'Global warming

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 01 2007,12:12)]Yes, science acknowledges that natural cycles play a part in climate. This fact was established about 1000 posts back. Acientists who researrch man made global warming phenomenon are well aware of natural changes, they have studied them in greater detail and at far greater length than I or most people who write on QRZ. What scientists are looking at are anomalies. well defined changes in climate that cannot be explained by natural phenomenon.
The issue my friend is more of philosophy, not science. I am suddenly reminded of my last hike into the McCarthy-Kennecott area, after it had been designated a national park and I decided I would no longer care to return. The stupid park designation meant that thousands of people were suddenly flocking to see this place that was more wonderful IMO before being parkified.

Hiking with my young son towards the hand tram to get across the river and its house-sized boils over boulders, we found ourselves walking along-side a number of Californian and European tourists. I was stunned at all of the people, and further stunned that they were all so upset. One of the women was alternating between cries of anguish and tears of anger, sort of leading the others in their bummer-fest, so I "tuned-in" to hear what she was saying as best I could. It was hot and my pack was heavy.

After a time I began to gather that they were upset about something in the direction of the terminal moraines of the great glacier coming out of the massively glorious 16,000 foot peaks to our left. I was confused as to why they were apparently so freaking sad about the hundreds of multi-hundred foot high piles of terminus, but that is what was bugging them.

Eventually I began to realize that they were cursing the Kennecott mine, and they thought the ponderous glacial tailings across the entire breadth of the valley floor were tailings from the Kennecott mining operations in the early 20th century. I interjected and explained about the terminal morraines, and how several to several hundred feet down or so in the dirt and rock piles you could still dig up glacial ice.

The mine tailings, all of them, were placed in the shadow of large glacial deposits, and could not have been, in total, even 1/10th the size of a single glacial deposit. I explained that they could see the tailings when they actually made it up to the mine itself, but you could not see the tailings form anywhere else in the valley.

The group grew silent as we trudged under the summer sun. Finally the gal who formerly had been so stricken with grief and anger let out a reverent "Cool!". This was followed by expressions from the rest of the group, "Awesome!", "Amazing!" and other expletives soon followed, and the day became a good one again for the group.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 01 2007,12:21)]All of this reminds me of the medicine men who do a rain dance in the hope of producing rain when there is a drought . If rain comes then they are a success. If rain does not come...they don't admit failure...They just invent a new dance step.
Ah, but if you believe, you will toil in the harvest and hunt, sending virgins to the medicine man while he merely dances for their favors..

[W2ILP]

al2i

There now exists data that seem to be in favor of man-made global warming and also data that contradicts that theory. Which set of data is to be believed to be most significant is a matter of interpretation. Data based on history can differ depending on when comparisons are to be made. It is not scientific to say that present warming is the result of increased man-made CO2 exhausts...because this may only be a coincidence as I had previously stated. We do know from long term historical data (where it does seem to exist)...that climate changes are cyclic and also that the Sun's radiation and Sun Spots are cyclic...This too could be called only coincidental...However I consider this data to be more convincing than the man-made theory. I could be wrong...But I know that I am not wrong about the element of SIZE and that makes the big rush to reduce exhausts more political than significant. I have always said however that we need to try to reduce ground pollution by moving industries that produce pollution away from densely populated areas...but we can not afford to relocate all heavy industries to China..because this is not going to be a Global solution no matter what theory you may endorse. I also believe that we should raise all dikes and seawalls to prevent future floods...even if they are going to be caused by hurricanes...because the risk exists and the land is worthy of that expense. This should not become a political football and the cost must be decided upon as to how much the federal government, state governments and private corporations may be responsible for flood prevention. We may not be able to afford the time that such economic debating takes, as storms can be unpredictable...and as they say..."Time and tide wait for no man."

w2ilp (Increase Levee Protection)

[W2ILP]

n1laf

As we said ice is less dense than liquid water and it floats on liquid water. When anything floats on water it displaces its own weight in some volume of water. When ice floats it always has some part of it that is above the water level..That is the real tip of the iceberg! And that is what sailors looked for before the days of SONAR. Anyway when the iceberg melts it can not raise the level of the ocean because it had previously displaced the volume of water that it will full up in its melted stage. The fear is thus not a fear of melting ice that may raise sea levels (except by folks who never learned Archimedes Principle)...but the fear of tidal waves and hurricanes that can be the result of extreme weather conditions such as El Nino y La Nina....with waves above the Ns that are known as tildas.

The Earth may not be flat but by on the average sea level is globally flat....unless we make waves.
We can never cause tides that are caused by the Moon...because the masses have too little mass...even in Mass as well as in Hartford, Haverford and Hampshire..where hurricanes hardly happen... only in elocution lessons, when sung by My Fair Lady!

w2ilp (I Like Physics) It proves that if ice melts in my drink it can not cause my cup to runneth over....or anoint my head with oil exhausts.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 01 2007,07:02)]Just as a matter of interest, how rapidly is the land in the Anchorage area rising as a result of the removal of the overburden of ice at the end of the ice age? The effects of this rise are quite significant in the Baltic area. Not trying to make a point, just curious!
Despite the rebound, more significant tectonic forces dominate here, and the tilt in 1964 was remarkable. We had entire forests flooded at the end of both the Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm. Although some areas were immediately flooded at high tide, much of those forests died slowly from rising water tables and salt intrusions over the next twenty years, and if you know what you are looking at, you can see the dead forest still today.

My favorite places to view the effect of the earthquake were the old, buildings at Portage where the mud smoothly filled them to beyond the roof line, and at a campground at the end of Kenai Lake, where we could clearly see the campsite we stayed at once under water. At the other end there was an unusually extended beach along the shoreline.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,14:21)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 01 2007,07:02)]Just as a matter of interest, how rapidly is the land in the Anchorage area rising as a result of the removal of the overburden of ice at the end of the ice age? The effects of this rise are quite significant in the Baltic area. Not trying to make a point, just curious!
Despite the rebound, more significant tectonic forces dominate here, and the tilt in 1964 was remarkable. We had entire forests flooded at the end of both the Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm. Although some areas were immediately flooded at high tide, much of those forests died slowly from rising water tables and salt intrusions over the next twenty years, and if you know what you are looking at, you can see the dead forest still today.

My favorite places to view the effect of the earthquake were the old, buildings at Portage where the mud smoothly filled them to beyond the roof line, and at a campground at the end of Kenai Lake, where we could clearly see the campsite we stayed at once under water. At the other end there was an unusually extended beach along the shoreline.
Fascinating: I had forgotten about that, and would like to see it myself!

I'm with you on infrastructure, incidentally. Modern industrial buildings, warehousing etc is built with a design life of about 25 years here, and I think the same goes for housing, so I can visualise the infrastructure responding to sea level changes pretty well. I think the Dutch would cope well enough, too, they are pretty smart engineers. On the other hand, Bangladesh might well virtually disappear!

Well, I'm about bushed, time to climb into my pit!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,13:42)]
Quote[/b] ]
The issue my friend is more of philosophy, not science. #I am suddenly reminded of my last hike into the McCarthy-Kennecott area, after it had been designated a national park and I decided I would no longer care to return. #The stupid park designation meant that thousan


That's why I am not interested in the interpretations of misinformed people. That's why I pay little attention to Al Gore and/or environmentalist groups who preach about monster hurricanes, New York going underwater, monster heat waves etc. While some of these things may be possible to one degree or another it is difficult to predict such specifics. I am more interested in what scientists have to say about global climate change. I want to see data. I want theories that are supported by facts.

Too many people make unscientific assumptions. "Oh, global warming is happening and it caused Hurrican Katrina". "Last summers extreme heat waves were caused by global warming". "Oh, there are no big trees on this hill side because greedy lumber interests cut them all down". Possibly...yes. But many people take such assumptions are factual without substance to back them up.

Are there global warming alarmists ?? Sure. There are extremes on both sides of the issue. I try to avoid both and stick with science as much as I can.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,11:31)]I am laughing because even the worst-case scenarios for significant ocean-level rise take place on a time scale that is enormously longer than the life-cycle of the vast bulk of existing infrastructure, and yet you and others make a case of the most vital crises where we will not be able to berth vessels anymore. What a riot!

Actually you're confused. I've made no worst-case scenario case of any sort. I merely pointed out, rather correctly, that you were wrong in your comment that building infrastructure near the water's edge was stupid.

I realize you enjoy pulling the chains of the doom sayers, but I suggest you buy a program, as you're having trouble telling the players apart.

Quote[/b] ]Do you really have no clue about the design life of something as simple as an office building?

I'm not the one who was naive enough to claim that putting infrastructure near water was "stupid", so I'm going to go with "yes".

But then, I'm not silly enough to think that Anchorage's tides are representative, or that the ocean raise scenarios are about office buildings, either.

The doomsayers on the pro side and the deniers on the anti side make it difficult to have an informed discussion about what the real issues are. Your deliberate attempts to muddy the water do no more than energize the extremists, which I doubt is a goal you have in mind.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 01 2007,15:32)]Your deliberate attempts to muddy the water do no more than energize the extremists, which I doubt is a goal you have in mind.
Extremism can be a wonderful thing Martin. Try being extremely thoughtful rather than extremely condescending and you may find that your World is a little less cold.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 01 2007,15:04)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,13:42)]
Quote[/b] ]
The issue my friend is more of philosophy, not science. I am suddenly reminded of my last hike into the McCarthy-Kennecott area, after it had been designated a national park and I decided I would no longer care to return. The stupid park designation meant that thousan


That's why I am not interested in the interpretations of misinformed people. That's why I pay little attention to Al Gore and/or environmentalist groups who preach about monster hurricanes, New York going underwater, monster heat waves etc. While some of these things may be possible to one degree or another it is difficult to predict such specifics. I am more interested in what scientists have to say about global climate change. I want to see data. I want theories that are supported by facts.

Too many people make unscientific assumptions. "Oh, global warming is happening and it caused Hurrican Katrina". "Last summers extreme heat waves were caused by global warming". "Oh, there are no big trees on this hill side because greedy lumber interests cut them all down". Possibly...yes. But many people take such assumptions are factual without substance to back them up.

Are there global warming alarmists ?? Sure. There are extremes on both sides of the issue. I try to avoid both and stick with science as much as I can.
You and I think more alike about such matters than not. I post at you because you are an able thinker. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,12:42)]The mine tailings, all of them, were placed in the shadow of large glacial deposits, and could not have been, in total, even 1/10th the size of a single glacial deposit. I explained that they could see the tailings when they actually made it up to the mine itself, but you could not see the tailings form anywhere else in the valley.
Feed 46.013773° -112.525855° to Google Earth and take a look at the large hole in the ground. You can find out more about it on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit) or at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/env-berkeley.htm).

It's really sweet that Kennicott didn't make a big mess out that particular mine. It's a pity that the rest of the industry, Anaconda in particular, and Kennicott elsewhere, weren't so gentle.

That hole, by the way, is the source of one of the largest superfund cleanup sites in the entire US, which, like so many other superfund sites, is the result of irresponsible mining practices.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,15:40)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 01 2007,15:32)]Your deliberate attempts to muddy the water do no more than energize the extremists, which I doubt is a goal you have in mind.
Extremism can be a wonderful thing Martin.

Right, in much the same way that putting infrastructure near water is stupid.

Quote[/b] ]Try being extremely thoughtful rather than extremely condescending and you may find that your World is a little less cold.

False dichotomy, there. Besides, it is the emotional man who finds his world warm. Thoughtfulness tends to distance one.

[N1LAF]

Water has a maximum density at 4 DegC. When water freezes, volume increases by 9%.

Experiment (http://www.science.org.au/nova/018/018act01.htm)

From there , links to Antartic Surface Water discussions

[W2ILP]

N1LAF

Thank you for the very good link to the water experiment. Since the ocean is SALT Water I would like to see that experiment repeated using salt water that is as salty but not any more salty than the ocean. You may get different results in that case. Try it if you are interested.

Too much salt can raise my blood pressure. That is why I take a die-erratic pill every day..

w2ilp (I Like Potassium)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 01 2007,13:53)]al2i

There now exists data that seem to be in favor of man-made global warming and also data that contradicts that theory. #Which set of data is to be believed to be most significant is a matter of interpretation. # Data based on history can differ depending on when comparisons are to be made. #It is not scientific to say that present warming is the result of increased man-made CO2 exhausts...because this may only be a coincidence as I had previously stated. #We do know from long term historical data (where it does seem to exist)...that climate changes are cyclic and also that the Sun's radiation and Sun Spots are cyclic...This too could be called only coincidental...However I consider this data to be more convincing than the man-made theory. #I could be wrong...But I know that I am not wrong about the element of SIZE and that makes the big rush to reduce exhausts more political than significant. #I have always said however that we need to try to reduce ground pollution by moving industries that produce pollution away from densely populated areas...but we can not afford to relocate all heavy industries to China..because this is not going to be a Global solution no matter what theory you may endorse. #I also believe that we should raise all dikes and seawalls to prevent future floods...even if they are going to be caused by hurricanes...because the risk exists and the land is worthy of that expense. #This should not become a political football and the cost must be decided upon as to how much the federal government, state governments and private corporations may be responsible for flood prevention. # We may not be able to afford the time that such economic debating takes, as storms can be unpredictable...and as they say..."Time and tide wait for no man."

w2ilp (Increase Levee Protection)
Quote[/b] ]
There now exists data that seem to be in favor of man-made global warming and also data that contradicts that theory. #Which set of data is to be believed to be most significant is a matter of interpretation. # Data based on history can differ depending on when comparisons are to be made. #It is not scientific to say that present warming is the result of increased man-made CO2 exhausts...because this may only be a coincidence as I had previously stated. #We do know from long term historical data (where it does seem to exist)...that climate changes are cyclic and also that the Sun's radiation and Sun Spots are cyclic...This too could be called only coincidental...However I consider this data to be more convincing than the man-made theory. #I could be wrong..


Since you seem so convinced that natural causes are responsible for present day global warming why don't you perform a study of your own. Apparently you have the knowledge to do such research. And you seem pretty convinced that scientists are wrong about anthropogenic warming. So you are off to a head start and you may really be on to something. All you need to show is how the natural causes , i.e. solar output, etc are better correlated to present day climate change and/or show how so many scientists have grossly mininterpreted their data to arrive at the false conclusions they have reached today.

Furthermore, you already know that man cannot affect global warming by reducing fossil fuel consumption but then that would be irrelevant because your study will be showing that man made activity is not causing the problem to begin with.

I would persue it if I were you. You never know, maybe scientists don't have the kind of understanding about this stuff that you do. You might be able to revolutionize our whole outlook towards global warming. At least mankind will realize that it's perfectly natural and he won't have to feel guilty when he's sitting stopped on the LIE in a traffic jam burning gas by the gallon.

I would go for it if I were you.

[n2ize]

Bush admin has subverted climate science ?? Could it be possible ? I thought according to skeptics that Bush was promoting climate change.

Linque (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070329-how-the-government-and-big-business-have-tried-to-subvert-science.html)

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 01 2007,22:30)]N1LAF

Thank you for the very good link to the water experiment. Since the ocean is SALT Water I would like to see that experiment repeated using salt water that is as salty but not any more salty than the ocean. You may get different results in that case. Try it if you are interested.

Too much salt can raise my blood pressure. That is why I take a die-erratic pill every day..

w2ilp (I Like Potassium)
The Argo Program (http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/) is quite ambitious.

[K3XR]

Global warming back to the 1600's, and, of course, the world was loaded with SUV's in the 1600's.

http://www.adn.com/life/v-printer/story/8756517p-8658008c.html

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 03 2007,06:01)]Global warming back to the 1600's, and, of course, the world was loaded with SUV's in the 1600's.

http://www.adn.com/life/v-printer/story/8756517p-8658008c.html
Akasofu is wrong. He cannot account for present rates of climate change. science acknowledges the effects of natural causes yet no natural cause correlaters with present climate change. He is right in as far as keeping an open mind. But he fails to show any significant natural cause.

[N1LAF]

John, again I have to bring up the 100,000 year, 1500 year, 206 year, 11 year solar and earth orbit cycles as natural causes. We cannot say with certianty that temperature spiking didn't occur in the past. It is possible that the cycles have been through this particular 'phase' in the past with same climate effect.

Here is another example of correlation of Atlantic conditions that have the same period as discovered in ancient Nile records. Remember back in previous link that there was an 80 something year cycle. Accuweather Joe Bastardi says that because of the AMO in play, this time period resembles conditions of 1933 to 1938, and warns that New England is fair game until 2025. Link Here (http://headlines.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=8) The difference between 2007 and 1933 is 74 years, close to 80 something years. These similarities cannot be ignored.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 03 2007,14:30)]John, again I have to bring up the 100,000 year, 1500 year, 206 year, 11 year solar and earth orbit cycles as natural causes. #We cannot say with certianty that temperature spiking didn't occur in the past. #It is possible that the cycles have been through this particular 'phase' in the past with same climate effect.

Here is another example of correlation of Atlantic conditions that have the same period as discovered in ancient Nile records. #Remember back in previous link that there was an 80 something year cycle. #Accuweather Joe Bastardi says that because of the AMO in play, this time period resembles conditions of 1933 to 1938, and warns that New England is fair game until 2025. Link Here (http://headlines.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=8) #The difference between 2007 and 1933 is 74 years, close to 80 something years. #These similarities cannot be ignored.
Did you get anywhere with that Java sdk ??

[W2ILP]

n2ize

You asked..Why don't I conduct a study of my own? #I do thank you for the complement. #(I think) if you believe that I am competent enough to conduct such a study on my own. #

I can't be expected to conduct such as study with my own limited funds and it is unlikely that I could obtain a grant to do so. #I do not have any of the instrumentation or travel funds, etc that would probably be required. #Researching the studies of others, in my opinion is not going to be necessary if any recognized hypothesis are confirmed. #Aside from all of this I am in poor health and might not endure such a task, realizing that it might take as long as 20 years to furnish adequate data about climate trends, which could lead to recognized proof or disproof of present theories. # I'm getting too old. #That is why I am now retired...so that I don't have to take on full time work between doctor visits.

Most importantly. # I am certain that many scientists, far more qualified than I, are watching the Global Warming trend and will honestly report any significant cooling (reversal) whenever it occurs.
Those who say that they will be monitoring CO2 levels (although I dunno how accurately they can be) will also add future data...and the Russian Astronomical Institute is sure to continue their astronomical observing as well. # NASA has a long term program to study Mars for a possible future manned exploration. #We shall see what develops. #Results could cause important modifications to present theories in only a few years.

w2ilp (I Like Philosophy)...It is easy for us all to play philosopher here. #I don't believe in prophecies nor can I depend on science to provide future predictions with absolute certainty. #That is because I am first of all a skeptic of everything that I can't prove with my volt-ohm meter, my grid-dip meter or my bathroom scale.

[K3XR]

The Eco-Nazis will need to ship this guy off to an indoctrination camp to his head straight.

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=51681


Sorry Alaska, guess you didn't get the memo on global warming.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11840

[K3XR]

More phoney baloney from the global warming crowd.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

[K3XR]

Al "chicken little" Gore, the sky is falling!!!!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

[N1LAF]

A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html). "He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about,"

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 01 2007,15:55)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 01 2007,12:42)]The mine tailings, all of them, were placed in the shadow of large glacial deposits, and could not have been, in total, even 1/10th the size of a single glacial deposit. I explained that they could see the tailings when they actually made it up to the mine itself, but you could not see the tailings form anywhere else in the valley.
Feed 46.013773° -112.525855° to Google Earth and take a look at the large hole in the ground. You can find out more about it on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit) or at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/env-berkeley.htm).

It's really sweet that Kennicott didn't make a big mess out that particular mine. It's a pity that the rest of the industry, Anaconda in particular, and Kennicott elsewhere, weren't so gentle.

That hole, by the way, is the source of one of the largest superfund cleanup sites in the entire US, which, like so many other superfund sites, is the result of irresponsible mining practices.
That is unsurprisingly irrelevant.

Here is a Google Earth kmz of the Kenecott mine tailing. Sadly, the barren areas of moraine are covered by snow and appear just like glacial ice.

Kennecott Mine Tailing (http://www.davemcgraw.com/GoogleEarthFiles/KennecottMineTailing.kmz)

The scale is hard to comprehend unless you are there. Mt Blackburn is awe-inspiring.

Here is a link to a jpeg of that Google Earth presentation. I didn't embed it because of the bandwidth requirements.

Link to jpeg (http://www.davemcgraw.com/GoogleEarthFiles/KennecottMineTailing.jpg)


Take a look at Ron Niebrugge's (http://www.wildnatureimages.com/Wrangell-St.%20Elias_National_Park.htm) pictures to understand why I spend so much time hiking and exploring the wilds and ruins of the old Kennecott area. And YES! It is much cooler for the remaining artifacts and rich history of the amazing pioneers who worked in the area. Unfortunately, you can hardly breathe there now as the Nazional Park Service brownshirts are everywhere.

[n2ize]

But global warming is just an unproven theory. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I'll believe in global warming when I see a mathematical proof that God exists. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC2ESD]

It Holy Saturday and its 35.7F in Atlantic City NJ. I seen it snow at a Baseball Game on ESPN-HD last night. Its cold from the Rocky Mountains east to the Atlantic Ocean and from the deep south to the north pole. Women on the Boardwalk in AC will be wearing a Rabbit fur hat instead of a Easter Bonnet Sunday.

Again Global Warming: Myth Busted

[K9STH]

We are getting light snow flurries here in Richardson, Texas (north side of Dallas). Usually at this time the temperatures are in the 70s and even 80s.

It looks like Mother Nature is trying to tell Al Gore something!

Glen, K9STH

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 07 2007,04:18)]That is unsurprisingly irrelevant.


I was under the impression that one of the implications of your story was how small the works of man are compared to those of nature. The Berkeley pit is merely a counter example, and hardly irrelevant in that context.

Quote[/b] ]The scale is hard to comprehend unless you are there. Mt Blackburn is awe-inspiring.

Actually, the scale is pretty easy to comprehend. There are buildings in the vicinity of the tailings, and they give a sense of proportion.

[N1LAF]

Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT, Speaks out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 08 2007,18:37)]Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT, Speaks out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)
That was a terrific read, OM.


Quote[/b] ]The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Exactly! We need to reduce dependence on carbon-based foreign energy resources for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with climate.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 08 2007,19:37)]Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT, Speaks out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)
Lindzen has repeatedly spewed the same sort of pseudo-scientific claims. Most have been refuted years ago. This is nothing new. Nor is it very scientific.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 08 2007,19:04)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 08 2007,19:37)]Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT, Speaks out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)
Lindzen has repeatedly spewed the same sort of pseudo-scientific claims. Most have been refuted years ago. This is nothing new. Nor is it very scientific.
It was an epistemological, political and economic perspective, and by calling it "pseudo-scientific" you either reveal that you did not understand it, or that your agenda is so strong that you are desperate to attack even if you have zero coherence. To say it was "refuted" years ago is simply nonsense.

[W2ILP]

If you read all that Professor Lindzen has stated you will find that he could agree with much of what I have said in my posts here....as I agree with what he has said. It is good to read that a researcher who works using government grants, and is not depending on politics or on the energy users for support, can put the whole case for global warming into its proper perspective. I believe that he speaks like a true scientist because he makes no dire predictions and admits that no one can predict weather conditions more than a week into the future with any certainty...so why predict disastrous conditions in the far future? This is truly an objective opinion that takes into consideration the many factors that do lead to severe weather conditions. He does not deny the greenhouse effect but he does not conclude that periodic small temperature increases will result in world disasters. He says that increased greenhouse effect can not be proportional to increased CO2 exhausts. The cause and effect have not been proved to be linear functions in the past, nor can they be in the future.

w2ilp (Intelligent Logical Professor)...Please read carefully all that he has to say.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 08 2007,20:22)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 08 2007,19:04)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 08 2007,19:37)]Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT, Speaks out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)
Lindzen has repeatedly spewed the same sort of pseudo-scientific claims. Most have been refuted years ago. This is nothing new. Nor is it very scientific.
It was an epistemological, political and economic perspective, and by calling it "pseudo-scientific" you either reveal that you did not understand it, or that your agenda is so strong that you are desperate to attack even if you have zero coherence. #To say it was "refuted" years ago is simply nonsense.
I wasn't referring to Lindzen's main argument but rather to some of the claims he uses in support of his main argument. Big difference. I can paint any picture I like but whether that picture depicts reality depends on the elements of which it is comprised.

While Lindzen has some impressive credentials and at least at present does accept the fact that the temperature of the earth is warming and a close correlation between greenhouse gas and human activity does exist he does not nessesarily agree that the effect of such changes would be nearly as severe as some claim. Indeed , he is one of the better informed skeptics. However many of the claims he makes to support his overall argument are quite questionable. While Lindzen argues that the effects of climate change will be nominal and perhaps even beneficial I still don't find much consolation in the arguments he presents since many of the claims he makes have either been refuted in the past, are scientifically questionable i.e. lacking support. While Gore's film may have painted a worst case, gloom and doom outlook on the future I am not nessesarily relieved by Lindzens perspective.

Linque - Lindzen Critique (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 09 2007,11:41)]If you read all that Professor Lindzen has stated you will find that he could agree with much of what I have said in my posts here....as I agree with what he has said. #It is good to read that a researcher who works using government grants, and is not depending on politics or on the energy users for support, can put the whole case for global warming into its proper perspective. # I believe that he speaks like a true scientist because he makes no dire predictions and admits that no one can predict weather conditions more than a week into the future with any certainty...so why predict disastrous conditions in the far future? #This is truly an objective opinion that takes into consideration the many factors that do lead to severe weather conditions. #He does not deny the greenhouse effect but he does not conclude that periodic small temperature increases will result in world disasters. # He says that increased greenhouse effect can not be proportional to increased CO2 exhausts. #The cause and effect have not been proved to be linear functions in the past, nor can they be in the future.

w2ilp (Intelligent Logical Professor)...Please read carefully all that he has to say.
Quote[/b] ]
tions and admits that no one can predict weather conditions more than a week into the future with any certainty...so why predict disastrous conditions in the far future?


Climatologists are not predicting weather conditions in the future. I'll agree, it would be awefully hard for anyone to say that it will be 60 degrees and raining on April 9, 2050. But Climatologists are not trying to predict weather. They are trying to predict climactic changes over long time periods using long term data, studying long term trends, averages and comparing present day rates of climate change with past changes. #That is a considerably different than trying to predict weather.

Of course it's difficult to use a model to predict anything with 100% accuracy. That's why we try to use the old noodle. You look at the rate in which things like temperature, CO2, fossil fuel consumption, ocean level rise, ice melting, etc. is occurring and you try to apply that data as best you can to make predictions. This is nothing new it is done quite often in science, economics, and many other disciplines.

Quote[/b] ]
believe that he speaks like a true scientist because he makes no dire predictions


because his prediction coincides with what you want to believe. This is normal. I had a friend who used to always say, "what one wants to believe is more real than what is".

[K3XR]

It's not easy being green, LIB on LIB.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1773 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=447677&in_page_id=1773)

[G8ADD]

Since so many of you guys either don't know or don't care about the difference between climate and weather, I will join in the fun.

I just got back from an Easter break camping in Cornwall. We had wall to wall sunshine and I have a touch of sunburn.

The "Global Warming: Myth Busted" is now a busted myth. OK?

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 11 2007,06:39)]Since so many of you guys either don't know or don't care about the difference between climate and weather, I will join in the fun.

I just got back from an Easter break camping in Cornwall. We had wall to wall sunshine and I have a touch of sunburn.

The "Global Warming: Myth Busted" is now a busted myth. OK?

73

Brian G8ADD
You might want to check the difference between consensus and science. #Consensus is not science, if it were, a group of scientists could get together and say the world is flat, and it would be so, even if they were not able to prove it.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 11 2007,07:38)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 11 2007,06:39)]Since so many of you guys either don't know or don't care about the difference between climate and weather, I will join in the fun.

I just got back from an Easter break camping in Cornwall. We had wall to wall sunshine and I have a touch of sunburn.

The "Global Warming: Myth Busted" is now a busted myth. OK?

73

Brian G8ADD
You might want to check the difference between consensus and science. #Consensus is not science, if it were, a group of scientists could get together and say the world is flat, and it would be so, even if they were not able to prove it.
Yeah, but in the case of climate change the consensus is BASED ON SCIENCE. The reason there is consensus is because vast numbers of scientists have reached the same conclusions based upon scientific evidence to back up their conclusion.

If it was simply blind consensus with no tangible evidence then you could argue that the consensus means nothing. But in this case it is supported by tangible data and valid research.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 09 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 08 2007,20:22)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 08 2007,19:04)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 08 2007,19:37)]Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT, Speaks out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/)
Lindzen has repeatedly spewed the same sort of pseudo-scientific claims. Most have been refuted years ago. This is nothing new. Nor is it very scientific.
It was an epistemological, political and economic perspective, and by calling it "pseudo-scientific" you either reveal that you did not understand it, or that your agenda is so strong that you are desperate to attack even if you have zero coherence. To say it was "refuted" years ago is simply nonsense.
I wasn't referring to Lindzen's main argument but rather to some of the claims he uses in support of his main argument. Big difference. I can paint any picture I like but whether that picture depicts reality depends on the elements of which it is comprised.

While Lindzen has some impressive credentials and at least at present does accept the fact that the temperature of the earth is warming and a close correlation between greenhouse gas and human activity does exist he does not nessesarily agree that the effect of such changes would be nearly as severe as some claim. Indeed , he is one of the better informed skeptics. However many of the claims he makes to support his overall argument are quite questionable. While Lindzen argues that the effects of climate change will be nominal and perhaps even beneficial I still don't find much consolation in the arguments he presents since many of the claims he makes have either been refuted in the past, are scientifically questionable i.e. lacking support. While Gore's film may have painted a worst case, gloom and doom outlook on the future I am not nessesarily relieved by Lindzens perspective.

Linque - Lindzen Critique (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/)
Sadly, the critiques seem to miss the salient points as well. Sigh.

It is comfortable I suppose to always attack the idiots who deny anthropogenic warming as if that made one wise, rather than accept that one is not so wise as to determine the best course of action.

It is still overwhelmingly evident that the prevailing climate of the last couple million years was hostile to the major portion of current human infrastructure. Brief excursions into warm climates ended abruptly and completely. The current Holocene that has nurtured civilization is such an excursion.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 11 2007,11:46)]It is still overwhelmingly evident that the prevailing climate of the last couple million years was hostile to the major portion of current human infrastructure. #Brief excursions into warm climates ended abruptly and completely. #The current Holocene that has nurtured civilization is such an excursion.
It is also overwhelmingly evident that the very cold climate of the past 1 million odd years with the occasional warm perionds is itself an abberation compared to the average 8 - 12 deg C warmer global climate for the bulk of the past 1 billion years. There is only one other time durning that whole 1 billion year period that the global climate has been as cold as it is now, the late Carboniferous and Permian.

If we are worried about a 1 - 2 deg C rise on human infrastructure, what would we do about a 10 deg C rise in average global temperatures if the global climate returned to its normal temperature?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ April 11 2007,08:57)]If we are worried about a 1 - 2 deg C rise on human infrastructure, what would we do about a 10 deg C rise in average global temperatures if the global climate returned to its normal temperature?
That is an interesting conjecture. I assumed that the last couple of million years were adequate to determine a "normal", but perhaps they are not.

Perhaps the Sun really has been growing hotter, but the scavenging of carbon from the atmosphere by life and sedimentation processes combined with decreasing volcanism has reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide so much that a colder climate developed anyway.

So if the Sun is hotter than ever and we return a *lot* of carbon dioxide into circulation, then the Earth may get hotter than ever. That could be pretty helpful if we have an extinction level event like a major asteroid strike. The apocalyptic global cooling just might be ameliorated by all of the carbon dioxide. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K3XR]

Just go see Al's movie, you dummy.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11995

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 11 2007,05:57)]It's not easy being green, LIB on LIB.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1773 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=447677&in_page_id=1773)
What do you use to clean the sand out of your ears?

[N1LAF]

Ocean cooling left out of paper (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/11/correction-to-paper-on-recent-ocean-cooling-to-be-available-soon/)

[W2ILP]

I agree that there is a difference between climate and weather. Weather is what we get locally and climate is more global. There is also a difference between man made exhausts and greenhouse effect. Man made exhausts are made locally but the greenhouse effect is theorized as being a global phenomena that will melt the polar icecaps and globally warm the entire world..

There is something that is always observed as a big difference between local and global news...

There is the story about the old lady who lived in a Bronx apartment house. Her neighbor asked what she thought about the Afghanistan dilemma. Her answer was, "I don't know anything about it...All of my windows face the back"..

w2ilp (Ignore Local Polarization?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif)...unless you want to be Polish.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 12 2007,15:04)]Ocean cooling left out of paper (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/11/correction-to-paper-on-recent-ocean-cooling-to-be-available-soon/)
A mischievous headline - or you haven't read it carefully!

73

Brian G8ADD

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 13 2007,00:10)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 12 2007,15:04)]Ocean cooling left out of paper (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/11/correction-to-paper-on-recent-ocean-cooling-to-be-available-soon/)
A mischievous headline - or you haven't read it carefully!

73

Brian G8ADD
I wondered who else in the thread was actually reading the links. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 11 2007,09:46)]It is still overwhelmingly evident that the prevailing climate of the last couple million years was hostile to the major portion of current human infrastructure. Brief excursions into warm climates ended abruptly and completely. The current Holocene that has nurtured civilization is such an excursion.
I missed this first time through and will address it now.

The fact that during the glaciations large areas of northern Europe and North America were covered in ice sheets does indeed mean that the climate was hostile to current human infrastructure - but only where it is currently situated. It is a common misconception that the world in general became a more hostile place, the truth is quite otherwise.

Firstly places like the Sahara and the Middle East got more rain and were much greener than they are now.

Secondly the amount of water tied up in epicontinental ice sheets caused the sea level to drop quite substancially, exposing new land all over the world which was quickly colonised by plants and according to some theories human civilisation developed on these new and temporary coastal plains.

As I have argued before on this site, a new Ice Age would be much more survivable for humanity than an ice-free world. More fertile and habitable land would be available which would more than compensate for the loss of our current heartlands under ice. The advance of the ice would be slow in human terms, despite the "Ice-blitz" theories, and sea front structures such as docks, warehousing etc, could be used for their normal commercial lifetime and then be replaced further down the continental slopes. Cities would be engulfed by advancing ice at such a leisurely pace that haven cities could be constructed in more temporate areas without strain. Mineral resources lost under ice would be compensated for by fresh resources exposed by the retreating shore line.

In short, we have little to fear from the return of the ice.

Contrast this with the situation if, indeed, GW leads to the loss of the permanent ice caps.

The rising sea level would cover a significant part of our most fertile low-lying ground and lead to an overall loss of living space and agricultural productivity. Offshore oil would be harder to win. Desertification would increase in places like the sub-Sahara countries. Possibly extreme weather would increase (the science on that is still working towards a conclusion) and there would certainly be shifts in weather patterns to cope with. Currently dry areas might become wetter, other areas might become drier.

I do not necessarily accept that we are in the midst of a major and at least semi-permanent climate shift, but I urge that instead of fruitless arguments about whether or not we "believe" in GW, as if our beliefs would have any affect on the physical reality, we should bend our collective minds to planning how we should adapt to changes of climate and sea level. GW is a threat. No sensible person ignores a threat. We should prepare contingency plans for both GW and the return of the ice, so that if either happened we would not be caught on the wrong foot. This is the exact opposite of panicking and does not require instant fixes and so-called eco-terrorism. It just requires continued research and calm, detached thought.

73

Brian G8ADD

[al2i]

Hi Brian,

You have the same view about the return of ice as I do about its melting. Further, you have the same recommendations to deal with climate change as I do.

I feel that the most unreasonable positions are those that call for or expect no change. Change will happen. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 13 2007,10:09)]Hi Brian,

You have the same view about the return of ice as I do about its melting. Further, you have the same recommendations to deal with climate change as I do.

I feel that the most unreasonable positions are those that call for or expect no change. Change will happen. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Agreed, OM!

When I was 16 I thought the world was fixed and unchanging. Now I am 66 I have had my nose rubbed in change so often that I can no longer imagine permanence!

As it says in the "Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy", "Don't Panic"!

I feel we owe it to our descendants to do the right thing. Right now we don't really know what the right thing is!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n0jaa]

GW – Conjectural Response #1

Well, so far, I’ve only managed to get through the first 25 posts. #You remember I stated I wanted to peruse all of the evidence, data, facts, and conjectures regarding global warming (GW). #I haven’t had the time to do that until now.

Okay, so what are these phenomena, the “medieval warm period” and the “little ice age?” #I’ve noticed some people regard the two as similar to what we’re experiencing now, while others disagree and state they have no bearing on current climatology.

Wasn’t a cold period always prefaced by a warm one? #If so, isn’t our current climate warming just a prelude to another “ice age?” #

I always regarded the solar cycle as connected in some way with climate change. #However, if the facts are correct, it would seem that a solar maximum causes a peak in climate temperatures, while I had always thought the opposite was true. #Low solar activity = higher temperatures and vice versa.

I’ve heard people claim that GW would lead to a drastic warming of the planet’s atmosphere, longer and drier droughts, and significantly lower-than-normal rainfall. #That seems to be true in some areas, but remember the Pacific just came off of an El Nino cycle, which seemed to cause, or at least contribute to, wetter weather in the west and drier weather in the east. #And yet, the US climate has been generally wetter than GW prognosticators predicted. #Why is this?

The end of the current El Nino cycle seems to have affected the climate towards a generally-wetter disposition, and the end of that cycle also has led climatologists to believe that the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season will be more active. #Wouldn’t the Atlantic Multidecadal Cycle (AMO) have something to do with this? #Past records seem to indicate that the AMO directly effects the number and intensity of hurricanes during a given season.

What about volcanoes? #In past millennia, volcanic eruptions were frequent. #This had the result of filling the atmosphere with tons and tons of toxic gases. #These gas clouds would also tend to allow the atmosphere to cool as sunlight would be partially blocked by these clouds.

Today, volcanic activity has decreased significantly, thereby spewing fewer toxic clouds into the air and allowing more sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere to warm it. #How does this factor into the whole equation?

I know there is always a concern about greenhouse gases and how man emits millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. #How does this figure into the equation? #Certainly we give off a lot of carbon dioxide, but so do animals, plants, in fact any living thing that is carbon-based gives off carbon dioxide.

There is also a certain amount of CO2 that is absorbed by the world’s oceans and inspirited by plants in the photosynthetic process. #How much reduction can be attributed to that, and how much is left over to affect the climate?

And how about sulfur dioxide (SO2)? #The volcanic eruptions that still occur on Earth emit tons of SO2 into the upper atmosphere, where it reflects a small amount of sunlight, thereby causing a slight cooling of the atmosphere. #Then there’s also chlorine and fluorine, #which are also emitted by volcanoes. #How do these figure into the equation?

Then there are the “heat islands” built by man to form cities, and certainly collect and store heat during the day and release it at night. #How much effect does this have on global weather? #On local weather? #On a hot day there can be as much as a 20-degree difference in a heat island as opposed to the surrounding areas.

More questions than answers. #But that is how we learn, buy asking questions.

Civil debate is welcome.

Now I plan to proceed with the next page of responses.

[W2ILP]

n2ize

I dunno if you have read what Dr. Lindzen said or if you are able to comprehend him. I do understand that you may be downplaying his conceptions by comparing them to what you may falsely believe is the consensus of a " VAST NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS". This I take means either that you don't understand what he says or you don't want to understand what he says because you don't want to accept anything that is less certain than your own preconceived notions.

AND THEN you accuse ME of agreeing with Dr. Lindzen because he says what you think I want to believe.

Dr. Lindzen doesn't know what I want to believe...and he doesn't care what I want to believe. He is a scientist and doesn't use ESP to find out what a bunch of us hams want to believe here.
Neither our inputs nor outputs have any scientific bearing on global warming trends themselves. The link between man-made exhausts and macro global climate gradients is not solid enough for any real scientist to conclude that the kind of disastrous results predicted by Gore and Hawking are probable if mans usage of fossil fuels is not decreased.

Hams are now witnessing the bottom of the trend toward poor DX propagation conditions...but hams know that these conditions are cyclic. The propagation conditions for good DX are expected to now begin to improve. It is just as likely that global climate will now begin to start getting cooler, in spite of increased man-made exhausts...BUT this is not, at this time, satisfactorily certain to be the case by any reputable scientist. The data itself is not conclusive but there is controversial data.

w2ilp (Inspecting Lindzen's Paper)

[N1LAF]

Brian, I like to put out catchy headlines to get your attention. It look like a worthwhile discussion, worthy of linking, whether or not it supports my present view. After all, we are seeking the truth, not who is right, right?

[N1LAF]

Many, many years ago, the current (at that time period) scientific consensus was that the world was flat, and if you venture too far at sea, you would fall over the edge. A handful believed otherwise, and was criticized for their beliefs/theory, or whatever you want to call it. Patterns?

[kg4kww]

As cool as it's been this spring and with all the snow to the west and north, I want to know,

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>WHERE'S THE GOLBAL WARMING?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?</span></span>

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ April 13 2007,13:10)]As cool as it's been this spring and with all the snow to the west and north, I want to know,

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>WHERE'S THE GOLBAL WARMING?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?</span></span>
Over here, mate! We are on our second week of blazing sunshine and pottering about the garden in shorts admiring the rhododendrons and camellias.

Global warming is now fully confirmed - we're all doomed!

(No, I haven't got red hair!)

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73

Brian G8ADD

[W2ILP]

n1laf

There is reason to believe that Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was spherical and this is because of astronomical observations and mathematical applications, the development of Sun dials and even the early rough estimations of the value of pi. The proof might have been lost when the Romans destroyed the library of Alexandria. The early mathematicians, however, did not often share their knowledge with the ignorant masses who followed leaders that only wanted to reinforce flat and non perspective religious or mystical beliefs. We can even see this in the paintings of very early artists who were sponsored by monarchs and churches. .

Perhaps this sort of thing is still going on although the churchs no longer try to out shout scientists ...now we have politicians who want to frighten the public with forecasts of disasters...based on the concept that the masses will believe anything that is said without applying even the scientific knowledge that they were supposed to have gotten in high school.

w2ilp (I Liked Plato)...He never said that the world was flat broke.

[K3XR]

The Eco-Nazis have their own Don Imuses.

http://www.openmarket.org/2007....ntalism (http://www.openmarket.org/2007/04/12/the-don-imuses-of-environmentalism/)

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 14 2007,08:32)]The Eco-Nazis have their own Don Imuses.

http://www.openmarket.org/2007....ntalism (http://www.openmarket.org/2007/04/12/the-don-imuses-of-environmentalism/)
Well, you live and learn. I didn't know there were eco-nazis 100 years ago!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Why should we care about global warming ? Most of us will be dead anyway by the time it really affects the weather. What difference does it make if New Yor or LA or Florida is underwater if I am not affected by it ?

If excessive use of ossile fuel does result in devestating global warming and severe changes let futre generations deal with it. Hey it's our great ... #grandchildren who will have to worry about it and deal with it. Not us. So let them deal with it. Meanwhile, lets burn up that oil.

If it does cause more hurricanes I say bring em on. I like hurricanes.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ April 13 2007,13:10)]As cool as it's been this spring and with all the snow to the west and north, I want to know,

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>WHERE'S THE GOLBAL WARMING?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?</span></span>
It's based on average temperatures. You have to wait till the end of the year and take the overall average over the entire season.

For example this #winter started off averaging out way above normal. The cold Febuary averaged this winter to about normal. In other words on average this winter was not unusually cold.

Far as this spring and summer goes it's too early to tell. Thus far this spring has been unusually cold for this region. But it is entirely possible that the latter half of this spring could turn out unusually warm and wind up averaging it out to normal or above normal for the region.

Combine that with all the seasonal temps for the entire globe and we might find the overall average global temp actually went up rather than down.

Bizzare things are those averages. I could never understand them myself.

[N5NPO]

Got to admire their preserverence.

http://www.mlive.com/news....&coll=6 (http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-35/1176475579151600.xml&coll=6)

[K3XR]

Snow storm=global warming, say what ??

http://newsbusters.org/node/12042

http://newsbusters.org/node/12040

[kg4kww]

Does farting add to global warming??

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ April 14 2007,22:51)]Does farting add to global warming??
Brain farts certainly will!

73

Brian G8ADD

PS The heat wave continues here, definately global warming!!

[W2ILP]

The prophecy about GW disasters reminds me of a story in one of Carl Sagan's books.

Sagan told of a church where the preacher told his flock that the world was going to end on a specific date. #He said that they should give his church all of their money because they wouldn't be needing any in heaven. # Time passed and the world didn't end on the day that the preacher had mentioned. #When he was asked why, he could have said that he had made a mistake...but he did not. #Instead he said that the world had ended and that the trouble was that the people didn't know that it had ended. # I guess that he believed that any people who were gullible enough to believe him in the first place would probably be gullible enough to believe anything.
Perhaps that is why some people who have some doubts about the first coming might expect a second coming to reassure them thay must keep the faith. #If they had real faith, in my opinion, there wouldn't need to be a prophesy about a second confirmation.

Odds are that the world will not end during the lifetimes of anyone who is now living. #As Major Bose said ...&quot;Around and around she goes...and when she stops ...Nobody knows&quot; , and he was only running an amateur hour.

w2ilp (Incrementing #Life Periodically)...but the Earth lives astronomically....for men may come and men may go...but old man river just keeps dragging Mississippi mud.

[kg4kww]

Carl Sagan gives me the creeps

[KI4ITV]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ April 15 2007,13:44)]Carl Sagan gives me the creeps
Winner of The Undertaker Quote Of The Month

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K3XR]

Fluorescent light bulbs, not such a bright idea.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55213 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213)

[N5NPO]

ICE on my windshield this morning! Winter in Minnesota? Nope, April 16th in Southwest Alabama (south of the 31th parrallel)! What gives?
Oh, of course GW, how could I forget!

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 16 2007,05:10)]Fluorescent light bulbs, not such a bright idea.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55213 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213)
Boy oh boy, she must break an aweful lot of bulbs. What does she do on weekends, have bulb smashing parties at her house ?

Her claim that one broken CFL bulb at here house cause such extensive Hg cleanup costs is ludicrous. The amount of Hg in flourescent lamps is very miniscule. Less than a broken thermometer.

Actually I like the CFL bulbs. They last very long, they give off a considerable amount of light and, they produce a lot less heat. That much less money goes to #ConEd every month. And as long as I don't smash lots of CFL bulbs I don;t think the tiny bit of Hg is a major problem.
Plus, the lamps can be collegted and the Hg recycled.

[W2ILP]

n2ize

I agree with you about the lamps 100%. They are a great saving of electricity usage...and they contain only a very small amount of mercury. Mercury is not as dangerous as one might be promoted to believe if you don't drink it undiluted. You should wash your hands if you come in contact with it...but it is not deadly in small quantities even if it is ingested...but I wouldn't want to test it without tuna fish. Like the banned lead, mercury fumes do not occur at ambient temperatures. As we see in thermomemeters, mercury expands when heated but remains in the liquid state at normal temperatures.

It is easy to see that a small quantity of mercury is no big problem...Unfortunately people aren't as easily ready to understand that a relatively small quantity of CO2 exhausts can not appreciably effect GW trends.

w2ilp (Ingesting Lotsa Poison)...Heck.. Eating dead animals may be worse than supplementing our diets with trace minerals. Inorganic food supports less bacteria.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 16 2007,20:29)]n2ize

I agree with you about the lamps 100%. #They are a great saving of electricity usage...and they contain only a very small amount of mercury. #Mercury is not as dangerous as one might be promoted to believe if you don't drink it undiluted. #You should wash your hands if you come in contact with it...but it is not deadly in small quantities even if it is ingested...but I wouldn't want to test it without tuna fish. #Like the banned lead, mercury fumes do not occur at ambient temperatures. #As we see in thermomemeters, mercury expands when heated but remains in the liquid state at normal temperatures.

It is easy to see that a small quantity of mercury is no big problem...Unfortunately people aren't as easily ready to understand that a relatively small quantity of CO2 exhausts can not appreciably effect GW trends.

w2ilp (Ingesting Lotsa Poison)...Heck.. Eating dead animals may be worse than supplementing our diets with trace minerals. #Inorganic food supports less bacteria.
In the case of mercury the quantity is miniscule. Breaking one bulb in a bedroom is not going to make that room unsafe for human habitation by creating a mercury hazard. Unless of course she breaks an incredible amount of bulbs. In the case of CO2 it is not miniscule. The tonnage of emitted CO2 per year is quite huge and can indeed alter the climactic balance.

[K3XR]

Let's hear it for the Brits!!! #They have the Goracle and the religion of man-made global warming figured out.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12104

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 17 2007,16:50)]Let's hear it for the Brits!!! #They have the Goracle and the religion of man-made global warming figured out.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12104
So let's see. You and newsbusters would prefer censorship ? Wouldn't it make sense to both show the film and explain the scientific research and conclusions drawn by scientists to the students ? That way the students would have an understanding about climate change and would be able to judge the scientific validity of the film for themselves ?

[KC2ESD]

Oh this Global Warming Myth is still going strong here.
Its 44F here right now, not to bad for this time of night.
I'm going to have a shirt made that says in front: &quot;After the Winter/Spring of 007 I know....&quot;
On the Back: &quot;Global Warming is a Busted Myth&quot;
I should get some looks, Laughs, and Cuss words directed to me.
It will be fun, Rick KC2ESD

[KI4ITV]

I haven't quite bit on the human impact issues surrounding global warming yet. #But, I do think Al Gore is 'full of it' and ruining any chances of reasonable discussions about the subject. #I won't even get into the total hypocrisy of his pontification.

Here's another spin on hurricane strength vs global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s....XbMWM0F (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_sc/hurricanes_warming;_ylt=AnIktClBMT_dIsHsovGsfXbMWM 0F)

Hot button no worky for adding linky-sorry.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ April 17 2007,20:17)]Oh this Global Warming Myth is still going strong here.
Its 44F here right now, not to bad for this time of night.
I'm going to have a shirt made that says in front: &quot;After the Winter/Spring of 007 I know....&quot;
On the Back: &quot;Global Warming is a Busted Myth&quot;
I should get some looks, Laughs, and Cuss words directed to me.
It will be fun, Rick KC2ESD
Wear it around here, Rick, give everybody a good laugh!

Just starting the third week of a heatwave, I need to get the hosepipe out to prevent damage to some of the plants in the garden, but am too busy sunbathing!

&quot;GW is a myth&quot; is a busted myth!

(Oh yes, my latitude is 52 north!)

73

Brian G8ADD

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 18 2007,09:27)]Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ April 17 2007,20:17)]Oh this Global Warming Myth is still going strong here.
Its 44F here right now, not to bad for this time of night.
I'm going to have a shirt made that says in front: &quot;After the Winter/Spring of 007 I know....&quot;
On the Back: &quot;Global Warming is a Busted Myth&quot;
I should get some looks, Laughs, and Cuss words directed to me.
It will be fun, Rick KC2ESD
Wear it around here, Rick, give everybody a good laugh!

Just starting the third week of a heatwave, I need to get the hosepipe out to prevent damage to some of the plants in the garden, but am too busy sunbathing!

&quot;GW is a myth&quot; is a busted myth!

(Oh yes, my latitude is 52 north!)

73

Brian G8ADD
Now Brian why did you lot steal all the spring warmth we are supposed to be having here in the eastern US? How did you do it? Send over some British Commandos and load it onto the Gulf Stream while we were shoveling out?

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ April 18 2007,09:34)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 18 2007,09:27)]Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ April 17 2007,20:17)]Oh this Global Warming Myth is still going strong here.
Its 44F here right now, not to bad for this time of night.
I'm going to have a shirt made that says in front: &quot;After the Winter/Spring of 007 I know....&quot;
On the Back: &quot;Global Warming is a Busted Myth&quot;
I should get some looks, Laughs, and Cuss words directed to me.
It will be fun, Rick KC2ESD
Wear it around here, Rick, give everybody a good laugh!

Just starting the third week of a heatwave, I need to get the hosepipe out to prevent damage to some of the plants in the garden, but am too busy sunbathing!

&quot;GW is a myth&quot; is a busted myth!

(Oh yes, my latitude is 52 north!)

73

Brian G8ADD
Now Brian why did you lot steal all the spring warmth we are supposed to be having here in the eastern US? How did you do it? Send over some British Commandos and load it onto the Gulf Stream while we were shoveling out?

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Simpler than that, Mike, a little bribery goes a long way!

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

More on how the LEFT wants to use global warming to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http (http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/19/74021.shtml?s=ic)

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 19 2007,06:08)]More on how the LEFT wants to use global warming to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http (http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/19/74021.shtml?s=ic)
I take it, then, that you are in favour of remaining dependent on foreign supplies for oil, and an unboosted economy?

73

Brian G8ADD

PS I wonder why politics always seems to be about right and left. Since you have a party in power and another party not in power, it makes as much sense to describe them as &quot;up&quot; and &quot;down&quot;!

[N1LAF]

More from the under-represented Non-Global Warming Alarmist front.

Scientist: Warming not caused by humans (http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1)

[KC2ESD]

Quote[/b] ]More on how the LEFT wants to use global warming to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http

That my friends is what this Global Warming Baloney is all about: The Carbon Tax, another way for the Democrats to milk us all for our money.

[ka5s]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 17 2007,19:50)]Let's hear it for the Brits!!! They have the Goracle and the religion of man-made global warming figured out.
GASP! The *CASWELL* goricle? (http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheckley2/sheckley22.html)


Cortland
KA5S

[K3XR]

The LIB media, carrying the water for AL Gore.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12187

[KI4ITV]

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ April 19 2007,11:19)]Quote[/b] ]More on how the LEFT wants to use global warming to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http

That my friends is what this Global Warming Baloney is all about: The Carbon Tax, another way for the Democrats to milk us all for our money.
I have never understood how buying &quot;credits&quot; from someone who wouldn't burn them anyway is doing for the good of the planet. Redistribution of wealth comes to mind, making one person feel better and another slightly richer, is all I can come up with.
Sounds like a great scam hatched by the more under developed nations. Something like, &quot;Hey! Our only real natural resource is the fact that we don't burn natural resources. How can we sell that? Got any Ideas?&quot;
And why isn't population figured into carbon credits??
&quot;Sorry, all your credits are locked into the carbon units wandering your countryside.&quot;
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

edited to turn my observer into a traveler. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 19 2007,14:40)]More from the under-represented Non-Global Warming Alarmist front.

Scientist: Warming not caused by humans (http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1)
Only problem about Spencers argument is that it is not scientific. Either he is being misquoted in the article and.or taken out of context or, he is the most unscientific scientist that I have ever heard from. In this article he sounds more like a newsbusters blogger than a scientist. He fills in the gaps with lots of &quot;I belives&quot; and &quot;I thinks&quot; and &quot;we don;t know for sure's&quot; but shows nothing to refute what scientists have learned. There are lots of uncertainties in so many realms of science but we don;t disregard data, correlation and theories simply because there are unknowns. If such were the case we'd still be living in the dark ages with respect to science and technology. We certainly wouldn;t have radio, computers, etc.

What I would like to see is a real scientific paper from Spencer describing in detail why the data correlations seen by thousands of scientists the world over are in fact not correct and what theory he proposes to explain the observed (and factual) changes.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ April 20 2007,17:15)]Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ April 19 2007,11:19)]Quote[/b] ]More on how the LEFT wants to use global warming to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http

That my friends is what this Global Warming Baloney is all about: The Carbon Tax, another way for the Democrats to milk us all for our money.
I have never understood how buying &quot;credits&quot; from someone who wouldn't burn them anyway is doing for the good of the planet. Redistribution of wealth comes to mind, making one person feel better and another slightly richer, is all I can come up with. #
Sounds like a great scam hatched by the more under developed nations. Something like, &quot;Hey! #Our only real natural resource is the fact that we don't burn natural resources. #How can we sell that? #Got any Ideas?&quot;
And why isn't poulation figured into carbon credits??
&quot;Sorry, all your credits are locked into the carbon units wondering your countryside.&quot;
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Carbon credits are supposed to be this idea where you measure your carbon footprint, how much CO2 you produce on average, and then you make the &quot;noble&quot; gesture of buying &quot;carbon credits&quot; to offset your carbonophillic lifestyle. The money is supposed to go into stuff like research, renewable energy, planting trees, etc. In principle it has some merit.

I don't see it so much as a redistribution of wealth as largely doing as little as possible to ultimately do nothing. In other words I am not impressed with the &quot;carbon credit&quot;idea as a means of &quot;saving the world&quot; or stopping global warming.

[KE5FRF]

You guyzes are still bickering about this? Didn't you get the news? Global Warming already happened. Did you blink? Did you miss it? This is so passe'.

[W2ILP]

I agree with Roy Spencer. #The only thing I don't agree with is his statement where says he believes he is in a minority. #There will be many scientists who will come out of the closet and say that Gore is wrong...but some may be waiting to test the wind before making their opinions known.

Read my previous posts. #I also said that weather is more affected by precipitation than GW.
We are now going to see that GW climate is also buffered and smoothed by local weather....more so than by local man-made fossil fuel burning.

w2ilp (Include Leaky Precipitation)...without it there could be no hydro-power!

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 20 2007,22:15)]I agree with Roy Spencer. The only thing I don't agree with is his statement where says he believes he is in a minority. There will be many scientists who will come out of the closet and say that Gore is wrong...but some may be waiting to test the wind before making their opinions known.

Read my previous posts. I also said that weather is more affected by precipitation than GW.
We are now going to see that GW climate is also buffered and smoothed by local weather....more so than by local man-made fossil fuel burning.

w2ilp (Include Leaky Precipitation)...without it there could be no hydro-power!
&quot;I agree with Roy Spencer. The only thing I don't agree with is his statement where says he believes he is in a minority. There will be many scientists who will come out of the closet and say that Gore is wrong...but some may be waiting to test the wind before making their opinions known.&quot;

Oh, really? Have they told you this?

&quot;Read my previous posts. I also said that weather is more affected by precipitation than GW.&quot;

Do you realise that you have just said, in essence, &quot;weather is affected by weather&quot;!

&quot;We are now going to see that GW climate is also buffered and smoothed by local weather....more so than by local man-made fossil fuel burning.&quot;

Ah, a testable prediction. I wait with bated breath! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73

Brian G8ADD

[W2ILP]

g8add

I dunno whether some people know that weather is affected by weather...especially those that think it is only affected by the greenhouse effect that may only affect global climate in polar regions.

Whether they are right or whether they are wrong it is never illogical to notice that whether is affected by weather.

It was an old wag who said, &quot;IF the rain keeps up...it can't come down.&quot;

He was wrong...Everything that goes up must eventually come down...except maybe space vehicles and lost astronauts.

w2ilp (Introducing Logical Postulate:)...Weather is weather by congruent identity.

[K3XR]

The religion of 'green'.

http://www.nypost.com/php....rl=http (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/green_myths_opedcolumnists_max_schulz.htm)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 20 2007,22:15)]I agree with Roy Spencer. #The only thing I don't agree with is his statement where says he believes he is in a minority. #There will be many scientists who will come out of the closet and say that Gore is wrong...but some may be waiting to test the wind before making their opinions known.

Read my previous posts. #I also said that weather is more affected by precipitation than GW.
We are now going to see that GW climate is also buffered and smoothed by local weather....more so than by local man-made fossil fuel burning.

w2ilp (Include Leaky Precipitation)...without it there could be no hydro-power!
Quote[/b] ]
I agree with Roy Spencer. #The only thing I don't agree with is his statement where says he believes he is in a minority. #There will be many scientists who will come out of the closet and say that Gore is wrong...but some may be waiting to test the wind before making their opinions known.


I am puzzled. On what level do you agree with him ? On a personal level because he is simply saying what you belive ? Or on a scientific level ?
On a personal level I can understand because it is human nature to beleive what one wants to belive. To most people what they want to belive is more real than what really is. So, if a person wants to belive that global climate science is unreal that is what they will belive regardless of data, facts, experiments, theory, etc.

On the scientific level Spencers arguments are unnacceptable because he offers no support for his &quot;claims&quot; and even his claims are vague. Case and point, he argues that &quot;he beleives&quot; there are unknowns but offers no viable argument to show how the unknowns refute present day climate research. I can make a similar argument. I can claim that present dayelectromagnetic theory is invalid because I believe there are unknowns. At this point my argument is as viable as Spencers. matter of fact there are some persons who might agree with me. However a competant scientists would dissagree because I have failed to show how that refutes present day theory.

This is why I have problems accepting the arguments of the skeptics. Many of them have made countless claims of this, that, or the other thing. None have offered a viable alternative argument to explain present day climate phenomenon and none to date have offered anything to refute present dfay climate consensuus.

Quote[/b] ]
Read my previous posts. #I also said that weather is more affected by precipitation than GW.
We are now going to see that GW climate is also buffered and smoothed by local weather....more so than by local man-made fossil fuel burning.


Okay, so you are making a prediction. Yopu are stating that scientists will soon learn that &quot;GW climate&quot; is buffered and smoothed by local weather. I am note sure what exactly &quot;GW climate&quot; is so ytou'll have to define that term. For not I will assume that you are saying that local weather conditions are going to reduce global warming sometime in the future and we will see a reduction in the rate of global temperature rise and that reduction will be attributed to local weather conditions.

Interesting hypothesis. Now what data do you have to support that hypothesis. In other words can you build a viable theory that refutes present day climate warming theory ? Does global climate affect local weather or does local weather always affect global climate ? How, by what mechanisms ? Why might it not be the other way arround ? What research have you done to support all this.

[K3XR]

Ethanol worse than gasoline, you mean it wasn't on your LIB, nightly news, network??

http://newsbusters.org/node/12228

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 23 2007,05:29)]Ethanol worse than gasoline, you mean it wasn't on your LIB, nightly news, network??

http://newsbusters.org/node/12228
As usual with Newsbusters, I'm not sure what the point of the article is, other than another opportunity to get in a few political swipes (YAWN!)

&quot;The findings suggest that ethanol cannot be promoted simply as a boon to public health, Jacobson adds. Other factors need to be studied and weighed before ethanol use is made widespread, he says, such as greenhouse-gas emissions, U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and the environmental impacts of growing plants for ethanol.&quot;

&quot;U.S. dependence on foreign oil&quot; raises a strategic insight, but I would add &quot;dependence on steadily dwindling oil reserves&quot; noting that the ethanol blend includes gasolene, which means that it can only postpone the problem. Whatever your politics or stance on GW, you must not lose sight of the fact that oil will eventually become too scarce a commodity to waste in fueling vehicles; if the current ethanol blends are not up to the job, either the blends or the engines must be modified, until the mixture is satisfactory.

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

One sheet Sheryl, you gotta hand it to her. #The nanny state beyond mind control!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm

[n0jaa]

Well, I was HOPING (against hope) to have a meaningful discussion about global warming, pro vs. con, but all I see here are idiocy and innuendo, personal attacks and slurs. How can one have a serious discussion iwth all of this riff-raff?

Sorry, guys, I was trying to keep an open mind about this, but youhave not helped one little iota. When anyone is ready for a SERIOUS discussion, I will be ready.

Until then, Ciao, Baby!!


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K3XR]

Forget about Co2, it's all about the water vapor.


http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 23 2007,08:41)]Well, I was HOPING (against hope) to have a meaningful discussion about global warming, pro vs. con, but all I see here are idiocy and innuendo, personal attacks and slurs. How can one have a serious discussion iwth all of this riff-raff?

Sorry, guys, I was trying to keep an open mind about this, but youhave not helped one little iota. When anyone is ready for a SERIOUS discussion, I will be ready.

Until then, Ciao, Baby!!


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
N0JAA, I am sorry that you see my posts as &quot;idiocy, innuendo, personal attacks and slurs&quot;, I have done my best to pitch my tone and content in accordance with the gravity of the subject, but clearly my efforts have been inadequate in your eyes.

As I see it, the problem in discussing the pros and cons of GW is that in America the subject has become politicised, and when it comes to political argument you Americans take no prisoners, its nukes at twenty paces.

I'll tell you what, if you can find a forum that discusses the topic with insight and decorum, let me know - I'll join you there!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 23 2007,13:36)]N0JAA, I am sorry that you see my posts as &quot;idiocy, innuendo, personal attacks and slurs&quot;, I have done my best to pitch my tone and content in accordance with the gravity of the subject, but clearly my efforts have been inadequate in your eyes.

As I see it, the problem in discussing the pros and cons of GW is that in America the subject has become politicised, and when it comes to political argument you Americans take no prisoners, its nukes at twenty paces.

I'll tell you what, if you can find a forum that discusses the topic with insight and decorum, let me know - I'll join you there!

73

Brian G8ADD
I wasn't referring to you, or anyone else, personally. I was commenting on the general state of the forum. It is hard to carry on a serious conversation when every other entry is frivolous.

If anyone wishes to discuss this subject with me privately, I'll be more than willing to do so.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 23 2007,10:29)]Forget about Co2, it's all about the water vapor.


http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The problem with that argument is that the author is overlooking the role of Water varpor versus CO2 in it's overall effect on climate and temperature. While it is true that troposperic water vapor exceeds CO2 in percentages in the atmosphere is acts as a climate feedback agent rather than a climate (temperature) forcing agent. In other words it's presence and effects are too short lived to produce significant and long term change. When too much water vapor prevails in the atmophere is rapidly precipitates (i.e. rain, snow, etc.) Too little and it is replenished via evaporation from the ocean and from your backyard swimming pool. Even though it may dwarf CO2 in average atmospheric concentrations due to it's significantly different behavior it does not force temperature in the same manner as CO2 does.

Atmospheric Gasses and Climate Forcing (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm)

H2O - Feedback or Forcing Agent (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

Greenhouse Effect, Measurement and calculations (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

Lastly the issue regarding natural versus man made CO2 is not so much an argument of which produces more but a question of balance. For X billions of tons of CO2 produced naturally entering the atmosphere roughly X billions of tons also leave the atmosphere. Now if man made sources push an extra Y billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere only X billion tons leave the atmosphere. You end up with a balance of an extra Y billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 23 2007,16:13)]Lastly the issue regarding natural versus man made CO2 is not so much an argument of which produces more but a question of balance. For X billions of tons of CO2 produced naturally entering the atmosphere roughly X billions of tons also leave the atmosphere. Now if man made sources push an extra Y billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere only X billion tons leave the atmosphere. You end up with a balance of an extra Y billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere.
I don't think its quite that simple: if the concentration of CO2 goes up then the rate of loss goes up, the CCD varies with concentration. However, the anthropogenic CO2 is increasing faster than the natural feedback controls can cope with it.

With regard to water vapour the crucial point is where the water vapour is. The relatively small amount of water vapour tied up in a layer of cirrus cloud has an entirely disproportionate effect, which is why aircraft contrails are considered to be an important contributor to GW.

73

Brian G8ADD

[N2RJ]

We had temps almost in the 90s here yesterday.

GW is no longer a myth. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 24 2007,01:13)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 23 2007,16:13)]Lastly the issue regarding natural versus man made CO2 is not so much an argument of which produces more but a question of balance. For X billions of tons of CO2 produced naturally entering the atmosphere #roughly X billions of tons also leave the atmosphere. Now if man made sources push an extra Y billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere only X billion tons leave the atmosphere. You end up with a balance of an extra Y billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere.

With regard to water vapour the crucial point is where the water vapour is. The relatively small amount of water vapour tied up in a layer of cirrus cloud has an entirely disproportionate effect, which is why aircraft contrails are considered to be an important contributor to GW.

73

Brian G8ADD
Quote[/b] ]
I don't think its quite that simple: if the concentration of CO2 goes up then the rate of loss goes up, the CCD varies with concentration. However, the anthropogenic CO2 is increasing faster than the natural feedback controls can cope with it.


very true. My explaination was more or less an over simplification which I was hoping the links provided would fill in the precise details and added layers of complexity. But nonethless it amounts to the same thing. There is more going in that going out as normally handled by natural feedback processes.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 24 2007,06:38)]We had temps almost in the 90s here yesterday.

GW is no longer a myth. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It only made it into the mid 80's here (very summer-like for this time of year) but it remained quite warm throughout the night. Even at midnight it was well over 70 much like a warm summer night.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 24 2007,08:51)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ April 24 2007,06:38)]We had temps almost in the 90s here yesterday.

GW is no longer a myth. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It only made it into the mid 80's here (very summer-like for this time of year) but it remained quite warm throughout the night. Even at midnight it was well over 70 much like a warm summer night.
Same here. It got warm too fast to adjust and even with the windows open, sleeping was uncomforatble. A few months from now when our bodies have adjusted to the summer temperatures, 70 at night will seem cool and be a welcome respite. Fortunately, by the weekend temps are expected to be normal for this time of year.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[K3XR]

&quot;Environmental alarmists have it backwards.&quot;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html)

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 25 2007,04:42)]&quot;Environmental alarmists have it backwards.&quot;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html)
I'm a bit puzzled.

I have seen several posts objecting to the ban on DDT and claiming that it was a mistake.

Yes, I know how effective DDT is, I used to use it myself before the ban.

BUT:

&quot;Silent Spring&quot; was not a piece of alarmist fiction, and the world-wide collapse in raptor populations was a very real phenomenon and convincingly linked to DDT use; subsequent to the ban raptor populations gradually recovered.

When you are at the top of the food chain it is dangerous to be cavalier about what substances you introduce lower down.

This may be as off-topic with me as it was with the other people who referred to it, but IF it is found necessary to take action to control GW, you can bet that a generation later there will be people anxious to turn the clock back.

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 25 2007,06:49)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 25 2007,04:42)]&quot;Environmental alarmists have it backwards.&quot;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html)
I'm a bit puzzled.

I have seen several posts objecting to the ban on DDT and claiming that it was a mistake.

Yes, I know how effective DDT is, I used to use it myself before the ban.

BUT:

&quot;Silent Spring&quot; was not a piece of alarmist fiction, and the world-wide collapse in raptor populations was a very real phenomenon and convincingly linked to DDT use; subsequent to the ban raptor populations gradually recovered.

When you are at the top of the food chain it is dangerous to be cavalier about what substances you introduce lower down.

This may be as off-topic with me as it was with the other people who referred to it, but IF it is found necessary to take action to control GW, you can bet that a generation later there will be people anxious to turn the clock back.

73

Brian G8ADD
The article is absurd. It starts off talking about how many more trees there are in parts of the US that were once farmed or mined and stripped of trees. What the article ignores is that the world is much bigger than the United States. On the global level forests (and particularly rainforests) are diminishing.

The article then discusses how wonderful oil is completely oblivious to issues of pollution, global warming etc.

It also makes several other dubious claims like, &quot;environmentalists are opposed to new technology&quot;. I never read anything more absurd. Most environmentalists applaud new technologies and look towards new technologies as the cornerstone of what will ultimately bring us into the era of more environmentally friendly living. The days of the &quot;drop out of society and go back to nature&quot; type environmentalists are long gone.




Lastly, you go to wonder about any article that implicitly implies that Bush is an environmentalist.

[K3XR]

Carbon credits scam.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 26 2007,04:02)]Carbon credits scam.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Well posted; it shows how the ignorance and dishonesty of companies can negate well-intended efforts to reduce the carbon footprint and improve the environment.

Are you changing sides? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73

Brian G8ADD

[N1LAF]

Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that &quot;changes in the brightness of the sun&quot; are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the &quot;Little Ice Age&quot; in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. (http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=)

[K3XR]

For you Eco-chondriacs, read this, take two carbon credits, and call me in the morning.

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp....eholder (http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.standard-freeholder.com&contentID=502332&annewspapername=Cornwall+Standard+Freeholder)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 26 2007,16:08)]For you Eco-chondriacs, read this, take two carbon credits, and call me in the morning.

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp....eholder (http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.standard-freeholder.com&contentID=502332&annewspapername=Cornwall+Standard+Freeholder)


Tim Patterson: He is also an author for Tech Central Station. He appeared in the Friends of Science video called &quot;Climate Catastrophe Cancelled&quot;. He was an invited climate specialist at a Canadian news conference which was put together by none other than columnist Tom Harris, who is also an Associate for APCO Worldwide. That event was funded by companies such as Imperial Oil, Talisman Energy, and a group of Canadian lime producers. We've hit the trifecta: oil, energy, and lime corporations.

And wait... what about this APCO Worldwide? One of APCO's front groups was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which helped Philip Morris discredit research that smoking was a cause of cancer and heart problems. After helping Big Tobacco, TASSC moved on to help global warming skeptics. So Patterson is associating with the same people and organizations that were behind Big Tobacco claiming there was no link between smoking and cancer.




Linque (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/26/11550/9864)

[N1LAF]

Thus the term &quot;Guilty by Association&quot;

[K3XR]

Don't look for this, on PBS, or any of the other LIB media.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12349

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 27 2007,04:46)]Don't look for this, on PBS, or any of the other LIB media.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12349
On the surface it seems a little odd that a documentary about the dangers of GW should get such hysterical opposition yet another documentary voicing the opposite viewpoint from a minority of scientists should be so welcome.

It seems to me that many people are more interested in pushing what they would like to believe is true rather than finding out what is really true......and I wonder what sort of reception Al Gore's documentary would have received if he had been in the other party?

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

Thickest ice in the last 15 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet....ome (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070425.wiceseal0425/BNStory/National/home)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 27 2007,08:55)]Thickest ice in the last 15 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet....ome (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070425.wiceseal0425/BNStory/National/home)
Yeah, because the wind blew the existing ice that broke off one area into the area wherethe sealers are working. Same thing happened in another area earlier this winter. It has nothing to do with climate change nor does it mean that there is more ice. It just means the same ice i shifted to a different location.

[k5xit]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 25 2007,06:49)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 25 2007,04:42)]&quot;Environmental alarmists have it backwards.&quot;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html)
I'm a bit puzzled.

I have seen several posts objecting to the ban on DDT and claiming that it was a mistake.

Yes, I know how effective DDT is, I used to use it myself before the ban.

BUT:

&quot;Silent Spring&quot; was not a piece of alarmist fiction, and the world-wide collapse in raptor populations was a very real phenomenon and convincingly linked to DDT use; subsequent to the ban raptor populations gradually recovered.

When you are at the top of the food chain it is dangerous to be cavalier about what substances you introduce lower down.

This may be as off-topic with me as it was with the other people who referred to it, but IF it is found necessary to take action to control GW, you can bet that a generation later there will be people anxious to turn the clock back.

73

Brian G8ADD
Brian, you just might be intrested to know that DDT saved millions of lives, It is still being used in some parts of the world for misquito control. As far as the raptor decline, the Bald Eagle was hunted for years in Alaska. That sure reduced the population. I do not