What Do We Think About Climate Change

Is obsessing on Al Gore's sexual habits really relevant to climate change? Is it even healthy?

 

Come on, Troy. That was funny. I even left the union part out of it for you. Please don't take offense at my pointing out the strange sexual antics of democrats (but remember: "do have your democrat spayed or neutered..."- Ann Coulter). Do listen to the Zappa for good sound, fun, and genius.

Your mascot, Gore, will never live this **** down and the incident will exersize a neuron in our vulnerable youth - "Hey, maybe this guy isn't so cool after all."! Here Tipper, come here girl!

 

I didn't think it was all that funny. It was more disgusting, like wallowing around in the fact that Senator Craig hits airport restrooms for anonymous sex.

Speaking of which, there have been a lot more Republican politicians on parade lately for sexual antics than Democrats, so you and Ann Coulter might want to watch throwing rocks based on political affiliations.

What's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? A Republican makes speeches about family values and the sanctity of marriage, before he goes out and cheats on his wife or hires a gay prostitute....

You 'left out' the union part? How could you have fitted it in? Never mind; I'm sure you'd have managed somehow. By the way, I've ordered "Rattlesnake Brothers in the Desert" ball caps for the guys I work with; they feature a coiled rattlesnake wearing a hard hat. I'd have bought some for the union guys and gals at the other desert stations too, but I'm paying for them out of my own pocket.

Our station supervisor wanted one also. I had to tell him that being a rattlesnake isn't for management; it's strictly a union thing. But I might sneak one to him anyway. He's getting ready to retire, so we'll make him an honorary rattlesnake brother.

 

The latest offering from KFC........
The Gillard....2 thick thighs and 2 small breasts ..........with a left wing !

 

I'm sorry, again, Troy but progressives (generally, but not exclusively, the AGW nuts) have secured this as the joke thread. Very good, Marco but the above was one of the funniest things I have ever written.
Troy, you don't get it. There can be a scumbag with any affilliation but a Republican has to hide his compass to do this ****, while a progressive simply has no moral compass. Also, "release my chakra"? Is that what you people call it these days?
Zappa was on the cutting edge when he made this commentary on how progressives are, i.e., with no values save placing humans at the bottom of the importance list. Funny thing is, you people celibrate all manner of diversity, including Clinton lying, Muslims killing people in a market, killing babies as a means of birth control and perversions of the Gore kind, yet make a stodgy old businessman that is trying to build a secure future for his grandchildren the butt of your jokes.
Perhaps it is going too far to say progressives ( I use this term to encompass all political systems -and theoretically, not all Democrats are progressives but this last notion has lately been called into question by the health-care vote, confirmation of Kagan, etc.. It is my take that even a so-called "blue blood" democrat has his compass spinning out of control lately) have no values. They do have values; One, whales, trees, and anything cute (fur seals), have more value than humans. Two, distort the act of sexually abusing a woman and encouraging her to have an abortion as it is "her" body. This "pro-life" thing is perhaps the biggest hypocracy woman face today - think about it - woman are designed to have babies, their lives are fulfilled by the very act, it is ingrained in them since the beginning...them Planned Parenthood, boyfriends, messed-up-family-values-"parents", all coerce them to abort. Talk about messing with a girl's head! Three, "Give us the other guys stuff. It's not fair for just the hard-working ones to have all the toys."
argh...that's enuf.

 

"You people" this and "you people" that, and "you people who disagree with me about politics or anything else are all liars, murderers, baby killers, Muslim terrorists, and sexual perverts."

You have issues, son. You really need to shut up and work on them, instead of pestering honest folk with your hateful nonsense.

On top of everything else, you call preaching one thing and doing the opposite 'having a moral compass'--and carry on like it's a good thing? When I was growing up, Mark, we called that 'being a hypocrite.' And it was nothin' to brag about.

I'm going to ignore you for a while; you're making no sense and there's no point in making Jeff step in again.

 

Stop ******* calling me "son" *******.

 

The tale of the drunk and her dog

The anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW) predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. But according to Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz the fact that greenhouse gases are second order variables has been completely overlooked in such theory in which by default have been treated as first order variables or even if recognized as second order variables, inappropriately standard cointegration tests were used instead of polynomial cointegration tests. Still others used polynomial cointegration tests designed for situations where all, instead of just some of the variables are second order, and finally some ignored the issue altogether.

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

Although effects of greenhouse gas forcings on global temperature are not permanent, they have temporary, or short-term, effects. This means that an increase in CO2 emissions only has a temporary warming effect. Temporary and permanent effect have been confused one with the other. This means, crucially, that a doubling of greenhouse gas forcings does not permanently increase global temperature.

This means IPCC's predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century because of greenhouse gasses are not supported by the data.

I had posted about this here, but as nobody seems to have read it, I'll post the PDF document again, with the hope that somebody with knowledge on the matter (Alan?) will do it and come here with some useful comment or critic.

For the layman ones (like me), here an explanation on cointegration, error-correction models, integrated of n-order series, and the like:
http://www.ulrich-fritsche.net/Material/murray1994.pdf

 

Conclusion
We have shown that greenhouse gas forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with
global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, previous claims that carbon
emissions permanently increase global temperature are false. Although we find no
permanent effect of greenhouse gas forcings on global temperature, there appears to be
a temporary, or short-term, effect. We show that this temporary effect can easily be
mistaken for a permanent one. Polynomial cointegration tests show that the putative
permanent effect is induced by the spurious regression phenomenon. Because the effect
is temporary, recent global warming should be interpreted as a short-term response to
increased carbon emissions, which is expected to be reversed in the future.




Nuff said

 

Amazongate hoohaa.

From http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/amazongate-smoking-gun.html


"More than five months after the IPCC was accused of making assertions on the fate of the Amazon forest on the basis of a non-peer reviewed WWF report, it now appears that the original source of the IPPC's claim is a Brazilian educational website which was taken down in 2003 (pictured - click to enlarge).

Furthermore, it appears that this is the only source of the IPCC's claim that made up the basis of "Amazongate" – that the IPCC was, once again, using unsubstantiated material which exaggerated the threat. This website, therefore, is the "smoking gun", the latest evidence to suggest that the IPCC is breaking its own rules.

Interestingly, when the "Amazongate" story was broken on this blog on 25/26 January, we had no way of knowing that the trail would eventually lead to a defunct Brazilian website. It was the official denials of our story that gave the clue, and they did not really get underway until 31 January when The Sunday Times published its report headed: "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim."

Then the paper had charged that the IPCC warning that global warming "might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest" was based on an unsubstantiated claim, made in a WWF report.

This evoked from the WWF a press statement standing by "the credibility of its report", a Global Review of Forest Fires (2000).

Starting with the IPCC claim that: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation," this had been was referenced to the WWF report which asserted: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

Now, the WWF was claiming that the source for this statement was "Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute)." The source quotation read: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

The claim was repeated on 7 February in a Sunday Times letter from David Nussbaum, the chief executive of WWF-UK, who then used a curious form of words. "This," he asserted – referring to the Fire in the Amazon statement - "is fully supported by peer-reviewed literature." Contrary to the Sunday Times's "suggestion," it was not a "bogus" claim.

Nussbaum did acknowledge, however, that a reference to Fire in the Amazon as the source of the 40% claim was omitted during the editing of the Global Review of Forest Fires.

The lead author of the report, Andrew Rowell, also pitched in, again using a curious form of words for his contribution. The paper, he claimed, had "ignored credible evidence" that the 40% figure was correct and "also ignored evidence that the figure had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication."

Even then, careful textual deconstruction indicated that no one was actually asserting that the source of the 40%, Fire in the Amazon, was actually peer reviewed – merely that it was "supported" or "backed up" by peer-reviewed work, the exact nature of which was always somewhat vague.

We were thus able to charge that Fire in the Amazon was not itself peer reviewed, thus arguing that the IPCC was relying on a WWF report which was not peer reviewed, which in turn was relying on another document which was also not peer reviewed.

The emphasis, however, was on a document and there was nothing to indicate otherwise, even though – also in early February – Daniel Nepstad claimed that the IPCC statement on the Amazon was "correct", but the citations listed in Global Review of Forest Fires were incomplete. He added that the authors of this report "had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall."

Therefore, the assumption was that the WWF's claimed source was the only significant IPAM publication of 1999, a document entitled: "Burning Forest: Origins, Impact and Prevention of Fire in the Amazon". This, though, presented problems in that the claim apparently attributed to it by the WWF did not appear in any of the three versions.


Now, however, the website to which Nepstad referred has been recovered. Posted from February 1999 to some time in 2003, it is entitled "Fire in the Amazon", with no apparent change through its publication (illustrated above).

Here can be found the exact sentence claimed by the WWF as its source: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

As it stands, this is the only known source of this sentence. There is no author identified, the provenance of the claim is not identified and not in any possible way could this claim be considered peer reviewed. It has no academic or scientific merit – yet it is this which appears to be the fount of the IPCC claim.

What is also particularly important is that the IPCC uses the sentence, which it modifies slightly, and then elaborates on it, arguing: "this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."

By contrast, the same claim about reduced rainfall on the website is used to argue not for a rapid change from one state to another but to an increase in forest flammability. Not only are we dealing with an unsupported claim, therefore, we are also dealing with an unsupported interpretation.

Yet, despite the fragile basis for the claim, The Sunday Times is prevailed upon to retract its report, effectively removing an article which was essentially correct in alleging that the IPCC claim is "unsubstantiated", and substituting what amounted to a lie, that "the IPCC's Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence."

It would appear now that the WWF must explain why it is relying on data culled from websites to support its reports, while giving the impression that it is relying on peer reviewed material. Similarly, the IPCC must tell us why it has relied on such material and how it can justify claims made without credible supporting material."
--------------------------------------------------

It is a beautiful morning as I sit here and type. Some of you will be going through those final checks before slipping your moorings, whilst I return to the drudgery of tiling. However, I have a useful tool tip in the matter of profiling silicone sealants. Use a Fugi kit. They are probably available worldwide, but this UK supplier links to a video.

http://www.byretech.com/acatalog/Fugi-III.html?gclid=CISV7d_WzqICFdQB4wodLQ40wQ

When you spend oodles of dosh on a shower unit which requires "in situ" assembly, then smooth clean joint lines are De rigueur. The unit we selected arrived in three huge boxes and with the sparsest instructions, but in the end, it shoe horned into the space allotted for it.

http://www.wickes.co.uk/Glass-shower-cabin/invt/217117

All joints are siliconed and look very smooooth.

Best regards to all,

Perry

 

The answer is simple. Consequentialism.

And the means are by no means salvation of the planed but power shift and money, lots of it.
Did I mention MONEY?

Tiling.....shock horror.... not for me. Shaping of the silicon line? Wet plastic bag over finger.
Ok that tool is probably better.
Does that shower cabinet have it's own raised floor? Is it solid?

 

it does ?

maybe it would be best if you were to quote the theory and then point out what part specifically supports this claim.

Sorry G but that last was a whopper

The theory of Rapid Global Climate Change makes no such prediction, you might want to start warming up that grill cause it looks like Stetson is back on the menu

 

As permanently as hundreds to thousands of years for the effects of anthropogenic CO2 as claimed by several like Archer et al., as we have already seen in this thread and you have defended. That's quite permanent for me. Please think a bit before posting. I know that it is too much to ask to you, but it would be very nice. Thanks in advance.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

 

actually G it was I who presented that paper to the group when I was talking to jim about residency time. Point being that given the long and slow decline of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere the "average" residency time can be considered to be something like 300 to 500 years although numbers in the K ranges are being kicked around lately. Permanent? no, but significantly longer than the 4 or 5 years Jim was presenting.

specifically it all began In 1896 Svante Arrhenius (1903 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) predicted the decrease in CO2 needed to cause past ice ages. He wasn't far off, and it is not a large decrease. This helped confirm Tyndall's 1859 prediction that human-produced increases in CO2 would cause just the reverse: global warming. And a theory was born by the accurate test of predictions. Today the Theory has developed into what is called Abrupt Global Climate Shift, which I often refer to as Rapid instead of Abrupt but that's a half dozen one way and 6 the other. You might find it interesting that when these guys first advanced there ideas they were not exactly well received

According to the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change of the National Research Council

There are essentially two definitions of abrupt climate change:

* In terms of physics, it is a transition of the climate system into a different mode on a time scale that is faster than the responsible forcing.
* In terms of impacts, "an abrupt change is one that takes place so rapidly and unexpectedly that human or natural systems have difficulty adapting to it".

neither mention "permanent"

Alley 2005 presents the most modern definition of the theory in a landmark paper that went beyond just the short term time frame of the warming event predicted by the theory of global warming to the consequences of such warming in the past climate record ( Dansgaard-Oeschger events ), which he found to be rapid and extreme global climate swings.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Ffull%2F299%2F5615%2F2005&ei=SKgwTLhXwfvwBteL-ckL&usg=AFQjCNHG22a1_NBV0wMFWOzWZ8dsDTHKEQ&sig2=ppx8M50LkM7WLEc4wtpEYg

There is no mention of the term "permanent" but instead the direct relevance of these events being "repeated" throughout the climate history and therefor likely in the face of today's anthropogenic changes

Im sure Allen could explain the details of IPCC 2007: 514 assessment of residence times better than I can and if you read back a bit you will see he has already presented an in depth analysis to Jim so he may be hesitant to repeat himself, point being as a very famous man once said, "you aint going to learn, what you dont want to know".

not trying to pick on you G just keeping it honest
oh hey I hear from the folks with a bit more experience than I that Stetson is best served with a light barbecue sauce and a slice of humble pie.
cheers
B

PS
my issue with that last was that you presented your own version of a modified and somewhat inaccurately altered definition of the theory and then went on to explain a problem based on your own inaccuracy which you naturally blamed on the scientific community. Not a real strong argument from an informed point of view but one that might breed a bit of confusion among the readers unless quickly corrected.

 

Brownian motion disproved. Boston's random meanderings by now should have had his path cross the path of truth at least once.