all start again? confused? You will be!!

[Jimbo1490]

Oh my!

How you doing Jimbo?- been awhile but figured I was missing the fun here at the old global warming thread.

Still checking your facts I see:



From the frog deformity study, study italics mine:

"This is the first study to show that nutrient enrichment drives the abundance of these parasites, increasing levels of amphibian infection and subsequent malformations," said Johnson. "The research has implications for both worldwide amphibian declines and for a wide array of diseases potentially linked to nutrient pollution, including cholera, malaria, West Nile virus and diseases affecting coral reefs."

Many hundreds of studies have been done on this subject since the late '80's and until this Sept 2007 study NOT ONE could make such a link, though many have tried. Which do you believe, the one or the many? You are always touting the importance of concensus, after all. I know this takes a bit more digging and reading than you are probably willing to invest (one good dig leads to another) but the trouble with this particular study is that it fails to show how all these nutrients got into streams and lakes at the tops of mountains and high plains where there is no farm runoff. It is those locations where the problem has been particularly acute. Of course the authors did not mention this; why should they knock their own work?. I'm mentioning it. Their work doubtless does increase our understanding of what is happening, but the 'blame the humans' mantra is still just indicative of a particular philosophical outlook rather than a useful tool let alone an acceptable bias for a scientist.

The paper on DDT which you linked was not a study but some sort of assessment paper based on the works of others, namely the Dewitt, Hill and Hudson. Of course this paper took all the assertions of these studies as Gospel from Jesus, which of course it is not. In fact, these studies are largely discredited now because of the following: (Some of these were even contemporaneous.)

The big problem with these studies is that they consistently dosed birds with DDT to achieve serum concentrations from hundreds to several thousand times higher than ever recorded in any wild birds known to have been exposed to DDT from agricultural or mosquito control uses. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

In even these studies, egg shell thinning was consistently less than in affected birds found in the wild. So how could DDT be the cause?

[Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

Subsequent research proved that many other factors influenced this phenomena and that ultimately DDT was not the cause. Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.

[Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

Furthermore, egg shell thinning is not correlated with ANY pesticide residues.

[Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]


Thomas , you better check your own facts before you go after mine.

Jimbo

[the1much]

DDT is the cause because egg shells get thin from the absence of calcium,,,and ddt kills insects at MUCH lower levels then birds and humans,,,therefore the birds dont have the calcium from the insects they used to.to go even further,,,look at the average weights of birds 50 years ago,,,and their average now.
and malformations are a genetic trait,,, which means its been passed onto the "young ones",,,what we're seeing now in malformations waqs a problem that "originated" in the grandparents.not many diseases cause malformations in animals,,,,it poisons with certain chemical's cause genetic defects,,,,ddt is full of em. and YES i KNOW im talking FACTS,,,,or at least the genetics lab i worked in said they were,,hehe ;)

and i think we all should join PETA. ,, sad thing is we already missed their march on bearskin hats,,,,damit :D

[masalai]

OooOOooH, I love that dress style - "Thongs and a banner" - suits me fine - I like to wear a "lungi & a polo-shirt".....

[the1much]

i'd wear seal skin if it gave me THEIR attention,,hehe :D

[bntii]

“Thomas , you better check your own facts before you go after mine.”

The material you provided on this issue from junkscience.org are not "facts". You might look at the name of the site- it indicates what it contains.

The association of DDT and its metabolite derivative DDE with reproductive success in raptors is solid established science. This association is represented by THOUSANDS of research papers spanning forty years. Please read the overview I provided and then go here to fill out your knowledge on the strength of these scientific findings:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=DDE+egg&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Frogs–

Please review the available body of scientific work to gain an understanding of how the consensus is being formed on this issue.
Better yet, take a look at nutrient loading and the associated eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems. You will find that this process, and its destructive consequences are profound. So profound that the premise of overreaction by “greens” to the deleterious consequences on a relatively peripheral topic such as amphibian mutation is absurd.

[masalai]

NOAH II

In the year 2008, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in England, and said:
Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans.

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying: You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

Noah! He roared, I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?
Forgive me, Lord, begged Noah, 'but things have changed.

I needed a building permit.

I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system.

My neighbours claim that I've violated the neighbourhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations.
We had to go to the Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines
and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea.
I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl.

I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.
They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.
They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane
to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the Environmental Agency ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the HM Customs seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked,
'You mean you're not going to destroy the world?'

'No,' said the Lord.
'The government beat me to it.'

[safewalrus]

Now that sounds familiar........if a little hasty! You won't get anywhere if your hasty!!

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

DDT has very similar effects as pyrethrins and pyrethroids, both of which remain in use to this day. As mentioned in the articles I cited, thinning of egg shells has many different causes. In at least three of the articles turned up in the Google search you suggested, high serum mercury levels were also present. This is also known to cause egg shell thinning, but has nothing to do with DDT exposure. No attempt was made (or could be made?) to factor this out. If DDT is so bad, and pyrethrins and pyrethroids so similar and still widely used, then why have raptor birds recovered so well? What about the carefully controlled feeding experiments that showed DDT didn't cause egg shell thinning? Don't they count? Could it be (as suggested in the articles I cited ) that many of the original conclusions are suspect? Trying to arrive at a conclusion as to what is causing a problem like egg shell thinning in wild birds has to be a very daunting task as there are so many confounding factors, not the least of which is other industrial pollutants like mercury. I'd personally put a lot more stock in a controlled feeding experiment where all the animal's serum levels can be controlled.

The environmental movement has a long history of using largely discredited "Extrapolated LD-50" type measurements to arrive at 'safe' and 'toxic' serum levels. The first article you posted on this subtopic were ALL extrapolated LD-50 measurements. Read it and see for your self. These are FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED methods and can't be trusted to give anything like an accurate estimate of what is a safe exposure level and what is not. The LD-50 for pure water (for an adult human) is something like a couple of gallons (or about 75 g/Kg) and we absolutely KNOW that pure water can be safely imbibed at levels 1/100 this level every day for the rest of your life! Every substance has a toxic threshold; extrapolated LD-50 measurements ignore this fact.

And none of these earlier environmental studies seem to take into account the sheer tragic numbers of these animals that 'sport' shooters (used to) slaughter. I think at the time it was happening it was just not a well-known fact. Many western states had certain 'gather points' where thousands of raptors of different species used to congregate. The so-called 'sport' hunters loved these places and would sit there and shoot these birds down all day. Certain government bounties probably did a lot to foster a hatred of these birds as pests, too.

The truth is their numbers were already on the rebound years before DDT was ever banned (largely due to changing attitudes of the sport shooters) begging the question once again of how DDT could have been the cause of their decline in the first place.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Might I suggest going here - http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html to download "hour 2" for Aug 23, 2008" featuring - - - M. David Stirling, - VP, Pacific Legal Foundation. . . . and Author is being interviewed and knows someone (aside from "Pharlap" the Australian race horse) who regularly took DDT at his lectures) all good fun stuff on bureaucracy and others making rash decisions to "save us from ourselves".....

Matthew Simmons
Book Information

[Meanz Beanz]

"Green Gone Wild"... yes the DDT thing was new to me!

I believe in climate change this year.... its flippin freezing down here!

[masalai]

Ahhhh get over it Heinz, that is normal Victorian weather.....

[Pericles]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34315.html

http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2004/04/ddt-is-actually-good.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html?ex=1397016000&en=4ebf5b1fab869680&ei=5007&partner=X

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/hey-theyre-only-africans.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/04/bureaucracy-that-will-kill-us-by.html

What a pity that the world is no longer warming!!

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/08/perfect-storm.html

[the1much]

bout time Perz ,,,,,hiyas Beanzy,,,,i cant believe its changing,,,,i heard bout 12' snow drifts here in texas a few years ago,,,hahahaha :D

[Meanz Beanz]

Ahhhh get over it Heinz, that is normal Victorian weather.....


Bollocks...

[Meanz Beanz]

bout time Perz ,,,,,hiyas Beanzy,,,,i cant believe its changing,,,,i heard bout 12' snow drifts here in texas a few years ago,,,hahahaha :D

Fosty oil! LOL

[the1much]

doesnt gas burn better the colder it is?

[Meanz Beanz]

I just found out about an LNG system for cars that delivers liquid hydrocarbon to the cylinder. They claim more power and 10% better economy than petrol, its normally the other way around with LNG! It achieves a sort of chemical super charging delivering colder, denser, more heavily fuel laden air to the cylinder. Considering that LNG is 50c to 70c a litre and we have heaps of it down here thats a good thing!

So anyway I'd say yes... you are prolly right but I dunno for sure!

Cheers
Mbz

[Riverrat1969]

Climate change is inevitable, and continual..........not my opinion, but fact born out by geologic history. This part of Virginia used to be a shallow tropical sea twenty million years ago; dig down twenty feet and you find Miocene Period fossils........ can anyone say that THAT period of global warming was caused by man?

I won't deny that man made gases from factories and vehicles may contribute to SOME warming, but can anyone define how many undersea vents releasing methane gas are on the sea floor? No, they all haven't been discovered yet.

Can anyone give a solid number of how many CFS of these gases are vented yearly? Do these gases vent at a steady rate, or are these rates cyclical, similar to seismic activity?

Can anyone accurately predict when the next volcano will erupt, and give a definitive number on how many CFS of gas it will expel? How many cubic yards of debris will it blow into the atmosphere?

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the proportion of man made "hot house gases" are about as significant as a hiccup in a hurricane, compared to what our planet naturally belches and farts out on a daily basis.

Ok, let's say that global warming is real, that the ice caps are melting, and the ocean levels are rising..........so what? We can't change the natural cycles of nature, despite what the huckster politicians and the quasi-governmental "Green" groups would like for us to believe.

Rising sea levels will make coastal cities become new Venice-like cities. More territorial shallow waters will mean more fishing grounds, and newly formed coast lines will be the source of money, making new communities and resort areas. Adaptation is man's best quality.

I hear about the polar bears losing their ice; they'll go extinct. Well, Darwin's theory will probably allow the polar bears to evolve, and adapt, and become more like brown bears AGAIN.........like they were before turning white, and getting longer necks.

Newly formed coast lines, new cruising areas, new fishing grounds, lower fuel bills for home heating, less money expended on snow plowing roads to keep them open.........I see opportunity, not doom. Mother Earth breathes, farts, and lives..........nothing stays in a static condition for long. Change and adapt is what we can do, and the fear mongering created by the doom and gloom segment of society is merely a carney sham to shake us down for more money.

The next thing you know, we'll being seeing "Vince", from the Sham Wow advertisements, on television, hustling us for some global warming scam.

http://www.shamwow.com

The next thing will be "Vince for President".........."I'll bring you change, and guarantee the Whitehouse windows will be cleaner than ever!"

Bottom line: whatever is happening, will happen. We will adapt. The Peri Reis map of 1513 shows that mankind knew of the Antarctic land mass.........and mapped it..........when there was no ice covering of Antarctica. Hhhmmm.........must have been really warm during mankind's inhabitation of the earth millenia ago.
Do you suppose the political hustlers back then were pandering to the global cooling crowd?

[the1much]

i think we ALL agree MAN is not the cause of the "normal" warming or cooling,,,,but thats "NORMAL",,,but,,,,can anyone give what the "normal" #'s are for a "natural" warming?,, and just because its happened before,, without OUR help,,,does that mean its happening this time for the same reason? for all we know some big@ss comet might have caused the last warming,,,,,,NO ONE knows.so unless you KNOW,, and can show PROOF of "why" them last coolings and warmings have happened,,, then ya all just p!ssing in the wind.
and having a history of "millions" of years,,,,and something happens once or twice,,,that makes it "natural" all of a sudden?,,, most kids have lied to their parents a "few" times in their lives,,,,so should the parents expect and do nothing about,, the next time their kid lies?

[masalai]

Jim an excellent analogy - My Lovely Lady was impressed, as her Doctoral thesis is heavily into using analogies as a teaching method.....

[the1much]

i aint smat nuff to say things the regular way,,, need to find ways of saying it not using words over 6 letters long,,hehe ;)

[masalai]

Getting better Jim, some werds are 8?

[bntii]

Jimbo,

“DDT has very similar effects as pyrethrins and pyrethroids, both of which remain in use to this day. As mentioned in the articles I cited, thinning of egg shells has many different causes.“

Bunk- these are “bio-pesticides” selected specifically due to the lack of toxicity demonstrated by Organochlorines such as DDT. Pyrethrin is a natural product derived from chrysanthemums.


“In at least three of the articles turned up in the Google search you suggested, high serum mercury levels were also present. This is also known to cause egg shell thinning, but has nothing to do with DDT exposure. No attempt was made (or could be made?) to factor this out.”

That literature search cites some 4500 papers……..


“What about the carefully controlled feeding experiments that showed DDT didn't cause egg shell thinning? Don't they count? Could it be (as suggested in the articles I cited ) that many of the original conclusions are suspect?”

Please see referenced material:

“DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by
causing eggshell thinning (which leads to egg breakage) and by causing
embryo deaths. However, different groups of birds vary greatly in
their sensitivity to these chemicals; predatory birds are extremely
sensitive and, in the wild, often show marked shell thinning, whilst
gallinaceous birds are relatively insensitive. Because of the
difficulties of breeding birds of prey in captivity, much of the
experimental work has been done with insensitive species, which have
often shown little or no shell thinning.”


“Trying to arrive at a conclusion as to what is causing a problem like egg shell thinning in wild birds has to be a very daunting task as there are so many confounding factors, not the least of which is other industrial pollutants like mercury. I'd personally put a lot more stock in a controlled feeding experiment where all the animal's serum levels can be controlled.”

These studies are well represented in the literature


"Extrapolated LD-50"

Please try to stay focused:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html


“And none of these earlier environmental studies seem to take into account the sheer tragic numbers of these animals that 'sport' shooters (used to) slaughter. I think at the time it was happening it was just not a well-known fact. Many western states had certain 'gather points' where thousands of raptors of different species used to congregate. The so-called 'sport' hunters loved these places and would sit there and shoot these birds down all day. Certain government bounties probably did a lot to foster a hatred of these birds as pests, too.”

There is a broad difference between reproductive success and adult mortality


“The truth is their numbers were already on the rebound years before DDT was ever banned (largely due to changing attitudes of the sport shooters) begging the question once again of how DDT could have been the cause of their decline in the first place.”

The truth is that in spite of dramatic rebounds, reproductive success is still low in many areas due to the highly persistent nature of this poison in the environment:

“As the climate warms, frozen stores of the insecticide DDT are trickling out of Antarctic glaciers and building up in penguins, say researchers”



Perhaps we should take this lead and return to topic,

Thomas

[Petros]

http://acuf.org/issues/issue114/080817cul.asp

Warming Consensus Shattered

by Dennis T. Avery

Issue 114 - August 20, 2008

The "consensus" on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound.

Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published "Climate Sensitivity Revisited," by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

(If you want to see the science, go here. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent—thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society.

Physics & Society says: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S."

The journal then offers both the Monckton paper and a response by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, of the California Polytechnic Institute. P&S also issued an open invitation to "further contributions from the physics community."

It had to happen. Too much evidence has mounted against CO2 as a cause of the modern warming. Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic). The oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they "stopped warming 4–5 years ago" according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide. The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased. Rain has returned to Australia, reminding us again it is naturally the driest continent on earth.

The crowning blow: After nine years of non-warming, the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years. The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C; the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within "living memory"!

The current cooling doesn’t mean another Ice Age is looming. There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.

NASA’s Jason satellite tells us the Pacific Ocean has entered a cool phase. Historically, these have lasted 25–30 years. After that, there may be some additional warming. However, the 1,500-year cycles typically shift abruptly; we should already have most of this one’s warming. When we’ll get the inevitable cooling? Probably centuries from now.

The warming debate is far from over, but an actual debate looks likely. Reputations and huge bundles of cash have been bet on man-made warming, including billions in government funding for climate research. The UN’s reputation—and perhaps its future—are on the line.

The American Physical Society itself has issued a statement: It stands by its belief that human-emitted CO2 is "changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the earth’s climate" and notes that Physics & Society is not peer-reviewed. Nonetheless, the debate is finally and openly joined, after 20 years of the Greens proclaiming humanity’s guilt for wrecking the planet as beyond sane discussion.

Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years,

[bntii]

There is no challange to the consensus:

http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html

Fun to follow the debacle, but this is not a valid scientific paper.

[Meanz Beanz]

This DDT thing blows me away, I grew up with the unquestioned "knowledge" that this stuff was deadly and not to be trusted, then I find that some dude has been eating it and survived to 84 only to die of a heart attack, presumably not DDT related :rolleyes: ---> I really don't know what to make of it all?

[masalai]

Heinz, Just another mystery to add to the collection?

[Meanz Beanz]

LOL... these days I don't believe what I say let alone what they say! :D

[bntii]

"I grew up with the unquestioned "knowledge" that this stuff was deadly and not to be trusted"


Perhaps you grew up with a lot of misconceptions

I used to ride my bike in clouds of the stuff when we would chase the spraying trucks.

The toxicology in regards to humans is not in questions here-

The premise that reproduction in raptors is not effected by DDT in the environment is.

[the1much]

This DDT thing blows me away, I grew up with the unquestioned "knowledge" that this stuff was deadly and not to be trusted, then I find that some dude has been eating it and survived to 84 only to die of a heart attack, presumably not DDT related :rolleyes: ---> I really don't know what to make of it all?

i breathe more paint fumes then ANYONE you know,,and you wouldnt know if i didnt tell you,,,, does that mean its not bad to breathe?.how come some people can smoke crack for years,,and some smoke it once and die?

[Meanz Beanz]

Perhaps you grew up with a lot of misconceptions

That's as maybe but it was just the popular view that I had no reason to challenge or think about, not leading a rural life... they stopped using it for a reason... or so I figured, you know smart people make these decisions.... right? :p

We all live with a lot of misconceptions, I seem to be running into more and more, and more stuff that once taken for granted now turns out to be not quite what it seemed.

The older I get the more confused it gets....:p :D or is that me :P

[the1much]

the thing is,,,,,how can we tell if they WERE right,,or ARE right now.

[bntii]

"or is that me"

:)

I have been struggling to keep it clean but you did open the door....

:P

good morning Beanz

What an idiot I am- sitting here mucking about in this mud pit when the the fine clean air of the boat yard calls.

[Meanz Beanz]

i breathe more paint fumes then ANYONE you know,,and you wouldnt know if i didnt tell you,,,, does that mean its not bad to breathe?.how come some people can smoke crack for years,,and some smoke it once and die?

Jim...

This guy knew the science and he was certain that this stuff was not harmful to humans, so certain he ate 200g in front of his audience before speaking about it. I think that the science would indisputably come down with the verdict that the paint will kill ya... specially if you eat it before making speeches!

I really don't pretend to know much about the subject, I had assumed that the banning of DDT meant it was cut and dry, the stuff had major draw backs... but not so it seems. The pro case say millions have died because it they stopped using it in the tropics.

I'm still surprised its in dispute, by that I mean I'd have thought they got it right but ?

[Meanz Beanz]

"or is that me"

:)

I have been struggling to keep it clean but you did open the door....

:P

good morning Beanz

What an idiot I am- sitting here mucking about in this mud pit when the the fine clean air of the boat yard calls.

Go sailing while U can... winters coming :D Still winter cold down here & its 10pm... thats my excuse!

[bntii]

"They" did get it right beanz. The science is "cut and dry".

This issue is now only debated on blogs.

The debate on how reasonable it is to use this substance to battle malaria is a whole other issue.

From what I gather- the current use (spraying interior walls of buildings with DDT), is effective in combating malarial mosquitoes and should not be curtailed.

[bntii]

deep sigh......

no- its not sailing I'm in for today.

Bolting a 40' rubbing stake back on some clients boat- a thankless task...

Deep sigh..

[Meanz Beanz]

"They" did get it right beanz. The science is "cut and dry".

So is it bad or good... keep it simple, its late! I mean this guy was eating it? It can't be all that much of a bogie if he was having it for horses-duvee's, no? yes?... now I'm confused again.

[bntii]

It IS bad for some birds

It is not all that toxic to humans- I would not eat it to prove a point.

[Meanz Beanz]

DDT-eating scientist exposes eco-fraud (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45063)

Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=884)

Fighting werds...

[masalai]

Hi again Heinz, maybe it only had a small portion (enough to allow detection by the distinctive smell)...... - I will not test his claim - ever.... It is certainly very effective at killing the anopheles mosquito, which the females are the blood suckers and hence malaria carriers (I was in PNG when DDT was still in common and regular use)...

[Meanz Beanz]

It IS bad for some birds

It is not all that toxic to humans- I would not eat it to prove a point.

I don't think I'd be temped either....

So was it worth banning or is it just some political beat up? How many birds? Can we use it in a way that doesn't stymie birds? Questions questions... yeah yeah later I know... gotta go bolt a boat together... god speed and all that...

Night all!

[bntii]

In life we must be able to distinguish between sources of information.

If you wish to understand science- go to the source material- study and decide for yourself.

If you wish to simply listen to editorials on political blogs, you will get a bias to the stance held by that blog.

[masalai]

CYA, sleep tight, don't let the bugs bite, spray the walls with DDT & you'll be right?

well put bntii, - - - - niters all....

[Meanz Beanz]

Hi again Heinz, maybe it only had a small portion (enough to allow detection by the distinctive smell)...... - I will not test his claim - ever.... It is certainly very effective at killing the anopheles mosquito, which the females are the blood suckers and hence malaria carriers (I was in PNG when DDT was still in common and regular use)...

Everything is linked, can we ever truly say we understand the full effect of the things we do... best endeavours and all that and don't get hung up about it I guess! Upsides, downsides... leaves me upside down. :D

[masalai]

Be the optimist (I was going to say "downside up" but that is gloomy also).... I try to do what I can and enjoy what I've got....

[bntii]

You have touched on the heart of this issue.

Choices.

Cost.

This is the key importance of this debate- factual assessment of cost to the environment must be reviewed to arrive at sound policy decisions.


Climate change anyone?

If anything this foray into DDT should indicate to all viewers how simple issues can be confounded by political debate.

[Meanz Beanz]

If you with to simply listen to editorials on political blogs, you will get a bias to the stance held by that blog.

Same can be said of the argument that won the day... nothing is free of political bias, less and less so science these days being the funding whore that it has become... to be pure it needs to be obscure, unpopular. If the subject is contentious even the science comes under a cloud... and then if there is money & profit involved... what is "right" gets murkier.

Some one said we could have have saved millions of lives, was it hundreds of? anyway LOL that's just what the planet needs more people! The facts and what is the "right" decision are two different things.. all depends on your values and moral frame work. Do we still think it was right? I have no idea... I'm still hooked up on the cheap eating the stuff stunt... you can do that, gawd if you'd have asked me that I'd gone for probable death as the outcome... yech!

[Meanz Beanz]

Be the optimist (I was going to say "downside up" but that is gloomy also).... I try to do what I can and enjoy what I've got....

Being an ape I do upside down quite well...

[Meanz Beanz]

If anything this foray into DDT should indicate to all viewers how simple issues can be confounded by political debate.

Oh yeah....

[juiceclark]

Recent genetic testing revealed the Micmac Indians of Newfoundland are of Egyptian decendancy. We knew this and could read it after the "Rosetta Stone" because their writing is/was nearly identical to Egyptian hieroglyphics. In decifering many of their ancient scratchings, there is constant mention of civilized people living in what is now the "grand banks" fishing grounds. Mentions of a large city, fortifications...it's all there if you'd like.

Sinclair's maps of Greenland in the 1400s shows rivers where there are now glaciers. In fact, so do the ancient maps showing the complete coasts of North and South America well before Columbus' lil' trip. Was the little ice age enough to grow all that ice? Will it matter when the next Krakatoa kills well over a billion people of starvation?

So, you ask, what's the point? The point is we don't know a damned thing. Moreover, you'd have a better shot at the truth asking a street corner drunk than those who rely on government grants for a living or the most vapid and shameless grad school flunky in America, Al Gore. Pollution is not good. The nasty cloud belching from SE China puts a little color on polar ice that helps it melt. But to fall for the new religion those that want to rule the world have created to further corral the masses is just stupid.

What's with you baby boomers anyway? I thought you always wanted to "fight the power?" Every crazy and restrictive law the encroaching gov't passes in the name of something green appears alright with your gang. But greenies are just big government socialists in LL Bean clothing their Mommy bought them for Christmas. You used to drop acid and have an orgy in a mud puddle and now your kid goes to jail if he has a beer on his breath. Your goose and gander are all screwed-up!

Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign
5-man Electric Band, 1970

Manatees are delicious and nutricious!
JuiceClark, 2008
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg120/juiceclark/manateeNazi.jpg

[Meanz Beanz]

Nah its all changed... boomers are the power now :D we just fight the kids.

[bntii]

Same can be said of the argument that won the day...... nothing is free of political bias, less and less so science these days being the funding whore that it has become...

Sure if you are willing to ignore the reams of solid research which led to "the day" and was the very reason for the ban.

Take that and the FORTY years of well established literature documenting the strength of this causation following that day.

The fact that a scientific topic has policy/political implications is often tauted as a reason that the research is suspect. This supposition is often presented with no clear understanding of the science in question or any real investment in understanding the research.

.................................

I do not remember any of the debate as it occurred. I have no doubt that some spokespersons for the ban were strident and used exaggerated claims to support their views. I don't have the slightest concern that some Sierra club member stood in hearings and ranted about pesticides killing our babies. The actual research was unequivocal and remains so today. This was a sound policy decision based on sound scientific findings.

[the1much]

Beanzy needs to read ALOT,,,, he has no life ,, hehe :P

[masalai]

No No No No No yes Jim, that seems to be his life :D:D:D:D a learned man (a reader)

[Jimbo1490]

If you wish to understand science- go to the source material- study and decide for yourself.



Oh if only you could take a bit of your own advice when it comes to the AGW debate.:rolleyes:

Humans make a tiny, really insignificant puff of GHG's. Our CO2 contribution is smaller than the error bars for the estimates of total tonnage CO2 in the atmosphere.

All CO2, anthropogenic and natural, is responsible for only a tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect; water vapor is the greenhouse gas of merit and is entirely natural in origin.

Temperatures historically rise long before CO2 levels rise. The current warming trend is no exception.

Humans have been releasing CO2 in any significant tonnage only since circa the 1940's, while the current bit of warming is many decades older than this.

These are the UNDISPUTED facts on climate change The interpretation of the above facts is disputed, of course, but these facts are not in dispute.

The 'fingerprint' of greenhouse warming is missing; the atmosphere is warming in the wrong place and way. This is virtually the only fact in dispute, as the AGW alarm crowd insists that the fingerprint is there.

Trouble is they make this assertion by relying on

1) data from (surface) measurements we KNOW are inaccurate and

2) 'secret' (therefore NOT peer reviewable) corrections to the (satellite based) measurements we know are far more accurate and

3) unbelievably sloppy (but most likely fraudulent) corrections to the surface measurement data that purport to exonerate those measurements as trustworthy when even the most cursory review of the state of the surface measurement system says they aren't; they can't be.



The above constitute major abrogations of the scientific peer review process (one case is really more like fraud). Then the greens prattle on about how every paper on climate change must be peer reviewed before we can put any stock in it! Why didn't their peer review process catch these little problems? It took skeptics to catch these errors and frauds. But the greens haven't let any of these inconvenient truths rain on their parade, no sir! the AGW crowd (like you, Thomas) continues to pretend that this tainted critical data is GOOD! Secret corrections? No worries! Just TRUST THEM :D What hypocrisy.

Your emperor is naked, man!

Jimbo

[masalai]

Hi Jimbo, So is someone else ? (I just feel like stirring as one sanctimonious prick is wont to do occasionally......) :D

[masalai]

bntii, wot line? seems in the form of reasonable debate so far?

Jimbo my comment only related to your last line (in post 927) as I presume I am - - all too often?

[Meanz Beanz]

Sure if you are willing to ignore the reams of solid research which led to "the day" and was the very reason for the ban.

You sound like all you want is a fight....

[Jimbo1490]

By John McLean, noted AGW skeptic on the subject of peer review:

"The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.

In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work. "

Again the question arises: If AGW is such a slam-dunk, why this ******** :?:


Thomas,

I know it's hard for you, but try to address the QUESTION rather than proffer some sort of 'cull factor' as license for you to discard as worthless the author and his argument.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Jimbo, This is a debate vested in preconcieved ideas where none can sway another except on the day when "I told you so" and even then likely remain in denial....

[bntii]

"You sound like all you want is a fight...."

Yeah- I got that impression too.......
I even got tired of listening to myself talk.
:eek:

but this is not the case- just how I was coming across

I have some interest that the science is known and not distorted by these sorts of debates
that is the reason I pushed on this issue which I hope we can now burrrrrryyyyyy

so I can go back to sparing with old jimbo on his "AWG crowd" statements

again appologies:)
:)

[bntii]

Thomas,

I know it's hard for you, but try to address the QUESTION rather than proffer some sort of 'cull factor' as license for you to discard as worthless the author and his argument.

Jimbo

If we BOTH agree to this we will have made significant progress

:P

the science presented should be just that- science

MUCH more on this later- should not surprise you eh?

willing?

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas

BTW you 'winning' salvo on DDT was deeply flawed. Pyrethrins, while initially discovered in chrysanthemum blossoms, are not currently manufactured that way. The provenance of the chemical, whether natural or synthetic is furthermore of no significance as a predictor of toxicity in the body. There is NO scientific evidence that cells prefer 'natural' chemicals over synthetic ones.

Pyrethroids OTOH NEVER were of natural origin, they are entirely synthetic. In either case, the action of these pesticides is virtually identical to DDT in that they are calcium channel blockers that interfere with acetylcholine in neuro transmission. The key difference between these and DDT is dwell time. DDT is a much more durable molecule than pyrethrins, which last only a few hour to a few days vs some number of years for DDT. This is largely because pyrethrins are hydrophillic and DDT is lipohphillic.

But a super short-lived insecticide is NOT what farmers want. So chemists synthesized the pyrethroids which, like DDT, are lipophillic. Pyrethroids last from a few months to a few years in the environment. Not quite as long as DDT, but nearly so. They have been implicated as endocrine disruptors, just like DDT(this is the action suspected of causing the eggshell thinning, BTW). They are suspected estuarine contaminants, just like DDT. The fact that they are a little less persistent in the environment is meaningless in the context of a currently widely used product, which is sprayed by the ton, EVERY DAY.

And yet the raptor birds recovered.

NUMEROUS environmental groups are working constantly to get pyrethroids banned, just like DDT.

I'm not the one who confuses adult mortality with chick survival; the greens already did that during the original hearings on DDT. They took lower chick survival rates and blamed the falling numbers discovered there on the falling adult population counts, when the situation is much more complex than that.

I don't have a problem staying on topic WRT LD-50 extrapolations; YOU brought those up when YOU presented a paper that used those to establish a safe threshold for DDT and purported extrapolated pathogenisis rates outside of that threshold.

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

Yu know you can pontificate all you bloody want and go on ad infinitum, but when it gets to the bottom line there's bugger all any of you, as an individual, can do about it! And the more you 'spout' the less chance you'll ever get together as a group and do something!

Still keep talking, while your talking you ain't doing TO much damage (till some bloody numpty finds that the internet causes global warming / cooling; whichever one is popular this week! You know somebody will - you just can't help it!

[Guest-3-12-09-9-21]

Sphere of control = the area you are absolutely able to influence and control.

Sphere of influence = the area you are able to influence the outcome of (sometimes more, sometimes less).

Sphere of concern = the area that you feel the need to have control over.

I feel that to be happy you have to realize that there are many things that may concern you, but bloody very few things you have absolute control over.

It's okay to be concerned about the environment - but until you go around and stop all cows from flatuating there are areas that you will absolutely NOT be able to control.

Have you ever noticed how miserable most fanatical people are? I think it is the fact that they don't realize that they can't control something that concerns them.

I like to be happy. I only try to control items that I know are within my sphere of control. That's why cold beer makes me happy - I can control the temperature of my refrigerator, but not the temperature of the planet.

[juiceclark]

bntii wants us to change his mind...because he knows GW is a scam. But to believe it is a scam would discredit all the socialist blowhards who are so popular with the MSM these days. It's not easy when you finally reach a level of learned intelligence that reveals false idols. Truth is often ugly and sad...but the alternative is a false world. It takes courage to see the truth in a blizzard of BS.

bntii, let them go man...they are voodoo dealers of death. Those that promise to make the world fair and green if only you sign over your freedoms of self-determination are the only ones who can insure disparity and third world poverty for all but themselves.

--what's a "numpty" anyway?

[Meanz Beanz]

--what's a "numpty" anyway?

Pommy slang yah daft Septic :P


Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.

A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment

A reckless, absent minded or unwise person

"No. That wisnae wit she meant, ya big numpty!"
i.e. "Silly billy", "You big dafty"
"That numpty's driving with no lights on!"

[Guest-3-12-09-9-21]

wow...almost like English.

[safewalrus]

More like American, it originated with the Military, yep we still have a few out there, helping you out when we can, showing you how it should be done when we can't! Trying to prevent as many clusterfucks as possible, watch that weather Chuck, not me, or it will bea complete clusterfuck ya numpty! Stay safe you hear!

[bntii]

I don't know Jimbo-
Who do you think Mcleans target audience is in this piece?
He seems to be just arguing for lessening/altering our criteria for the discernment of informations validity...

Peer review is not as I see it a measure of "truth" is a scientific sense. It is only a gatekeeper for acceptable methodology. Established scientific truths are developed by the findings in question being assimilated into the field of study- or not- as the case may be.

This is from 'Peer Review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas':

"The peer review of scientific papers submitted to journals for publication has a widely proven
record as a means to test the plausibility of new findings. However, scientists never regard peer reviewed
research as beyond criticism. Peer review of a paper is just the first stage: a hypothesis
that survives this first test must go on to be re-tested, and judged for its coherence with work in
related areas."

Thomas

[masalai]

sometimes.....

[Meanz Beanz]

More like American, it originated with the Military, yep we still have a few out there, helping you out when we can, showing you how it should be done when we can't! Trying to prevent as many clusterfucks as possible, watch that weather Chuck, not me, or it will bea complete clusterfuck ya numpty! Stay safe you hear!


Scottish actually...

[Petros]

Warming Consensus Shattered
by Dennis T. Avery
Issue 114 - August 20, 2008

http://acuf.org/issues/issue114/080817cul.asp

The “consensus” on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound.

Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (If you want to see the science, go here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent—thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society.

Physics & Society says: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S.”

The journal then offers both the Monckton paper and a response by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, of the California Polytechnic Institute. P&S also issued an open invitation to “further contributions from the physics community.”

It had to happen. Too much evidence has mounted against CO2 as a cause of the modern warming. Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic). The oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they “stopped warming 4–5 years ago” according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide. The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased. Rain has returned to Australia, reminding us again it is naturally the driest continent on earth.

The crowning blow: After nine years of non-warming, the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years. The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C; the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within “living memory”!

The current cooling doesn’t mean another Ice Age is looming. There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.

NASA’s Jason satellite tells us the Pacific Ocean has entered a cool phase. Historically, these have lasted 25–30 years. After that, there may be some additional warming. However, the 1,500-year cycles typically shift abruptly; we should already have most of this one’s warming. When we’ll get the inevitable cooling? Probably centuries from now.

The warming debate is far from over, but an actual debate looks likely. Reputations and huge bundles of cash have been bet on man-made warming, including billions in government funding for climate research. The UN’s reputation—and perhaps its future—are on the line.

The American Physical Society itself has issued a statement: It stands by its belief that human-emitted CO2 is “changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the earth’s climate” and notes that Physics & Society is not peer-reviewed. Nonetheless, the debate is finally and openly joined, after 20 years of the Greens proclaiming humanity’s guilt for wrecking the planet as beyond sane discussion.

Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years,

[Knut Sand]

I finally have the solution, we install ice cube machines everywhere we're bothered by warming up....:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enw791vZh1s&NR=1

[safewalrus]

Scottish actually...


Some say that, but can 'ee prove it, might it not be an Englishman in Scotland after all we have a few garrisons up there!
Mostly full of local troops 'o course but hey they mix well

[safewalrus]

You know Knut thats an idea of sheer genius! would solve a fair few problems

[Knut Sand]

Some say that, but can 'ee prove it, might it not be an Englishman in Scotland after all we have a few garrisons up there!
Mostly full of local troops 'o course but hey they mix well

Figure this; Ben Nevis...... Solo, Autumn/ winter, stumbled across some local blokes, I said; " you got some lovely mountains here, in England"..... I suddenly grasped the full scale of my terrible mistake, when I realized they were, without a word, rigging a climbing accident.....

And I sort of screamed; "Scotland, Scotland" and got away with it... After agreeing to buy a round at the pub later.... Actually it ended up with a bit more than one round.....

But I got the Spaniards out from there....Alive.... Nanananana....!:D

[safewalrus]

What mistaka to maka! you don't want to make those sort of mistakes too often Knut, the locals up there like to blame the English for everything, trouble is the English don't know they are being blamed, what for or even care really; mainly 'cos they don't understand the strange language that the Scots are attempting to speak - actually most of it is a bastardised English :)which don't help the situation

[timgoz]

My girlfriend says I speak "basterzied" American English. :) Of course, "they" are always right. Sets my Viking blood to boiling at times. I tell her; I speak Appalachian Mountain Hillbilly, pluss American English, and am therefore bilingul. She speaks six languages, so I have to defend myself!

[masalai]

Memorise a good GB dictionary and thesaurus and correct mistakes....?

My chocolate wrapper says - - "never go to bed angry, stay up and fight..." (for the last chocolate)

and "everything changes, but don't expect any change from a vending machine..."

[Knut Sand]

Ok, to put this thread back on track.... btw, I'm probably one of the "best" to throw a thread off the track....:rolleyes:

Ok, Read this (North pole is melting):

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

Now, to my simple mind, that's an indication that something's getting hotter than before. I, beeing an edjukated fella, coming from a home, with furnitures (that can be read as "sivilized"), have learnt that when temperature rises, ice melts (Ok, not when the temp goes from -30°C up to -20°, but in the 0° area, getit?).

So, something's hotter, if it's caused by human activity or not, I have not an idea, but I think it would be too simple minded to say that whatever we do, it does not affect the climate at all, not in an even small scale. Come to think of it, that's why I fill my stove to its max limit when I come to my cabin in the wintertime.... -25°C.... Only on a larger/ slower scale.....:P

[Jimbo1490]

THE COMING AND GOING OF GLACIERS
A New Alpine Melt Theory
By Hilmar Schmundt

The Alpine glaciers are shrinking, that much we know. But new research suggests that in the time of the Roman Empire, they were smaller than today. And 7,000 years ago they probably weren't around at all. A group of climatologists have come up with a controversial new theory on how the Alps must have looked over the ages...
....He digs into the ground with his mountain boot until something dark appears: an old tree trunk, covered in ice, polished by water and almost black with humidity. "And here is the proof," says Joerin.

Radical new theory

The tree trunk in the ice is part of a huge climatic puzzle that Joerin is analyzing for his doctoral thesis for the Institute for Geological Science at the University of Bern. And he is coming to an astonishing conclusion. The fact that the Alpine glaciers are melting right now appears to be part of regular cycle in which snow and ice have been coming and going for thousands of years. (Link to rest of story) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html)

[Jimbo1490]

Also see the attached file from NASA.

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

Wow, how much is he paid for that marvelous piece of information? Most people past grade school (I think thats what you colonials call it) can figure that out without to much bother! Guess most of us are in the wrong job!.........I mean, I to could be ********ting for a living, maybe I am!

[bntii]

From:

THE COMING AND GOING OF GLACIERS
A New Alpine Melt Theory
By Hilmar Schmundt

"Negating the effect of climate change?"

"Joerin is quick to explain that he is not trying to explain away the effects of man-made warming of the past few years: "Our findings so far could also be seen as giving the exact opposite of a climatic all-clear," he says. "If we can prove that there were ancient forests where the glaciers are today, it means one thing in particular: that the climate can change more suddenly than we thought."

[Jimbo1490]

Bntii:

Read between the lines, dude; there was no anthropogenic CO2 then. His disavowing the dissonance to the accepted chorus is his way of inoculating himself from being labeled a "skeptic", a moniker which the 'true believers' will use to marginalize him and trivialize anything he writes from now on, as they have already done with several leading climatologists.

Jimbo

[bntii]

Or take this finding at its true weight in reference to the body of knowledge on this subject.

Glacial ebb and flow as a product of snow accumulation during these periods?
-that is regional dry periods?

Glacial ebb and flow from these periods not correlated with temperature data from ice cores and flora deposits globally ...

ie- regional variation at work here.


Interesting work non the less- Hannibal crossed the alps in his skivvies?

You have a horse in this race?

[Jimbo1490]

We ALL have a horse in this race; the carbon cuts the AGW alarmists are INSISTING is the ONLY WAY to avert disaster will themselves precipitate a disaster of another kind. But when you read what the 'far left green' writers (who have driven the green agenda thus far) have been saying for decades, this is EXACTLY what they want; collapse of the great industrial economies and attendant consequences. Don't believe me; do your own research and see for yourself. An 'Expensive Energy' world in NOT a prosperous world. And that's just for the portion of the world that's presently prosperous. For those already in poverty, it becomes an unlivable world.

And even if you accept the AGW scenario as true, mandatory carbon cuts are about the LEAST effective way to deal with it. This has already been covered earlier in the thread. So why are carbon cuts the only solution ever discussed?

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

and when we do cut out all this CO2 what are your really 'green' things (the plants and trees) going to breath?

and if we want to destroy all industrial life why not do the job properly - with a sodding great Atom Bomb?

end of world, QED

[the1much]

hehe,,, if you guys launch the bomb,,, i'l give ya the #'s to the roof of my house :D

[Jimbo1490]

See this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

And again I put the question to the "True Believers"(And you know who you are:P ):

If the reality of AGW is such a 'no-brainer' THEN WHY DO THEY NEED TO PROP IT UP WITH BULL$HIT!!??

You must read the entire article, and when you do you will begin to admire the sheer cleverness and wile of the ********ters; these are neither simple lies nor sloppy science or even innocent misunderstandings, but rather well thought-out deceptions designed to beguile the skimmers and scanners of scientific data, the people that listen to sound-bites, but never dig deeper. But since it is still basically wrong, it can be debunked.

Jimbo

[bntii]

"The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid."

"Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed."


Jimbo- we need to quit our day jobs so we can make a proper throw at debating this mess..

:p

"Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."

From:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[mr curious]

scientists.... :P x 3.14

:D

[masalai]

I don't know about the climate, but the weather seems to be changing - feels like rain soon from the office with a view.... (good to be "home again?")

[bntii]

Thawing Permafrost Likely To Boost Global Warming, New Assessment Concludes

ScienceDaily (Sep. 2, 2008) — A new assessment more than doubles previous estimates of the amount of carbon stored in permafrost, and indicates that carbon dioxide emissions from microbial decomposition of organic carbon in thawing permafrost could amount to roughly half those resulting from global land-use change during this century.

Cited study:

Edward A. G. Schuur et al. Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. BioScience, September 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 8

[masalai]

If you have a lisp it is rude to spell with a lisp :D:D:D:D:D - what sort of saw is being used to saw the permafrost?

[Jimbo1490]

Note that the erstwhile Thomas has clipped out the following sentence, :

"The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase." (italic mine)

After all, the same fellow said it and it was the conclusion he was expecting the reader to draw. And it just happened to fall right between the first and the second sentence in your C & P. Was this just sloppiness, ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead on your part? A 10 % INCREASE in sea ice doesn't sound too scary, now does it?

Jimbo

[masalai]

Statistically insignificant? (one sentence as opposed to lots?)

[safewalrus]

"Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."



Oh! Ain't that what the 'summer melt season' is for? melting ice:D :D

[masalai]

Yes numpty, but no ice is melting to fill it up 'cause there ain't none to melt and caviare is kaputnik

[bntii]

See this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

You must read the entire article, and when you do you will begin to admire the sheer cleverness and wile of the ********ters; these are neither simple lies nor sloppy science or even innocent misunderstandings, but rather well thought-out deceptions designed to beguile the skimmers and scanners of scientific data.....
Jimbo

"The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid."

"Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed."

As stated above your authors position is weak- his deception is calling a 10% increase 30%.
His apparent point being that there is not change in arctic sea ice. I believe he is even trying to present:

"Look everyone- the ice is 30% thicker than last year- the 'scientists' are full of it."

Even this false claim is meaningless, as the trend of decline in sea ice ameliorates even a 30% increase from the record low of 2007.

Your statement quoted above has a certain irony, no?

BTW- look at my post again-

The correct assertion by NSIDC's scientists about a 10% increase is in the very first sentence I cited.

Look at the data- a 10% increase is from the record low of 2007 and does not in fact reflect any increase at all. The sea ice is in decline- a fully documented trend.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

[juiceclark]

In 2012, our solar system will pass through the median plane of the Universe as it does about every 25,000 years. Some speculate that is when the Earth experiences polarity shifts. Others say otherwise. But there are SO many interesting things to discuss and study at this time, shouldn't we look away from the contrived bogeyman of AGW for awhile?

Here's some things to contemplate whilst forming your next silly AGW argument: A thousand years ago, the Mayans said the sun would become very quiet just before becoming very active. They wrote the high level of solar activity around 2012 would create horrific hardship and death on Earth. Small coincidence, the sun is totally devoid of spot right activity now and NASA is predicting bad solar storms at the peak of the 11 year cycle in 2012.
Now -
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/all-quiet-alert/

"Cycle 24", as scientists call it, may do more than knock out satellites, cell phones and other communication during its active phase. Can someone discuss something REAL, like this, instead of the goofy money and power grab by America's lawyer party via carbon taxes and other BS?

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/sun-still-blank-no-sign-of-cycle-24/

[juiceclark]

Here's a bit more if you'd like:

... It also heats the Earth's outer atmosphere so that spacecraft are exposed to more atmospheric drag and to greater erosion by atomic oxygen.

We even have tantalizing hints that the Earth's climate may be linked to sunspots. The "Little Ice Age" corresponded with a 70-year period, 1645-1715, when sunspots were sparse in number, the Maunder minimum. Also, there are strong statistical associations linking current trends in climate (surface temperatures) to trends in solar activity, as outlined in another paper by Wilson for the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).

Still, with almost 250 years of observations - of which only the last 150 years are considered truly reliable- predictions are akin to the Farmer's Almanac, Hathaway said.

"There's no real physics involved," he explained. "It's all statistical inferences."

This is from 10 years ago - buried by AGW nuts:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13apr98_1.htm

[Knut Sand]

and when we do cut out all this CO2 what are your really 'green' things (the plants and trees) going to breath?

and if we want to destroy all industrial life why not do the job properly - with a sodding great Atom Bomb?

end of world, QED

Safie, the plants need light to use CO2 to convert to O2 aand... hmmm.... Gottathink there..... But in night time, plants are only slightly better than us again....:p

Bomb?
"If there's gonna be a war, it will be a short interesting one, which starts on tuesday, and ends on thursday, so that we all can go home for the weekend..." (freely quoted from Herodes Falsk).

btw.... I thought I had explained the sea temperature, rising pretty clearly over the last decades, and the amount of energy needed to do that....is frightening. There's far to many scientists agreeing to that fact, that it can be said to be an untrue statement (the fact that so many scientists can agree to something, should in itself be a disturbing thing...).

Well; the reason for the rise in the sea temperature...? Ok, water need an input of energy for the temperature to rise, no Einstein is needed to see that fact, try to make your coffee without.... Can be normal variations, can be our own act? at least partly? Should we suspect that we do have a possibility to put our mark on the weather (tiny or not?), would it then sound like a safe (as in "a little more safe") idea to try to reduce the added affect our way of living may cause on ehh... exactly our way of living...?

Increased seatemperatures will give more evaporation, more evaporation, will give more winds, more winds will...... Well some folks out there really enjoy weather like "Gustav".... It's us whimps and pussys that should be worried, not these........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z12pEG2aAeA

:P :P

[the1much]

FREAKS!!! hehe :D

[safewalrus]

Well, hell, when you get a perfect surf you just got to use it!

'You want to surf or fight soldier' springs to mind!

what? " Charlie don't surf"

[Guillermo]

These news have to do with both the purpose of this thread and boats:

Ghost ship fleet could be a silver lining in clouds of climate change (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4648680.ece)

"The concept involves vessels powered by a radical rotary-sail technology that could patrol selected areas of ocean, spraying tiny droplets of seawater into existing clouds. The droplets increase the surface area and so whiten the cloud, bouncing more radiation back into space and offsetting the warming caused by burning fossil fuels."

So, Flettner rotors are again in the news. See also: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24081

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

Actually glacial retreat IS a well-established trend, but even here, the details of the trend do not support the case presented by the AGW alarmists. The problem for the AGW alarmists is that glaciers have been in retreat since about the year 1850. Anthropogenic CO2 (climatologically significant) started around 1950. So unless some miracle of time travel could have transported mid 20th century CO2 back to the mid 19th century, then anthropogenic CO2 could not be the cause for this ~150 year old trend.

See my post #743 on this thread.

It's just another case of the AGW alarmists playing fast and loose with the facts to make things look scary. You'll often hear them say "Since the industrial revolution, the atmosphere has been warming, therefore...." implying that the industrial revolution coincided with anthropogenic CO2 releases, when we know this is not the case. So when they say stuff like this, who do YOU think their audience is? Scientists? No way; they know better. It's the general public who they know will not dig deeper and find that the details are wrong and that makes the whole thing false.



Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? Re-Mix.
by Steve McIntyre on September 12th, 2008

"There's an amusing little incident with the deleted "original" data set that was posted up for a few minutes at Mann's website - you know, the data set that was first demonstrably referenced by a CA reader in the early morning of Sep 5. (I'll reserve comment for now on issues relating to the timestamp of this data set and the Gavin Schmidt hyperlink to it, presently pointing to a data version that did not exist at the time that the hyperlink was supposedly created.)

Within a day, on the afternoon of Sep 5, the data set was deleted and replaced with another data set, again without notice, in a bewildering concatenation of replacements that is reminiscent of our experience with the Hansen's GISS data almost a year to the day ago. However, both myself and others took the precaution of downloading the Sep 4 version as soon as we saw it - just in case it disappeared. Not an imprudent precaution, given its almost immediate deletion.

I've now had an opportunity to forage through the deleted version. The deleted data had 1357 series, from which 148 series were deleted to yield the 1209 series that now appear in the "original" data. But surely the 1357 series is "more" original than the 1209 series? What criteria were used to winnow out the 148 removed series? Inquiring minds want to know. There's not a whisper on this topic in the paper or in the SI and, of course, all traces of the 148 series were ruthlessly scrubbed from Mann's website."



Read the rest here (http://www.climateaudit.org/).

When you see the temp recon plot from the missing data sets, it's perfectly obvious WHY they were deleted; they're not very scary :D

Again the question arises: if the case for AGW is such a slam-dunk, then WHY ALL THE ********??

Jimbo

[Boston]

these guys arent going to be listening to any logical scientifically based arguments my friend
the essence of intelligence lies within a desire to find what is correct
finding, admitting and correcting error along the way
I think that horse you were referring to some one having in this race, is named ego
and its getting rode hard on this one

if you look back through this mess you will see that I had tried the scientific and logic approach much like yourself including graphs, reviewed articles, preponderance of evidence, the empirical method. Some people simply prefer to pick a belief, any belief, and go with it, doesn't seem to mater if it has any validity.

if 100 scientists independently come to a conclusion
and number 101, working for an interested party, comes to a different conclusion
there are always going to be those choice few who jump on 101's band wagon
and there will be no convincing them otherwise
belief, in the end, is a choice for some, kinda like religion
and not a logical conclusion

seems the overwhelming evidence to support the theory of rapid global climate change and that it can, and is being induced artificially by human activity is just a little to much for some folks
heads go in the sand
fingers in ears
la la la la la la la
is what there arguments amount to
so best of luck to you turning on any light bulbs for em
if you read back through this thing
Ive already pointed out much of what you are saying in no uncertain terms
they didn't get it then
there not likely to now
cheers
B

oh
you should take a look at the latest ice data
grim grim and more grim
the trophic cascade has begun and if those heads dont come out of the sand fast
they might as well bend all the way round and kiss there asses good bye

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

It's amazing, and sad, to see the sheer dogmatism of your posts. The reason these guys and others disagree with AGW alarmists is precisely because they have not made a good scientific case for their extraordinary claims. Rather they prop up their case with blatantly slanted reporting to conjure a 'consensus', preferring obviously flawed data to reliable data when that data refutes their position, threatening and ostracizing 'dissenters' rather than welcoming lively discussion.

The AGW alarmists have most recently excoriated a scientists who simply wants to audit the state of the surface measurement system, as we know it has fallen into disrepair/nonconformity. Now that sounds like a perfectly innocent undertaking, doesn't it? After all, we ALL want good data, don't we? Then why the opposition? Yet AGW alarmists insist the data from these stations AS THEY ARE is accurate. They even got caught falsifying a study on this very topic. Doesn't this concern you just a little teeny weeny bit?

When satellite data was finally deciphered ( by Christy) and showed no alarming warming trend, the AGW alarmists applied 'corrections' to the data to show an alarming trend. Trouble is, they won't release the algorithms used in the 'correction' preferring to keep it secret. So much for peer review.

So we have fraudulent studies, secret corrections, and clinging to flawed data, trumped up consensus, yet chicken little is still crowing about a falling sky:rolleyes:

Boston, I think it's time you took a GPS fix of the location of YOUR OWN head; that brown stuff in your eyes ain't milk chocolate :D

Jimbo

[Boston]

AS I SAID
these guys arent going to be listening to any logical scientifically based arguments my friend

the essence of intelligence lies within a desire to find what is correct
finding, admitting and correcting error along the way

the above being a statement I made in a my last
the natural interpretation of such a statement in regards to the topic at hand would be given that there is good and bad science on both sides of any coin

a good scientist remains open minded
finds and corrects errors throughout the methods used
and accepts the logical conclusion based on preponderance of evidence
regardless of preconceived ideas

yet the the RR responds with

Boston,

It's amazing, and sad, to see the sheer dogmatism of your posts.

my guess is there is some kind of misunderstanding as to the meaning of the term dogmatism
maybe a definition would help
1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.
2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises
from Farlax online dictionary
or
1. dogmatic assertion of opinion, usually without reference to evidence
from Your Dictionary online dictionary

in each case of definition it can be found in my previous posts that the term dogmatism fails to apply
for instance

1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.
the impiricle method rarely accepts anything as fact, instead it uses preponderance of evidence to determine what is more likely or less likely to be accurate

2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises
Im not convinced any reasonable person who has been keeping up on my posts would be able to say that I have presented insufficient evidence.
as an example
a previous post is presented at the bottom of this latest

1. dogmatic assertion of opinion, usually without reference to evidence
I think its obvious who presents references round here and who doesn't
as an example I would point out that the last from Jimbo had not one single referenced article to support claims made

such unscientific methods tend to be the nature of the RR diatribe
applying terms incorrectly
insisting on prioritizing data that exists outside the data stream
clinging to single error arguments
and making claims based on single studies instead of actually using a scientific method
like combining data and throwing out the highs and lows,
the RR camp tends to "dogmatically" insists that a single or several errors in the data well outside of the data stream negates a hole hypothesis. Invariably ignoring the preponderance of evidence while failing to accept that anomalous data exists in all theory's.
Hell relativity needs the cosmological constant to make the field equations work
yet its not often you hear any one deny relativity.

what the RR is up to is political
not scientific
and so presenting scientific methods as viable conversational tools fails with these kind of people
we talk science they talk opinion, picking and choosing what they want to believe regardless of the preponderance of evidence
when pressed with the overwhelming scientific evidence from thousands of sources
the RR heads go back into the sand
fingers in ears again
and the same old poorly constructed arguments are dragged out for the umpteenth time
its not worth it Mr bntii
your not going to be able to have an intelligent review of the data
but you will find yourself going round and round constantly reexplaining things
( please read the sample post included bellow )
some people are just not capable of comprehending the essence of the problem or facing the consequences of there actions
even though the ice is melting out from underneath them
they are going to have to be drowning before they even consider it
hell
it was people like these RR dogmatists that dumped dioxin in a school yard at love canal
and walked away counting there money and thinking everything would be just fine

B


sample post with multiple references

inaccurate

you are desperately grasping at straws again

data already presented directly contradicts your latest assertion
and yet you make no proper defense of this in your claim
again you haven’t presented a single supporting article in your favor
those papers I have already cited clearly state co2 and methane can do exactly what you are claiming they cannot


This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2.
that is pure bunk
please reread the data provided and learn some thing about calthrates before you make such a patently misleading statement
I have established my case on preponderance of evidence through pier Reviewed and published research presented
you have not read the data provided or you simply dont understand it
in either case
you are embarrassing yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence

methane hydrates or co2 can and do build up in colder environments
and are subject, to catastrophic eruption events

kinda like we are doing now
when we pump gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere

please for the love of simple sanity
research your statements before you make em
it will go a looooooonnnnnnnggggggg way towords shortening my responses

wow

I can site miles of evidence from respected scientists concerning this issue


Nature 453, 642-645 (29 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06961; Received 24 September 2007; Accepted 18 March 2008
Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate
Martin Kennedy1, David Mrofka1 & Chris von der Borch2
1. Department of Earth Science, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
2. School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
Correspondence to: Martin Kennedy1 Correspondence and requests for

Abstract
The start of the Ediacaran period is defined by one of the most severe climate change events recorded in Earth history—the recovery from the Marinoan 'snowball' ice age, 635 Myr ago (ref. 1). Marinoan glacial-marine deposits occur at equatorial palaeolatitudes2, and are sharply overlain by a thin interval of carbonate that preserves marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions of about -5 and +15 parts per thousand, respectively3, 4, 5; these deposits are thought to record widespread oceanic carbonate precipitation during postglacial sea level rise1, 3, 4. This abrupt transition records a climate system in profound disequilibrium3, 6 and contrasts sharply with the cyclical stratigraphic signal imparted by the balanced feedbacks modulating Phanerozoic deglaciation. Hypotheses accounting for the abruptness of deglaciation include ice albedo feedback3, deep-ocean out-gassing during post-glacial oceanic overturn7 or methane hydrate destabilization8, 9, 10. Here we report the broadest range of oxygen isotope values yet measured in marine sediments (-25 to +12) in methane seeps in Marinoan deglacial sediments underlying the cap carbonate. This range of values is likely to be the result of mixing between ice-sheet-derived meteoric waters and clathrate-derived fluids during the flushing and destabilization of a clathrate field by glacial meltwater. The equatorial palaeolatitude implies a highly volatile shelf permafrost pool that is an order of magnitude larger than that of the present day. A pool of this size could have provided a massive biogeochemical feedback capable of triggering deglaciation and accounting for the global postglacial marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions, abrupt unidirectional warming, cap carbonate deposition, and a marine oxygen crisis. Our findings suggest that methane released from low-latitude permafrost clathrates therefore acted as a trigger and/or strong positive feedback for deglaciation and warming. Methane hydrate destabilization is increasingly suspected as an important positive feedback to climate change11, 12, 13 that coincides with critical boundaries in the geological record14, 15 and may represent one particularly important mechanism active during conditions of strong climate forcing.

Quote:
The empirical facts have long ago ceased to be important to you
the empirical method of study does not generally accept anything as fact
it divides things into what is most likely to be true or is less likely to be true
by aggregating naturally occurring data

the idea that green house gas's like methane do not precipitate out of solution at depth in colder climes or cannot be produced in colder climes and participate in altering atmospheric chemistry is absolute nonsense
definitely
less likely to be true

Quote:
This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources.
that statement is patently false
I would cite the following three articles

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

Wetlands Loss Fuelling CO2 Feedback Loop
Source: 2008,
Date: July 21, 2008
Stephen Leahy

this article is not public access however it is available upon request


Universe today
April 29th 2008
Ian O’Neill

These mechanisms are known as "feedback loops". Feedback loops are common in nature, should one quantity change, production of other quantities may speed up. In the case of the carbon emission from volcanic activity, levels of the stuff appear to have been controlled by a natural "negative feedback" loop (akin to a carbon thermostat, when carbon dioxide levels were too high, another process was triggered to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). However, the sustained atmospheric input of industrial burning of carbon dioxide by human activity has dwarfed historic volcanic carbon output, overwhelming any natural negative feedback mechanism.

the method of argument is decidedly unique to say the least
I particularly like how detractors ignore the published works and go on to present the same flawed issue over and over with out ever actually presenting a scientific debate of the citation

another interesting concept is an unwillingness to make a citation of your own
the readers have yet to see even one
yet i have offered countless
seems obvious the preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side of the table
and equally as obvious who is concerned with factually reporting empirical evidence

the last and my personal fave
is how my detractors have moved from question to question the premiss’s of which admit there agreement with a previous point that had been denied
for instance
the statement was made that there was no correlation between co2 and temp
so I used the data to show there was
the question was raised several more times
along with the assertion that there was no historic evidence for green house gasses driving temp
then with out admitting there was a correlation or that there was boundless evidence in the historic record
the statement was made that the historic correlation was backwards
again several times
so I used the data to show how the cycle of gas events and temp work
being careful to point out that co2 was not the only gas involved in the system
and that co2 was a marker for the correlation of temp and co2
then with out admitting anything again
that info was patently ignored and it was insisted that temp drives co2
that green house gas/temp feed back systems do not occur and that the theory has been proven wrong
wow
when the data presented also contained a detailed description of how volatile clatherates eruptions have left a fossil record coinciding with warming events and extinctions
and once again the detractors have blatantly ignored the observed data and failled to cite a single article not create a preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature

my detractors apparently didnt read or didnt comprehend the data presented



[quote]This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium
/QUOTE]

I have often been intrigued by some of the attitudes expressed in this thread
but when I ask for detailed research from the scientific community supporting those attitudes I am continually ignored


I challenge you to provide multiple pear reviewed and published papers showing your claim as being supported in the scientific community
and I further say your continued failure to do so is an obvious concession of significant error in your view

I on the other hand will continue to cite multiple sources to support claims made

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8

[Guillermo]

....that I have presented insufficient evidence.

Well, I consider myself a reasonable man, and I respectifully think you have presented very long posts with a rare composition, but no evidences. Just discutible studies and opinions from other people, as discutible as any other study or opinion, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

[Boston]

with out my editor I am but a gnat on the bum of grammar

but I have presented countless reviewed articles
so Im not sure how it can be reasonably said Im not supporting my claims with ample evidence from multiple sources within the scientific community

if you look at the post I cited as an example to this very issue
you will see numerous references to published reviewed articles
including a lecture by a man who is the head of all ocean studies at SCRIPPS oceanographic institute http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/
Dr Jeremy Jackson

a scientific debate consists of reviewing refereed data
I present this type of data in nearly every post

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

I've got a great idea: instead of going off on a wild monologue on how wonderfully convincing your previous posts actually were, and how only an *idiot* could find them unpersuasive, why not address the points I most recently raised, to wit, a fraudulent study propping up the accuracy of the surface measurements, secret corrections to the satellite data to make them show alarming recent warming when none was noted before said corrections, and finally the reason for the opposition to an audit of the state of the surface temperature data gathering network. On this last point, I don't care a hoot if you say YOU don't object to such an audit. Who cares what YOU say? But your heroes in the AGW alarm camp are REALLY PISSED OFF that anyone dare audit this network. Just try to come up with some reason why this is so that still permits an objective reader to retain the belief in the AGW alarm camp's objectivity and dedication to scientific truth.

Jimbo

[Boston]

my advice to you Mr bntii would be to get out fast while you still can

a treasure I recently received
On this last point, I don't care a hoot if you say YOU don't object to such an audit. Who cares what YOU say?

or you will be dealing with the occupants under the bridge

another jewel
why not address the points I most recently raised, to wit,
a fraudulent study
secret corrections to the satellite data
opposition to an audit of the state of the surface temperature data gathering network

one of my faves round here is being expected to address poorly made obviously paranoid accusations against unnamed elements of some mysterious camp
wild accusations consistently made with out citation and with out reference to any refereed work or published articles
nothing even resembling a scientific debate

( hmmm kinda meets the definition of dogmatic )
( 1. dogmatic assertion of opinion, usually without reference to evidence )
( definition from "Your Dictionary" online ) (<--- sample of a reference )

something else I often hear shouted from under the proverbial bridge is
But your heroes in the AGW alarm camp are REALLY PISSED OFF
this one always kinda amuses me
aparently the RR doesnt believe in an abbreviation key, probably so the BS can RIP without PPL knowing what the J could possibly be talking about
I useually answer this one with something about my next or in this case last camping trip

I can absolutely assure you my hero in this camp was my travel partner who although she has a bladder the size of a pee ( sorry couldnt resist ) is definitely not pissed off ( dam, did it again )

we stayed a few weeks in little America and the Lamar valley and hit the yellowstone institute were they have several study groups working on the effects of global climate change in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem

didnt notice any of the hundreds of scientists there forming study groups concerning human activity "not" having effected atmospheric chemistry though,
guess its not considered real science in a place that boasts one of the greatest concentrations of scientists outside of a campus setting

love B

[Meanz Beanz]

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of `fighting global warming’ are unnecessary. It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Makes more sense to me...

[the1much]

nature rules,,,,when theres MORE nature then humans,,,,im pretty sure thats changed,,how % of "nature" is there now compared to people?
the majority ALWAYS rules.

[juiceclark]

With no sun spots for two months, (longer than anytime in hundreds of years of recordings) the earth is going to have some cool spots. I didn't think it was possible for alGore and the GW trolls to appear more ridiculous...but this winter will probably do just that:

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928

[Meanz Beanz]

nature rules,,,,when theres MORE nature then humans,,,,im pretty sure thats changed,,how % of "nature" is there now compared to people?
the majority ALWAYS rules.

Thats it Jim... nature dwarfs our green house gas outputs, the variation in natures output is greater than our output so how can we be significant?

I agree that we should and I want to see us clean up our act, but just for the sake of a clean environment. I don't want to see economies destroyed in some blind idealogical reaction to a non-existent threat. People will be hurt if we do this the wrong way... it will lead to many unintended consequences as the timing of many of these "carbon tax's" etc is disastrous given what is about to unfold in the energy markets and is unfolding in the financial markets.

We are on a cycle into another ice age, it will happen with or with-out us... we arrogantly assume we are the determining factor in this when in fact, as hard as it is for us egoistical monkeys to accept, we are largely insignificant. We do need to focus on sustainability in many area's but we need to do it the right way for the right reason's, the real reason's... not some BS weather bogeyman that we have not got a hope in hell of influencing. we need to prepare for what is going to unfold.... not kid ourselves that we can change it. This is running laughingly parallel to what is going on in DC at the moment... this pretence that the situation can somehow be fixed shows a complete lack of understanding about what is actually going on ---> and this mob are running the place :roll-eyes: Better to face the real issue's now and start work on solutions & leave the punitive white elephant policies alone for they will surely destroy economic activity despite what the academics say.

[the1much]

ready for this?? they figured out how to stop global warming,,, WHITE ROOFS , and lighter colored pavement,,,hehe,, it will reflect more heat out to our atmosphere,,,,,,,,,,doesnt co2 keep the heat in? or is reflective heat different,,,hehe ;)
,,,,and,, mornin Beanzyz ;)

[bntii]

Boston-

Yeah I am out for a bit as I have other ditches to dig just now..

But.....

"Thats it Jim... nature dwarfs our green house gas outputs, the variation in natures output is greater than our output so how can we be significant?"

Beanz is halfway there..

Accepting the basic thesis that there is a 'greenhouse' mechanism at work is the first step towards understanding the issue.

Understanding that land use and emissions create a NET increase in atmospheric C02 and changes the carbon cycle is rest of the story.
It matters not how large the carbon cycle is- if greenhouse gases influence climate, any change in the carbon cycle can therefor alter the climate. It is not hubris or ego to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the climate system. Understanding rate and extent of change is I believe a fair exercise for the scientists involved and the peanut gallery.

Not so tough to understand eh?

[the1much]

all this said,,,,,,,,,,nature USED to outnumber us,,,,it doesnt anymore ,, we're over populated, half of nature is under our roads and houses ,, and the part of nature that "took care of things" have been cut down or buried.
you are somewhat right,,,nature DID dwarf us ,,,,DID.

[masalai]

I just got a message from "nature" & she said, in big red letters - yelled actually - - "PAYBACK TIME"..... and I feel a little pissed and despondent, what with current hardware problems with my new computers - whenever I take delivery - it fails to work properly - in months I am on release version #4 and is is a matter of "I didn't do it" - I am even getting blamed for the recent local weather

Roll on "climate change"

[Meanz Beanz]

Understanding that land use and emissions create a NET increase in atmospheric C02 and changes the carbon cycle is rest of the story.

It matters not how large the carbon cycle is- if greenhouse gases influence climate, any change in the carbon cycle can therefor alter the climate. It is not hubris or ego to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the climate system. Understanding rate and extent of change is I believe a fair exercise for the scientists involved and the peanut gallery.

Not so tough to understand eh?

Who the hell made you the arbiter of right and wrong, 1/2 right... bloody condescending....

Apparently their are a lot of scientists that do have trouble with it. Me I get caught up on simple things like the evidence that carbon lags and not leads temperature. As for the "carbon cycle", the point is that natural variance in any given year easily overwhelms human activity. Thus the trend in nature will determine the outcome. Your argument is as logical as saying one investor can control the direction of a market. That is only so if the market is in absolute perfect balance and is not trending... we know that is not the case with the climate system, we know it cycles and there is always a directional trend in the data. To argue that any change upsets this balance is to misunderstand the forces at work. Yes, if we accept that carbon is indeed the issue, any additional carbon will accelerate any underlying trend but when we know that what we do is such a small percentage of the overall output it remains completely obvious that our efforts will change nothing.

No... we need to do this for reasons much closer to home, simple unglamourous things like air quality, quality of life the wonder of nature and its eco systems.

Mark these words "green warriors".... if you destroy economies in this process you will create a competitive backlash that will more than undo everything you think you have achieved. Hungry people don't care about ten years down the track... blow this and you will damage the green movement for generations. A great deal more needs to be understood about markets and the competitive dynamics that drive them which ultimately is human nature. Align these forces and you will see great success, act punitively against them and they will bite you.

[Meanz Beanz]

all this said,,,,,,,,,,nature USED to outnumber us,,,,it doesnt anymore ,, we're over populated, half of nature is under our roads and houses ,, and the part of nature that "took care of things" have been cut down or buried.
you are somewhat right,,,nature DID dwarf us ,,,,DID.

There's that arrogance again... we are not a problem for the natural cycles of this planet, we are a problem for ourselves. Whatever we do the planet will regenerate and life will go on, quite possibly without us ... but hey nature should be worried?

We need to contain out growth for our own survival... yes we are quite likely already beyond the sustainable human population limit for the earth, given our current desired lifestyles. This is our problem, not natures... we will not kill the planet we have not got the power, all you have to do is consider its complete history to realise that. We might put a dent in things if we nuke the whole place but it will come back.... just without us. This is a human issue, we will be the main benefactors of taking the correct path and we need to be clear about what it is we are trying to achieve. Nowhere do I here politicians talking about stable zero growth economies and populations... or god forbid population reduction... no we are all foolishly hooked on more of more... in the greenest possible middle class way of course.... give me a break, anyone can see that is never going to work no matter how green we are. Limits to growth are real, we need to respect them for our own good.... but will we? nah....

[masalai]

YO heinz, sock it to em, I accept your reasoning.... (I didn't say I believe - hehe) but it makes more sense than many other posts.... Thanks and appreciated....

[the1much]

yuppers,,, we dont matter when it comes to the earths "natural" cycles,,,, but what are the cycles?, and when are they suppose to happen?,, all these gurus can say "oh every 2 million years we have an ice age",,, nope,, we have NO idea when and what is the cycle,,,. we wont "kill" the earth,, but we will kill ourselves,,, and the "greenies" way may postpone it,, but sooner or later even their outlandish thinking will kill us.
i myself dont give a crap bout the earth,,,, but i do give a crap bout my grandkids,,,,. the only argument i've heard bout the "green" side is we'll stop the economy ( actually slow it down alot),, that wont kill us,,,it may kill alot,, but not all ( and that could be a good population reduction),, i can live without oil,, and i know every could,,, we've done it for thousands of years,,, i dont think WE are all to blame,,, but i bet we're at LEAST 50% of the problem.
population is the BIG problem,, theres no arguing that,,,,,,
a 50 gallon fish tank goes through its own cycles,, put 10 fish in there, it still goes through them, but quicker,,put 20 more fish in there,,and the cycles get even faster, and more devastating,, and 20 more fish,, and it CANT recover,,,,,UNTIL it is empty and left alone,, it'll take a while,, but it WILL come back.


mornin Beanzy ,, hehe ;)

[boat fan]

we wont "kill" the earth,, but we will kill ourselves,,, and the "greenies" way may postpone it,, but sooner or later even their outlandish thinking will kill us.

I have come to that conclusion too:(


I myself dont give a crap bout the earth,,,, but i do give a crap bout my grandkids,,,,.

Having a problem with that , the1 .. ,....are they not in some way linked ?
I mean , harm the earth , harm the children ?Maybe I misunderstood ?:confused:

the only argument i've heard bout the "green" side is we'll stop the economy ( actually slow it down alot),, that wont kill us,,,it may kill alot,, but not all ( and that could be a good population reduction),, i can live without oil,, and i know every could,,, we've done it for thousands of years,,, i dont think WE are all to blame,,, but i bet we're at LEAST 50% of the problem.

Yep::(

( population is the BIG problem,, theres no arguing that,,,,,,
a 50 gallon fish tank goes through its own cycles,, put 10 fish in there, it still goes through them, but quicker,,put 20 more fish in there,,and the cycles get even faster, and more devastating,, and 20 more fish,, and it CANT recover,,,,,UNTIL it is empty and left alone,, it'll take a while,, but it WILL come back.

yep::( (So what`s the answer ? big war ?) :(

[the1much]

yup,,, their linked,,,,, that was the idea :D
and war will fix the population,, but so wont just letting stupid people die,,,,and letting the bums starve,, and letting monkey eating dwarfs die from aids, and many more things,,,,,,but NO,, we cant let that happen,, someone might see,,,hehe ;)