'Global warming

[K3XR]

The Goracle wants the media to do a better job on LIB causes like, so called, global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12927

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 22 2007,12:50)]The Goracle wants the media to do a better job on LIB causes like, so called, global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12927
ROTFLMAO !! Oh, now global warming is a "LIB cause" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K3XR]

This is a gas..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_many_myths_of_ethanol.html)

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 23 2007,06:58)]This is a gas..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_many_myths_of_ethanol.html)
Can you do anything else but link nonsense?

[K3XR]

For you main stream LIB media types, let us know if this show up in the news.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12996

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 25 2007,12:51)]For you main stream LIB media types, let us know if this show up in the news.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12996
They aready have mentioned it. Just follow the link in Noel's nonsense blog.

Just don't expect it to be filed under global warming or anti-global warming because it isn't. High peaks regions tend to have unpredictable and sometimes harsh winter like weather till quite late in the season. Even the high peaks in upstate New York often experience snow and harsh conditions throughout may and sometimes into June. It's what they call regional weather not global climate. Too bad Noel Shepperd doesn't know that by now.

[K3XR]

You drive a lawn mower to save fuel, we're LIB elites.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12995

[K3XR]

The Goracle, fact is, no facts.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13025

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 26 2007,18:40)]The Goracle, fact is, no facts.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13025
This posting has absolutely zilch to do with GW, its just another snide little political attack on Al Gore, gratifying to the snide little would-be pundits but just a huge yawn to everyone else.

If that's all this thread can produce now, perhaps its time to put it to bed!

73

Brian G8ADD

[N1LAF]

Dr William Gray will take on any Global Warming Alarmist.

Headline: Earth - Part One of an Interview with William Gray (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/)

"Many of the climatological patterns currently occurring or projected for this hurricane season are similar to those of the 1930s through the 1950s, which was a period marked by frenzied hurricane activity." The current warm–water cycle that is occurring in the area of the Atlantic that is a breeding ground for hurricanes, as well as forecast precipitation and air pressure patterns expected during hurricane season (http://www.accuweather.com/promo-ad.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&dir=aw&page=hurr2007)

[K3XR]

Nothing like a little global warming humor to top off your holiday weekend....

http://newsbusters.org/node/13053

[n2ize]

More junk I'll bet.

[G8ADD]

I saw no snow yesterday; SOTA operators above 2000 feet reported hail showers. I heard that there were snow showers above 3000 feet in Scotland but that is not uncommon at this time of year, after all it is at the same latitude as southern Alaska and the high mountains have an arctic-alpine climate!

Anybody who depends on that "News"-paper deserves what they get - it only exists to titillate!

73

Brian G8ADD

[N5NPO]

Ok, now I am convinced. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she has seen the evidence. I am no longer a skeptic. Al Gore is right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_sc/climate_change_2

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ May 29 2007,05:31)]Ok, now I am convinced. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she has seen the evidence. I am no longer a skeptic. Al Gore is right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_sc/climate_change_2
I agree with the scientific consensus regarding man made global warming. However it troubles me when I see the democrats getting into the act. It global warming going to be another free publicity talking point to use for getting elected and then quickly abandoned thereafter ?

Somebody once said, "never trust a junkie", implying that in their extreme desperation drug addicts can be extremely deceptive in the manners in which they acquire money. I like to change that statement around a bit to , "never trust a politician". Be they democrats, republicans, or whatever I like to stick by that rule. I'll trust a junkie long before I'll trust a politician.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 29 2007,08:29)]Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ May 29 2007,05:31)]Ok, now I am convinced. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she has seen the evidence. I am no longer a skeptic. Al Gore is right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_sc/climate_change_2
I agree with the scientific consensus regarding man made global warming. However it troubles me when I see the democrats getting into the act. It global warming going to be another free publicity talking point to use for getting elected and then quickly abandoned thereafter ?

Somebody once said, "never trust a junkie", implying that in their extreme desperation drug addicts can be extremely deceptive in the manners in which they acquire money. I like to change that statement around a bit to , "never trust a politician". Be they democrats, republicans, or whatever I like to stick by that rule. I'll trust a junkie long before I'll trust a politician.
I feel much the same way about politicians, but unfortunately if talk is ever to be translated into action then we are dependant on politicians to get things moving. One of the contradictions of democracy, I'm afraid!

73

Brian G8ADD

[W2ILP]

I saw Gore being interviewed on TV and I see that even he is backing off somewhat on his original GW disastrous alert. #I like Gore otherwise...because he isn't officially running for anything. #Henny Penny wasn't running to be king...She only wanted to tell the King that the sky was falling. #I dunno if the King could do anymore more than the chicken to stop the sky from falling, even if it was falling...but that might have nothing to do with overthrowing the monarchy...Would it? # I can't go along with either the Republicans or the Democrats who rule the U.S.A . # Maybe that is because I'm a "Lib"...but I can't fear GW any more than the right wing industrialists might...because I'm a non-smoker.

w2ilp (Inexcusable Liberal Politician?)...Nah...Gore may be wrong about climate...but not about conservation.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe that is because I'm a "Lib"...but I can't fear GW any more than the right wing industrialists might...because I'm a non-smoker.
Why 'right wing industrialists'? There are plenty of left wingers too. The riches people in government/congress are democrats. Look it up.

Besides, this global warming discussion is not a democrat vs republican thing, its a search for the truth and science

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ May 29 2007,19:04)]Quote[/b] ]Maybe that is because I'm a "Lib"...but I can't fear GW any more than the right wing industrialists might...because I'm a non-smoker.
Why 'right wing industrialists'? There are plenty of left wingers too. The riches people in government/congress are democrats. Look it up.

Besides, this global warming discussion is not a democrat vs republican thing, its a search for the truth and science
Well, it is for some of us!

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

More from the nut jobs and the religion of global warming.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55948 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55948)

[W2ILP]

Bush is now getting on the bandwagon for reducing pollution. He is going to a conference in Germany on this subject...maybe because it is safer than visiting Iraq.

The ultra rich Americans take no chances...Thus they pay off both major political parties. We don't know how they actually vote and supporting any cause may be a cover-up for what they really intend to do or to support with even more money.

The middle class Americans have no serious money or bribes to help politicians with. They own no private jet aircrafts. No matter how Kerry's wife tried to show support for unmarried poor women and overworked nurses; she was seen as a wealthy pickle heiress.

Bush is trying to get us off the crisis in the middle east by using tactics that should have been copyrighted by Gore. He can only repeat what is already internationally agreed to and nothing more...and he knows it but wants to use some good PR...and claim that the agreed upon measures were his idea.

Meanwhile information mounts to support the posts I have made in this long thread. I'm not gloating. I'm not making any contributions. I hope to be voting...but I know my vote in New York may be redundant.

w2ilp (Increased Logical Proof)...that GW by CO2 may be strictly political.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 31 2007,09:40)]More from the nut jobs and the religion of global warming.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55948 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55948)
I'm disappointed.

I thought you would have started a new thread with this one - after all, it would be consistant - there are already threads on this topic!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 31 2007,09:40)]More from the nut jobs and the religion of global warming.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55948 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55948)
Wow... all of a sudden the neocon news sources are worried about the "terrible environmental impact" of < 3.0mg Hg in a CFL while they scoff at billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Suddenly the neocons idiots are bigtime environmentalists. Yeah right...

Does worldnetdailg have any bridges in Brooklyn up for sale ??

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 24 2007,14:14)]It's what they call regional weather not global climate. Too bad Noel Shepperd doesn't know that by now.
Since the vast majority of the man-made global warming alarmists temperature and CO2 data comes from ice cores... which are only able to be harvested from the poles... That seems very regional to me?

[K3XR]

Global warming, LIB media, mind control.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13159

[kc0ukk]

More 'expert' testimony:

'We're not looking for a hurricane," said Dave Roberts, a hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center.'

'Roberts said it was "coincidence, maybe" that the storm formed on the first day of the season.'

AP release (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_TROPICAL_WEATHER_FLOL-?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US)

Maybe it was a coincidence? Mother nature now pays attention to how we humans track things?

And some people aren't even sceptical...

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ June 01 2007,18:44)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 24 2007,14:14)]It's what they call regional weather not global climate. Too bad Noel Shepperd doesn't know that by now.
Since the vast majority of the man-made global warming alarmists temperature and CO2 data comes from ice cores... which are only able to be harvested from the poles... That seems very regional to me?
CO2 data comes largely from ice cores, Antarctica and Greenland are the major sources but there are permanent ice caps in Norway and Iceland. However, temperature data comes from a wide variety of sources including oxygen isotope ratios in shellfish, distribution of species of foraminifera, distribution of species of plants determined from the pollen which is almost indestructible, and a favourite is the distribution of beetles, which being able to fly respond to climate change much more rapidly than plants.

CO2 data might be termed regional, although it is difficult to see how the CO2 in polar air can be different to anywhere else on the planet since our atmosphere is so busy mixing itself. The temperature data is used to define climatic zones through time and throughout the world.

73

Brian G8ADD

[KL7FZ]

If you believe in global warming then you should be interested in some nice beachfront property in Alaska I am going to have for sale. It is presently a couple hundred feet above sea level right now but should be about right if the seas rise like the doom sayers are predicting. And the weather should be just about right. Come on all you global warming types...put your money where your mouth is. Let's see you place a real bet on the future.
Alaska...the new Florida!! Retirement homes for the future.
#KL7FZ

[K3XR]

The Kyoto con...

http://newsbusters.org/node/13171

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 02 2007,18:55)]The Kyoto con...

http://newsbusters.org/node/13171
More Noel Sheperd junk no doubt ?

[kc0ukk]

Michael Griffen, NASA's chief administrator, is receiving wide spread support for his comments:

'Griffin said he doubted global warming is "a problem we must wrestle with," and that it is arrogant to believe that today's climate is the best we could have and that "we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."'
...
Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia agrees: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's statement about whether or not it is in fact a "problem" is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore.'

Griffin's support (http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967)

[G8ADD]

Interesting and some good points made. However, if a similar listing of the points made by reputable scientists criticising Mr Griffen's comments were to be made, how many pages do you think it would take?

I am no supporter of panic measures and suspect that the catastrophe theories are somewhat overblown and at best exaggerate the rapidity of change, but I feel that this is better than burying heads in the sand and claiming that there is no danger. Ignoring risks is not sane behaviour. There is a lot more work to be done before any conclusions can be reached, and counting heads is NOT part of that work!

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

The myth of consensus (aka non-science) on global warming.

http://www.canada.com/nationa....457a8af (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af)

[K3XR]

Who don't know that!!

http://newsbusters.org/node/13196

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 03 2007,12:08)]The myth of consensus (aka non-science) on global warming.

http://www.canada.com/nationa....457a8af (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af)
Quote[/b] ]
S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun.


First of all the article has "global warming" and "man made warming" confused. Whether or not global warming is occurring is not a matter of belief. It is FACTUAL. It is a direct consequence of measurement. Even the most devout skeptics agree that global warming is happening. This has been established, factual, and understood for the past few decades. According to the thermometers global temperatures are indeed rising and rising at a rate that is somewhat disturbing. The question really is, how much of it is due to man made causes.

A lot has changed since the 1992 survey. If you can comprehend and keep up with the scientific litterature on the topic you'll find that there has been a great deal of new research over the last 15 years. Many scientists who were skeptical about the role of man in GW back then are no longer skeptical. Things have changed over the years. I could just as well say that in the 1920's few people ever heard of global warming therefore that is proof it's not happening.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_science _academies.E2.80.99_statement_2005)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 04 2007,10:49)]Who don't know that!!

http://newsbusters.org/node/13196
Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/)

[K3XR]

Battery powered vehicles coming to a planet....near you??

http://hotair.com/archive....neptune (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/04/blue-planet-suv-use-on-the-rise-on-gas-giant-neptune/)

[K3XR]

Oh boy, Eco-Nazis won't like this.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13229

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (KL7FZ @ June 02 2007,03:54)]If you believe in global warming then you should be interested in some nice beachfront property in Alaska I am going to have for sale. It is presently a couple hundred feet above sea level right now but should be about right if the seas rise like the doom sayers are predicting. And the weather should be just about right. Come on all you global warming types...put your money where your mouth is. Let's see you place a real bet on the future.
Alaska...the new Florida!! Retirement homes for the future.
#KL7FZ
And if "FZ" Steve runs out of Alaskan "beach front" property for ya' all, this Alaskan Steve will sell you some, too.

Come one, come all. Soon enough, the tropics will give way to the new "temperate zone", which will start at the 60th parallel.

[K3XR]

Illegal alien amesty bill dead, now more good news.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/kyoto_exits_stage_left.html)

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998


Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml)

Consider the following chart - Brian may add a few words about land drift.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpgwww.scotese.com - CLIMATE HISTORY (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

Comments?

[K3XR]

"The Church of Rachel Carson."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=28679

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 10 2007,06:01)]Quote[/b] ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998


Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml)

Consider the following chart - Brian may add a few words about land drift.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpgwww.scotese.com - CLIMATE HISTORY (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

Comments?
No, the problems of extrapolating climatic belts in the past is a well known hazard to this type of diagram. I will point to something more subtle. The atmosphere that we breathe today bears no resemblance to the atmosphere in precambrian times, and our type of atmosphere did not establish until the Devonian. For much of the precambrian, say three quarters of the time the Earth has existed, the atmosphere was anoxic, a reducing atmosphere without any oxygen. During the late precambrian the algae that had evolved to excrete oxygen did not produce enough to do more than start reducing minerals that existed then but cannot exist now: the banded iron formations (BIF) that are so economically important now formed in reducing conditions and when the atmosphere evolved to an oxidising state these formations stopped appearing.

Given such an alien atmosphere, with a partly conjectural composition, temperature indicators are unreliable.

73

Brian G8ADD

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 11 2007,08:59)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 10 2007,06:01)]Quote[/b] ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998


Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml)

Consider the following chart - Brian may add a few words about land drift.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpgwww.scotese.com - CLIMATE HISTORY (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

Comments?
No, the problems of extrapolating climatic belts in the past is a well known hazard to this type of diagram. I will point to something more subtle. The atmosphere that we breathe today bears no resemblance to the atmosphere in precambrian times, and our type of atmosphere did not establish until the Devonian. For much of the precambrian, say three quarters of the time the Earth has existed, the atmosphere was anoxic, a reducing atmosphere without any oxygen. During the late precambrian the algae that had evolved to excrete oxygen did not produce enough to do more than start reducing minerals that existed then but cannot exist now: the banded iron formations (BIF) that are so economically important now formed in reducing conditions and when the atmosphere evolved to an oxidising state these formations stopped appearing.

Given such an alien atmosphere, with a partly conjectural composition, temperature indicators are unreliable.

73

Brian G8ADD
So ignore anything pre-Devonian. #We can look at the Carboniferous-Permian boundry and speculate that what we are observing now is similar. #There was a very steep rise to global temperatures some 10 deg C higher than present. #

You recall also from other graphs that the CO2 concentration lagged the temperature rise but eventually reached some 3 to 4 times the current levels.

However, the land mass and ocean configurations were quite different at that time. #It really can be said for each major period of climate that the exact conditions have never existed previously so any extrapolations from the past may be suspect except for the fact that there appear to be climate shift cycles that are measured in 10s of millions of years. The vast majority of the time, the cool periods are quite short compated to warm periods. #At the level of resolution in this graph, the Ice Ages and Interglacials are lost in the noise.

It would appear to me that if global warming continues, we are simply returning to the "normal" state of 22 deg C average global temperatures. #Anthopogenic effects may be slightly accelerating this return and more importantly, anything we can do will not alter the ultimate end point of the current rise.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 10 2007,06:01)]
Quote[/b] ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998



Apparently it did not...

Link (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html)

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ June 11 2007,07:58)]So ignore anything pre-Devonian. We can look at the Carboniferous-Permian boundry and speculate that what we are observing now is similar. There was a very steep rise to global temperatures some 10 deg C higher than present.

You recall also from other graphs that the CO2 concentration lagged the temperature rise but eventually reached some 3 to 4 times the current levels.

However, the land mass and ocean configurations were quite different at that time. It really can be said for each major period of climate that the exact conditions have never existed previously so any extrapolations from the past may be suspect except for the fact that there appear to be climate shift cycles that are measured in 10s of millions of years. The vast majority of the time, the cool periods are quite short compated to warm periods. At the level of resolution in this graph, the Ice Ages and Interglacials are lost in the noise.

It would appear to me that if global warming continues, we are simply returning to the "normal" state of 22 deg C average global temperatures. Anthopogenic effects may be slightly accelerating this return and more importantly, anything we can do will not alter the ultimate end point of the current rise.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
One thing that has been commented on in the past is that the warm periods in geological time seem to coincide with elevated sea levels. This sounds obvious - warm=no ice. However, if all the ice melted today the sea level would rise perhaps a couple of hundred metres. During the cretaceous the sea level increased by (from memory) 450 metres. Something other than ice melt caused half of this rise. One suggestion is that there was a pulse of extra-vigorous activity at one or more mid ocean ridges, this increased their volume and the displaced water spilled out of the ocean basins onto the land. The warmth followed from the thermal capacity of the shallow epi-continental seas.

It's a nice idea, but cannot be tested since most of the cretaceous sea floor has been subducted!

73

Brian G8ADD

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ June 11 2007,08:18)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 10 2007,06:01)]
Quote[/b] ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998



Apparently it did not...

Link (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html)
I think we have hit a plateau (short) right now, and I expect it to continue to warm for the next 10 years if the next solar cycle is very active. Year to year peak differences of this magnitude is not unusual (see temp chart). Even though CO2 levels have been continuously rising throughout the 1900's, There was a cooling period from the early 40's to mid 70's. I believe this is from another natural cycle, maybe the multidecadel North Atlantic warming/cooling cycle.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

The overall trend is still warming, and believed to be throughout the 1500 year solar cycle. If you look at the Solar Activity Events in 14C chart, it looks like the 'Modern maximum' will be greater than the medieval maximum. You can see there is a correlation between this chart and the temperature chart. Suppose the last maximum occurred around 1100 AD, add 1500 years, will result about 2600 AD. Looking at this, we could have a an extended significant warming trend.

Solar Activity Events Chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg)

We may be seeing the large upswing in warming because we are probably in the fastest slope of the 1500 year cycle. If the cycle follows a sine pattern, then the rate of increase should become smaller. I am sure N2IZE can confirm that.

Here is a link to The Modern Temperature Trend (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm), which has a large number of references, and found it informative.

Another interesting link: Variations in CO2 Growth Rate (http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm)

Is sunspot cycle length a factor in warming?
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/254/5032/698)
Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html)

How about low cloud cover?
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig3.jpg
Article: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_concept.pdf

Cosmic Rays and Climate (http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate)

[al2i]

Don't you guys know anything? The lower temps from the mid-40's to mid-80's are obviously due to the Cold War.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

[K3XR]

Talk about "Rocky Mountain High" what are these nut jobs smoking in the mile HIGH city??

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn....00.html (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5581634,00.html)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 11 2007,12:04)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ June 11 2007,08:18)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 10 2007,06:01)]
Quote[/b] ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998



Apparently it did not...

Link (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html)
I think we have hit a plateau (short) right now, and I expect it to continue to warm for the next 10 years if the next solar cycle is very active. #Year to year peak differences of this magnitude is not unusual (see temp chart). #Even though CO2 levels have been continuously rising throughout the 1900's, There was a cooling period from the early 40's to mid 70's. #I believe this is from another natural cycle, maybe the multidecadel North Atlantic warming/cooling cycle.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

The overall trend is still warming, and believed to be throughout the 1500 year solar cycle. #If you look at the Solar Activity Events in 14C chart, it looks like the 'Modern maximum' will be greater than the medieval maximum. #You can see there is a correlation between this chart and the temperature chart. #Suppose the last maximum occurred around 1100 AD, add 1500 years, will result about 2600 AD. #Looking at this, we could have a an extended significant warming trend.

Solar Activity Events Chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg)

We may be seeing the large upswing in warming because we are probably in the fastest slope of the 1500 year cycle. # If the cycle follows a sine pattern, then the rate of increase should become smaller. #I am sure N2IZE can confirm that.

Here is a link to The Modern Temperature Trend (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm), which has a large number of references, and found it informative.

Another interesting link: Variations in CO2 Growth Rate (http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm)

Is sunspot cycle length a factor in warming?
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/254/5032/698)
Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html)

How about low cloud cover?
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig3.jpg
Article: #http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_concept.pdf

Cosmic Rays and Climate (http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate)
Quote[/b] ]
I think we have hit a plateau (short) right now, and I expect it to continue to warm for the next 10 years if the next solar cycle is very active. #Year to year peak differences of this magnitude is not unusual (see temp chart). #Even though CO2 levels have been continuously rising throughout the 1900's, There was a cooling period from the early 40's to mid 70's. #I believe this is from another natural cycle, maybe the multidecadel North Atlantic warming/cooling cycle.


It's possible that the "cooling" seen during that period could have been due to a natural phenomenon. That would be expected since CO2 is certainly not the only factor that drives temperature. Just as certain years have shown noticable cooling following massive volcanic eruptions . It is clear that things can happen that will override the forcing effect of CO2.

All in all I am beginning to feel that global climate research is somewhat pointless. If climate change is natural then there is nothing we can do to change it. If it is man made then perhaps we can do something but I doubt we will and by the time enough people agree it will be too late to do anything anyway. I think too many people see climate research as a key to correcting a problem rather than simply a means iof learning more about how climate works.

Perhaps the best solution to climate change is to keep on our present course and see what happens. If things continue to really heat up to the point where no natural phenomenon can even come close to explaination then we'll know for sure. In a perverse way an interesting experiment #would be to dramatically increase man made CO2 output and see what, if any, effect that has.

If it turns out to be real "doom and gloom" it will probably hit future generations the hardest so it's not something that we really need to worry about. There are no guarantees on the future of the earth or the human race.

[N1LAF]

John, don't think that this was a pointless effort, if it wasn't for Brian and yourself, I wouldn't have learned so much about these cycles, and I do appreciate discussions. CO2 may be a very significant driver, I have to give it that possibility, and we should err on the conservative side, and to do what we can reasonable do to reduce fossil fuel induced CO2 levels.

Lets say that the warming trend goes on for a long period of time, where the pole side latitudes has the largest warming, and the equator has the least warming, how will that effect the weather, more or less extreme? And why? Anyone? Theories?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 12 2007,18:11)]John, don't think that this was a pointless effort, if it wasn't for Brian and yourself, I wouldn't have learned #so much about these cycles, and I do appreciate discussions. #CO2 may be a very significant driver, I have to give it that possibility, and we should err on the conservative side, and to do what we can reasonable do to reduce fossil fuel induced CO2 levels.

Lets say that the warming trend goes on for a long period of time, where the pole side latitudes has the largest warming, and the equator has the least warming, how will that effect the weather, more or less extreme? #And why? #Anyone? #Theories?
But how about my idea for increased man made CO2 output ? If man made CO2 is the main driver then wouldn't a significant increase in CO2 point that out very clearly ? rather than decreasing CO2 in small amounts increasing CO2 in significant amounts might prove a better experiment.

[N1LAF]

This is what bothers me about the CO2 large driver theory is the temperature chart..

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

From about 1910 the temp increases at a near constant slope, then it radically changes from 1942'ish until the 1970's, then it increases at the same rate as before. It does look like that we may be hitting a peak just like the 1940's, and that the change between low and high average is about the same ( 1910-1942; 1978-Present). It would be interesting to see the temp profile from 1800, but we can make the assumption that temp has been increasing since the Maunder Minima, and the temp chart is showing a shorter period cycle (approx 60 yrs) on a longer period cycle. I think I see a third cycle of 11 years here too. I think the next 5 to 15 years will say a lot to support the natural cyclic theory. You're the math expert, what do you think? Is it plausible? It will be interesting to learn what other effects from increasing CO2 levels will have, maybe it is a catalyst to another major driver.

[N1LAF]

More cyclic references:

Accuweather (http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promo-ad.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&page=hurr2007&dir=aw): "Many of the climatological patterns currently occurring or projected for this hurricane season are similar to those of the 1930s through the 1950s, which was a period marked by frenzied hurricane activity."

"Bastardi and his team are basing the Accuweather.com (http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=8) Summer Forecast in part on parallels they see to conditions that existed in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. "During that time, torrid heat waves were common across the United States, and hurricanes attacked our coasts more frequently," he said. "


Colorado State University (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2007/june2007/): "The Atlantic has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the 12-year period of 1995-2006 (average 3.9 per year) in comparison to the prior 25-year period of 1970-1994 (average 1.5 per year). This large increase in Atlantic major hurricanes is primarily a result of the multi-decadal increase in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) that is not directly related to global temperature increase or to human-induced greenhouse gas increases. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)."

"There have been similar past periods (1940s-1950s) when the Atlantic was just as active as in recent years."


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 12 2007,20:03)]This is what bothers me about the CO2 large driver theory is the temperature chart..

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

From about 1910 the temp increases at a near constant slope, then it radically changes from 1942'ish until the 1970's, then it increases at the same rate as before. #It does look like that we may be hitting a peak just like the 1940's, and that the change between low and high average is about the same ( 1910-1942; 1978-Present). #It would be interesting to see the temp profile from 1800, but we can make the assumption that temp has been increasing since the Maunder Minima, and the temp chart is showing a shorter period cycle (approx 60 yrs) on a longer period cycle. #I think I see a third cycle of 11 years here too. #I think the next 5 to 15 years will say a lot to support the natural cyclic theory. #You're the math expert, what do you think? #Is it plausible? #It will be interesting to learn what other effects from increasing CO2 levels will have, maybe it is a catalyst to another major driver.
There does seem to be an inteplay of cyclic events embedded within the general upward trend. That coincides with the theories presented by most climatologists, that natural cyclic behavior is interweaved with an overal warming trend. The majority of climatologists argue the overal warming trend is driven by CO2 yet a few others argue that it is itself part of yet another natural cyclic event albeit a longer period.

I think you've stumbled onto something that the climatologists have overlooked. Mathematics. yeah, I know, climate scientists already use mathematics extensively to interpret their data and explain what they intuitively feel is the right answer. But almost no climatologists have simply collected data without bias and allowed the mathematics to do the talking in and of itself. I think that is where our answer lies. I see cycles. Lots of cycles. Let's identify as many as we can.

How about we give it a rest, and each on our own grab as much data as we can, munge it around in as many ways as we can and then maybe compare notes at a later date the goal being to identify as many cycles (cyclical patterns) as possible. Don't even worry about cause at this stage, lets just look for cycles.

The only thing is that even is we mathematically establish an aggregate effect of cyclic phenomenon can we dismiss man made CO2 ? Is human produces CO2 small enough to be dismissed as insignificant ? Or is it still of critical importance even though we may be climing the temperature wave ? It seems that way but I think we need some sort of experiment. The best thing I can think of is a significant increase or decrease in man made CO2 output. I think an increase is more acheivable and likely will occur anyway. Over the next few decades what is going to be of utmost importance is to closely monitor the rate of increase in human produced CO2 (along with overall CO2 levels) while monitoring temperatures very closely. That will enable us to get a handle on the significance/insignificance of man made CO2 on the entire aggregate.

Perhaps Frank Sinatra had it right many years ago when he produce his album years ago called "Cycles".

[N1LAF]

Agreed. I figure someone like you would see the cycles, and even extrapolate the period(s) of these cycles. I have some of the larger 11 year cycles correlating with large peaks to large sunspot numbers, etc. I will also look at other data such as polar wobbles. We should identify what solar cycles are known, the solar effects, and even the sunspot cycle widths. I will share what I find with you, raw data, no bias.

[w9uts]

I don't know about you but Global Warming is a joke. Its true because my hero Rusty Limpball says its a joke.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 12 2007,20:03)]This is what bothers me about the CO2 large driver theory is the temperature chart..

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

From about 1910 the temp increases at a near constant slope, then it radically changes from 1942'ish until the 1970's, then it increases at the same rate as before. It does look like that we may be hitting a peak just like the 1940's, and that the change between low and high average is about the same ( 1910-1942; 1978-Present). It would be interesting to see the temp profile from 1800, but we can make the assumption that temp has been increasing since the Maunder Minima, and the temp chart is showing a shorter period cycle (approx 60 yrs) on a longer period cycle. I think I see a third cycle of 11 years here too. I think the next 5 to 15 years will say a lot to support the natural cyclic theory. You're the math expert, what do you think? Is it plausible? It will be interesting to learn what other effects from increasing CO2 levels will have, maybe it is a catalyst to another major driver.
At first sight this is an impressive graph, annual mean temperatures plotted to a precision of what looks like 0.01C and a superimposed running mean.

However.....how would it look if the error bar maxima and minima were also plotted? I don't know, I haven't the time at present to chase up the original data, but I strongly suspect that the blue line would become one heck of a lot less impressive. As someone said. Mathematics. Taking a very likely large set of error bars into account a single ascending straight line would fit the data!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 13 2007,01:05)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ June 12 2007,20:03)]This is what bothers me about the CO2 large driver theory is the temperature chart..

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Hadleytemp.gif

From about 1910 the temp increases at a near constant slope, then it radically changes from 1942'ish until the 1970's, then it increases at the same rate as before. #It does look like that we may be hitting a peak just like the 1940's, and that the change between low and high average is about the same ( 1910-1942; 1978-Present). #It would be interesting to see the temp profile from 1800, but we can make the assumption that temp has been increasing since the Maunder Minima, and the temp chart is showing a shorter period cycle (approx 60 yrs) on a longer period cycle. #I think I see a third cycle of 11 years here too. #I think the next 5 to 15 years will say a lot to support the natural cyclic theory. #You're the math expert, what do you think? #Is it plausible? #It will be interesting to learn what other effects from increasing CO2 levels will have, maybe it is a catalyst to another major driver.
At first sight this is an impressive graph, annual mean temperatures plotted to a precision of what looks like 0.01C and a superimposed running mean.

However.....how would it look if the error bar maxima and minima were also plotted? I don't know, I haven't the time at present to chase up the original data, but I strongly suspect that the blue line would become one heck of a lot less impressive. As someone said. Mathematics. Taking a very likely large set of error bars into account a single ascending straight line would fit the data!

73

Brian G8ADD
Thats the reasons I suggested grabbing and grappling with the data and munging it around.

Let me also add that the discussion of "natural cycles" has been largely covered by climate scientists who have been aware for quite some time that overal climate is an aggregate of numerous factors including natural cycles related to solar activity, etc. Furthermore the establishment of "natural cycles" doesn't nessesarilly nullify the notion of significant and/or rapid climate change unless it can be shown that such change is dure to natural cycles alone. The latter has not been indicated however.

[N8UZE]

And how do we know that CO2 is driving the warming? Perhaps the warming is driving the CO2. Perhaps neither drives the other and a third item is driving them both.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ June 13 2007,10:29)]And how do we know that CO2 is driving the warming? Perhaps the warming is driving the CO2. Perhaps neither drives the other and a third item is driving them both.
Is that a rhetorical question or have you studied the literature and failed to find an answer?

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

Global warming nut jobs, and LIB infested San Fran, perfect together.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13440

[W2ILP]

Long time data graphs of climate change remind me of the graphs of most mutual funds. It may be possible to prove that the mutual fund charts show that funds are winners or losers, depending on where you start and where you stop to recognize the data involved... but the stock market mutual fund graphs may or may not take into consideration the fees attached to loaded funds and how or when they are to be collected or the value change of dollars over time due to creeping inflation or compare the gains to the gains that could be gotten in banks with less risk at reasonable interest rates...The interest rates are also varying with time...and so I make the analogy to the graphs presented here. Are they really dynamic enough to describe global weather variations taking into consideration all relative functions and weighing them properly so that they truly describe global weather itself?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif I doubt that they are...but I appreciate seeing thje graphs anyway.... because they do at least show the variation in numbers collected by sensing some functions of weather phenomena, no matter how limited.

w2ilp (Inserting Linear Points)....and connecting them with French curves...Hmmmm...Very sexy!

[K3XR]

Carbon trading from the religion of global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13456

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 14 2007,04:58)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ June 13 2007,10:29)]And how do we know that CO2 is driving the warming? #Perhaps the warming is driving the CO2. #Perhaps neither drives the other and a third item is driving them both.
Is that a rhetorical question or have you studied the literature and failed to find an answer?

73

Brian G8ADD
I've done some "shallow" surfing. See plenty of graphs but nothing that provides proof of which one, if either, is the driver.

[K3XR]

No Al, that would be you....

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http (http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/14/214727.shtml?s=ic)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ June 14 2007,13:19)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 14 2007,04:58)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ June 13 2007,10:29)]And how do we know that CO2 is driving the warming? #Perhaps the warming is driving the CO2. #Perhaps neither drives the other and a third item is driving them both.
Is that a rhetorical question or have you studied the literature and failed to find an answer?

73

Brian G8ADD
I've done some "shallow" surfing. #See plenty of graphs but nothing that provides proof of which one, if either, is the driver.
I was skeptical about CO2 being the main driver myself. I would advise doing some deeper research and you'll understand why CO2 is most likely a driver.

[K3XR]

Good job, Mr. President.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f65e71aa-1a14-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

[W4HAY]

Climate Change Trivia from yesterday's WSJ:

One 1300# cow produces (ready for this?) 115# of manure a day, of which 11# are 'volatile solids', which in turn produce 1 cubic meter of methane a day, which translates to about 5 tons CO2 equivalent per year. It's also about the same amount the typical US car getting 20 MPG and travelling 12,000 miles/year produces.

That 115# got my attention. My horse produces a lot of poop, but nowhere near that much. Not that I've actually weighed it, http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif but I'd guess 30-40#.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 15 2007,04:35)]Good job, Mr. President.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f65e71aa-1a14-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
The quote below (extracted from the article) alone makes the entire article invalid. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge about climate change science, be they a skeptic or a believer would realize just by reading that first paragraph that the writer 1) either knows absolutely nothing about climate science, or 2) is deliberately trying to misinform persons who are compelterly ignorant of climate science.

You seem to have been following this debate for a long time. I figured you'd have picked up enough in the course of discussion to realize that an article like this is absurd and rejected be belivers and skeptics alike as well as completely void of anything scientific.



We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough - irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent - for the environmentalists and their followers to suggestradical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

[G8ADD]

"We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough - irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent - for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now."

This looks a bit different when you remember that any percentage change should be related to degrees Kelvin, in which case it is a change of near 1.8 degrees C. A 10% rise of temperature would probably kill us all!

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

I want my, Al Gore, junk science, MTV !!!

http://newsbusters.org/node/13484

[w9uts]

Junk science!
Yes mister Limpball, I am a moron.
I will believe anything as long as you say it.
I am a ditto head.
A brain stem with nothing attached.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (kc9len @ June 15 2007,13:11)]Junk science!
Yes mister Limpball, I am a moron.
I will believe anything as long as you say it.
I am a ditto head.
A brain stem with nothing attached.
I don't think there is anyone on the other end of those XR posts. There's just a bot running on a computer in some basement that collects idiotic articles from brainless bloggers on extremist web blogs and posts them onto QRZ.

[al2i]

This year is some kind of a record here at Kuparuk, because two weeks ago everything was solidly frozen and covered in snow, but today was actually hot and dusty. Even the animals seemed stricken by the extreme heat. Wierd.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 15 2007,23:42)]This year is some kind of a record here at Kuparuk, because two weeks ago everything was solidly frozen and covered in snow, but today was actually hot and dusty. Even the animals seemed stricken by the extreme heat. Wierd.
Weather rather than climate, I suppose. Does it often happen like that?

Yesterday we had a month's rain overnight with extensive flooding, most of my garden was under water. I read that large areas of the USA are suffering a very severe drought, I hope those of you affected are coping well. No, I'm not suggesting any link to GW but as a Brit I find weather fascinating - after all, our weather here is rather unpredictable!

73

Brian G8ADD

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 16 2007,01:08)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 15 2007,23:42)]This year is some kind of a record here at Kuparuk, because two weeks ago everything was solidly frozen and covered in snow, but today was actually hot and dusty. Even the animals seemed stricken by the extreme heat. Wierd.
Weather rather than climate, I suppose. Does it often happen like that?

Yesterday we had a month's rain overnight with extensive flooding, most of my garden was under water. I read that large areas of the USA are suffering a very severe drought, I hope those of you affected are coping well. No, I'm not suggesting any link to GW but as a Brit I find weather fascinating - after all, our weather here is rather unpredictable!

73

Brian G8ADD
My first few years here it snowed every 4th of July (Independence Day), but it hasn't done that since about 1990 to my recollection and knowledge..

[K3XR]

LIB media bias at the BBC including climate change. #Why is this not a surprise??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....217.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)

[w9uts]

Your right, we can destroy everything on the planet and nothing bad will happen. The only thing that is important is making a quick buck.

GOD BLESS the people with vision.

PS

Please look up the words conservative and liberal, then tell me where you stand.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 18 2007,04:51)]LIB media bias at the BBC including climate change. Why is this not a surprise??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....217.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)
This is a very surprising report and conclusion.

Why is it surprising?

Because having seen the programs referred to, I saw no significant bias in them. I thought the coverage of Live8 excessive, but this was because like so many programs of their type, they spent too long mooning over pop personalities. I am only interested in how well a musician plays, what he had for breakfast is of no interest whatsoever to me!

The trouble with these accusations of media bias, either side of the pond, is that the accusers see programming that agrees with their own bias as being fair reporting, and programming that disagrees with their own bias as being a pernicious left/right wing conspiracy. This being so (and the Zed is full of evidence of it) I would only begin to worry if nobody accused the Beeb of bias.

The most amusing thing about American political stances, from my point of view, is that so many things that are fulminated against on the Zed as being liberal or socialist are part of mainstream thought over here, and you only hear gouty old fossils fulminating about them!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 18 2007,09:38)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 18 2007,04:51)]LIB media bias at the BBC including climate change. #Why is this not a surprise??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....217.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)
This is a very surprising report and conclusion.

Why is it surprising?

Because having seen the programs referred to, I saw no significant bias in them. I thought the coverage of Live8 excessive, but this was because like so many programs of their type, they spent too long mooning over pop personalities. I am only interested in how well a musician plays, what he had for breakfast is of no interest whatsoever to me!

The trouble with these accusations of media bias, either side of the pond, is that the accusers see programming that agrees with their own bias as being fair reporting, and programming that disagrees with their own bias as being a pernicious left/right wing conspiracy. This being so (and the Zed is full of evidence of it) I would only begin to worry if nobody accused the Beeb of bias.

The most amusing thing about American political stances, from my point of view, is that so many things that are fulminated against on the Zed as being liberal or socialist are part of mainstream thought over here, and you only hear gouty old fossils fulminating about them!

73

Brian G8ADD

73

Brian G8ADD
What I fail to grasp is how the heck did climate change become a liberal versus neocon phenomenon ? Other types of scientific research are not lib/con politics. You don;t hear partisan politics over things like atomic theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, mathematical logic, etc. Yet scientific research such as climate change is a hotbed of lib versus con politics, why is that ??

It's because people have been sold a bill of good, thats what. They are told that climate change was invented by Al Gore at the behest of some very wealthy and powerful bunch of yet unidentified environmentalists who want to destroy the economy who have infiltrated the scientific community and convinced thousands of the worlds most prominant and highly respected climate researchers to lie, fabricate data and fudge results.This is the absurdity that has been spoon fed via right wing talk show demagogues and surprisingly people who consider themselves "intelligent" and "successful" have eaten it up. I guess they are not quite as smart as they think.

I have also noticed that those who focus the most on the "hoax invented by Al Goracle" spoon fed ideas of the right wing talk show hosts and propagandists tend to be the least likely to offer up scientific or factual information.

This is not to say there is not bias on the other side. But the lib versus con topology that has become so prevalent has done more to detract from the real science and assures that one extreme view or the other will prevail over logic, science, reason, and sensibility.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ June 18 2007,10:32)]What I fail to grasp is how the heck did climate change become a liberal versus neocon phenomenon ? Other types of scientific research are not lib/con politics. You don;t hear partisan politics over things like atomic theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, mathematical logic, etc. Yet scientific research such as climate change is a hotbed of lib versus con politics, why is that ??

It's because people have been sold a bill of good, thats what. They are told that climate change was invented by Al Gore at the behest of some very wealthy and powerful bunch of yet unidentified environmentalists who want to destroy the economy who have infiltrated the scientific community and convinced thousands of the worlds most prominant and highly respected climate researchers to lie, fabricate data and fudge results.This is the absurdity that has been spoon fed via right wing talk show demagogues and surprisingly people who consider themselves "intelligent" and "successful" have eaten it up. I guess they are not quite as smart as they think.

I have also noticed that those who focus the most on the "hoax invented by Al Goracle" spoon fed ideas of the right wing talk show hosts and propagandists tend to be the least likely to offer up scientific or factual information.

This is not to say there is not bias on the other side. But the lib versus con topology that has become so prevalent has done more to detract from the real science and assures that one extreme view or the other will prevail over logic, science, reason, and sensibility.
This link into adversarial politics is an entirely American phenomenon that quite frankly leaves the rest of the world bemused. Like, what the f*** is that all about?? It baffles everyone from the intelligensia to the working bod propping up the bar (and yet sometimes they are one and the same!)

As for these "unidentified environmentalists who want to destroy the economy", I think that a pretty fair fist is being made of that by your ruling classes without any shadowy assistance!

73

Brian G8ADD

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (kc9len @ June 18 2007,06:31)]Your right, we can destroy everything on the planet and nothing bad will happen. The only thing that is important is making a quick buck.

GOD BLESS the people with vision.

PS

Please look up the words conservative and liberal, then tell me where you stand.
If that's aimed at K3XR, leave him alone, he has adopted the role of a gadfly and as such he has pushed many of us into examining the issues and the evidence much more closely than we might otherwise have done - and I strongly suspect he has vastly entertained himself at the same time!

We NEED gadflies, however little we might enjoy them!

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

Don't make me throw up, Al..

http://newsbusters.org/node/13541

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 18 2007,11:59)]Don't make me throw up, Al..

http://newsbusters.org/node/13541
Bryson is yet another of several aging metiorologists who have come out of the woodwork claiming to refute the idea of anthropogenic (a fancy word for "man made") climate change. Unfortunately many of the claims that Bryson lays claim too, i.e. Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age, Global cooling, the Urban heat Island effect, etc. were claime he made quite a number of years ago and have been refuted by numous researchers. yet other than regurgitate the same claims I have yet to see Bryson defend his claims with any new data or relevant argument. For example, when he refers to the human contribution of CO2 as being "tiny" he neglets that reality that when we calculate the tonnage of CO2 produced by humans each year and correlate that with the very sensitive balance of upper atmospherig greenhouse gases and the degree to which they will cause climate focing via radiative heat trapping effects we find that the human produced quantity of CO2 is no longer as insignificant as Bryson claims. It's kind of like pointing to a miniscule amount of cyanide and saying that such a tiny quantity is small enough to be considered harmless. Yet when placed into the human bloodstream is suddenly is no longer insignificant and it will very significantly kill you in short order. Likewise he fails to address research which clearly and completely refutes the "heat island effect" theory.

I was quite dissapointed with the article. I would think a man of Bryson's education and stature would present far more robust and challenging arguments in defense of his claims. Perhaps he did and Noel Sheperd and newsbusters have done him a great disservice. Otherwise I think Newsbusters could have done as good or better a job on their own.

Last but not least I like his dismissal of Gore's film. yet he didn;t see the film. I am not sure I would accept ever claim made in Gore's film but at the very least I would view the film or read the book before I praise it as a work of genius or dismiss it as trash.

[w9uts]

Its not the science thats being argued here, its the politics and the money. Back in the 70s Lake Erie almost died. This was because of the steel and coke mills dumping hazardous waste into it for many, many years. Again the conservatives said that you could not kill the lake. #They had their experts testify that the lake was going through some natural changes. (all the fish were dying) Finally the people got fed up and created laws to put a halt to the pollution and they started an all out effort to clean up the mess that BIG BUSINESS created. Today Lake Erie is alive and well, the taxpayers of course had to foot the gigantic bill and industry paid almost nothing.
Who are the polluters and who has what to gain from global warming? Follow the money. Its always BIG BUSINESS.
Anyone remember Ronnie rayguns trickle down economics?
IT NEVER HAPPENED. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

73s

[K3XR]

I guess China didn't get the Al Goracle memo. But you knew that, it was all over the LIB media, or was it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

http://newsbusters.org/node/13580

[w9uts]

FYI

The US creates more green house crap than China by far.
25% of the worlds total is created by us.

73's

[w9uts]

Russia cuts green house gas

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/06/17/afx3828492.html

From Forbes

[kc9jqm]

Quote[/b] ]You don't hear partisan politics over things like atomic theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, mathematical logic, etc.

All the above can be expressed by very precise
(and often complicated) mathematical equations
which essentially noboby but cranks question
the validity of. And these equations make
precise predictions which can be tested
(except for string theory - which is why some
physicists consider string theory metaphysics).
Climate models on the other hand have many
assumptions built in, and many variables for
which the values of those variables amounts
to educated guesses.


However, I hear right-wing Christians are
petitioning Congress to repeal the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (kc9jqm @ June 19 2007,14:38)]Quote[/b] ]You don't hear partisan politics over things like atomic theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, mathematical logic, etc.

All the above can be expressed by very precise
(and often complicated) mathematical equations
which essentially noboby but cranks question
the validity of. And these equations make
precise predictions which can be tested
(except for string theory - which is why some
physicists consider string theory metaphysics).
Climate models on the other hand have many
assumptions built in, and many variables for
which the values of those variables amounts
to educated guesses.


However, I hear right-wing Christians are
petitioning Congress to repeal the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
True to a degree but they are still theories and are not really "proven" per se. Much of the science behind climate change is quite proper in and of itself yet we still here ridiculous absurdity such as "it's a myth", "a hoax", was "invented by Al Goracle" etc. I'm not saying the everyone has to accept current theory but at least understand that it must be challenged in the realm of science and not partisan politics.

[kc9jqm]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not saying the everyone has to accept current theory but at least understand that it must be challenged in the realm of science and not partisan politics.

That I agree with 100%.

[K3XR]

China's carbon emissions, Bush's fault??

http://newsbusters.org/node/13596

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 20 2007,06:15)]China's carbon emissions, Bush's fault??

http://newsbusters.org/node/13596
I did a double take at the final comment of this piece, regarding Bush's "wisdom" in not accepting any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless China signs up to it. Where is the wisdom in saying "we will not reduce harmful emissions because somebody else won't reduce them"?

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

It's the sun, son, are you ready for global cooling???

http://www.canada.com/nationa....1f4&p=4 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)

[W2ILP]

k3xr et all,

This is what the Astronomical Observatory experts in Russia have said and what I agree with.

Yep...And I humbly told you so many posts ago.

w2ilp (I Like Pokadots)...and Sun spots as well.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ June 18 2007,10:32)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 18 2007,09:38)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ June 18 2007,04:51)]LIB media bias at the BBC including climate change. #Why is this not a surprise??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....217.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)
This is a very surprising report and conclusion.

Why is it surprising?

Because having seen the programs referred to, I saw no significant bias in them. I thought the coverage of Live8 excessive, but this was because like so many programs of their type, they spent too long mooning over pop personalities. I am only interested in how well a musician plays, what he had for breakfast is of no interest whatsoever to me!

The trouble with these accusations of media bias, either side of the pond, is that the accusers see programming that agrees with their own bias as being fair reporting, and programming that disagrees with their own bias as being a pernicious left/right wing conspiracy. This being so (and the Zed is full of evidence of it) I would only begin to worry if nobody accused the Beeb of bias.

The most amusing thing about American political stances, from my point of view, is that so many things that are fulminated against on the Zed as being liberal or socialist are part of mainstream thought over here, and you only hear gouty old fossils fulminating about them!

73

Brian G8ADD

73

Brian G8ADD
What I fail to grasp is how the heck did climate change become a liberal versus neocon phenomenon ? Other types of scientific research are not lib/con politics. You don;t hear partisan politics over things like atomic theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, mathematical logic, etc. Yet scientific research such as climate change is a hotbed of lib versus con politics, why is that ??

It's because people have been sold a bill of good, thats what. They are told that climate change was invented by Al Gore at the behest of some very wealthy and powerful bunch of yet unidentified environmentalists who want to destroy the economy who have infiltrated the scientific community and convinced thousands of the worlds most prominant and highly respected climate researchers to lie, fabricate data and fudge results.This is the absurdity that has been spoon fed via right wing talk show demagogues and surprisingly people who consider themselves "intelligent" and "successful" have eaten it up. I guess they are not quite as smart as they think.

I have also noticed that those who focus the most on the "hoax invented by Al Goracle" spoon fed ideas of the right wing talk show hosts and propagandists tend to be the least likely to offer up scientific or factual information.

This is not to say there is not bias on the other side. #But the lib versus con topology that has become so prevalent has done more to detract from the real science and assures that one extreme view or the other will prevail over logic, science, reason, and sensibility.
Because GW has nothing to do with science. Any GW forced by CO2 cannot be measured amongst the noise of natural climate variation. Eliminating ALL anthropogenice CO2 will result in a temperature increase that is too small to measure.

GW IS all about power, political power, not energy. It is all about who controls the single most important element in all modern economies. Resource allocation has a far larger vote in national politics then all other votes made by all citixens. Energy controls will fundamentally alter the world's balance of power and with it, the future direction of civilization itself.

The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body. It's members are appointed to represent the interests of their nations. Its 'Summary for Policy Makers' reports are not scientific reports, rather, they are negotiated reports. Further, the follow on scientific reports are then altered to reflect the summary.

The IPCC relies upon faulty science such as the infamous 'Hockey Stick' report devveloped by Mann et. al. There are serious questions relating to the accuracy of the Jones, et. al (1999) report that used data from Chinese monitoring stations of dubious quality (they were moved repeatedly up to 40 km over the time span of the collected data).

Some of the scientists referred to in the IPCC reports have had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed from reports that the IPCC altered to reflect the outcomes desired by the IPCC.

Fact: Atmospheric CO2 follows global warming; it is not the cause of global warming.

Fact: Scientists do not know with any certainty what caused the the 'Little Ice Age' nor can they say why the 'Little Ice Age' ended.

Fact: The climate has been warming steadily since the 'Little Ice Age'. Given that science cannot say anything about the cause of the ice age, neither can they say anything about the end of the ice age.

Fact: CO2 can absorb energy only from a narrow band of infrared radiation. There is only so much energy in that narrow band of infrared radiation and CO2 competes with clouds and water vapor to absorb that radiation.

Fact: There was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all available energy in that narrow band of infrared long before humans discovered rocks to play with.

Fact: A man lighting a match in his basement will warm his house more than doubling the anthropogenic CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will warm the globe.

This is not a neocon vs conservative issue; it is a political issue that relies upon science to confuse the ill-informed. It just so happens that more liberals are ill-informed than conservatives.

[w9uts]

Amazing, simply amazing.

Who benefits if we continue to dump tons of crap into the enviornment?

Conservatives are not ill-informed, they just follow their right wing leaders without question. Remember, if its good for business, its good for the people. Believe it or not there are still conservatives that believe that crap.

Always remember a quick buck today is priceless. To hell with our children, their children, and those to come after. Gimmy mine now!!!

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (kc9len @ June 20 2007,20:23)]Amazing, simply amazing.

Who benefits if we continue to dump tons of crap into the enviornment?

Conservatives are not ill-informed, they just follow their right wing leaders without question. Remember, if its good for business, its good for the people. Believe it or not there are still conservatives that believe that crap.

Always remember a quick buck today is priceless. To hell with our children, their children, and those to come after. Gimmy mine now!!!
I assume the 'crap' you are referring to is CO2. CO2 ranks right up there with oxygen and water as a fundamental requirement of life itself.

There is ample evidence that the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are too low for plant growth and food production. Good enough? Yes. Optimal? No.

The CO2 level has been both much higher and much lower in the past. The Earth has experienced much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures.

Do we understand how these variations have occurred? No, we do not. Do we know that the current averages are optimal for life? No, we do not.

The temperature is not out of any historical range; it is not increasing at an historical level; we do not know why it has varied in the past nor do we know why it is varing today.

I agree with you that 'waste not, want not' is a good idea. I'm not convinced, though, that we are wasting any more than needed. I do know that a reduction in our energy usage will result in a reduction of well being.

Overtime, with the full adoption of nuclear energy, we can reduce carbon centric energy production. We cannot accomplish any significant reduction with any other known technology. Not windmills, not ethanol, not Tesla coils.

Like all living things, we consume and we eject. It would be nice if we only ate, but things just don't work that way.

[kc9jqm]

Quote[/b] ]It would be nice if we only ate, but things just don't work that way.
What about hamfests and some of the
enormously obese people you see at them? http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/images/stirpot.gif http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/images/side_laugh.gif

[n2ize]

Keep spewing out the CO2. It just dissipates. That way we can differentiate the water vapour.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ June 20 2007,17:59)]
KC0UKK:

"Fact: Atmospheric CO2 follows global warming; it is not the cause of global warming."

Please justify this "fact", it seems to be a bald statement of a conclusion which does not march with published observations.

"Fact: Scientists do not know with any certainty what caused the the 'Little Ice Age' nor can they say why the 'Little Ice Age' ended."

Dubious relevance, nobody has suggested that natural variations don't still occur.

"Fact: The climate has been warming steadily since the 'Little Ice Age'. Given that science cannot say anything about the cause of the ice age, neither can they say anything about the end of the ice age."

Can't say anything? It might be a work still in progress, but there has been a lot of work and a lot of progress.

"Fact: CO2 can absorb energy only from a narrow band of infrared radiation. There is only so much energy in that narrow band of infrared radiation and CO2 competes with clouds and water vapor to absorb that radiation.

Fact: There was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all available energy in that narrow band of infrared long before humans discovered rocks to play with."

An interesting pair of factoids which I think you would be hard pressed to justify. Note the internal contradiction, too. I will leave that as an exercise for you.

"Fact: A man lighting a match in his basement will warm his house more than doubling the anthropogenic CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will warm the globe."

Really? Have you done the calculations yourself? If so, please set them out so that others can see where you get this remarkable conclusion from.

"This is not a neocon vs conservative issue; it is a political issue that relies upon science to confuse the ill-informed. It just so happens that more liberals are ill-informed than conservatives."

Well, my flabber is completely ghasted. I suppose I should not be so surprised, your whole post is a perfect example of the ill-informed being confused by science. Unfortunately you also seem to be confused by the politics, too, unless someone has actually suggested that it is a "neocon vs conservative issue", which is news to me. As to your ex-cathedra statement that "more liberals are ill-informed than conservatives" - another statement which I would be very interested to see FACTUAL proof for, you seem to have missed my earlier post on the subject. Has it occurred to you to wonder why the reality and cause of GW is only a party political issue in the USA? This whole fatuous circus is long done with elsewhere.

It has long baffled me as to why otherwise intelligent men and women become blind followers of the party line when they embrace politics. The proposition seems to be that one party, their own, is totally and infallibly right on all matters political, and the other party is totally and invariably wrong. They seem incapable of recognising that no single party has exclusive rights to truth. Show me a conservative, a liberal, a socialist, a neocon, a democrat or a republican, and I will show you a man wearing blinkers and rose-tinted spectacles prepared for any mental contortion that will justify his chosen world view.

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] ]
Do we understand how these variations have occurred? #No, we do not. #Do we know that the current averages are optimal for life? #No, we do not.


Actually we are learning more and more about how these changes occured. And we have some pretty solid ideas. Nothing is absolute. But we have a damned good idea which we refine with time. that's how science works. As far as what temps are optimal for life we have a pretty solid grasp of that as well. We also have a damned good handle on the consequences of what happens when that temperature goes too high or too low. A common ploy used by some is to argue that the present temperature is too low and hasn't reached "optimal". But what is optimal ?


Quote[/b] ]
The temperature is not out of any historical range; it is not increasing at an historical level; we do not know why it has varied in the past nor do we know why it is varing today.


Actually if you study the data you'll see that it is increasing at an rather interestingg rate which is relatively unprecendented . Even most skeptics acknowledge this.

Quote[/b] ]
Overtime, with the full adoption of nuclear energy, we can reduce carbon centric energy production. We cannot accomplish any significant reduction with any other known technology. Not windmills, not ethanol, not Tesla coils.


Actually we can. Windmils can be quite efficient. Hydroelectric energy is viable in some instances. #Ethanol can help. #Solar energy can help considerably. Localized alternative sources of energy can help considerably and take a great deal of strain off the already overworked power grids. There is no one single answer but there are many steps that can be taken which can make a big difference in the aggregate sense. Nuclear energy may have a place as well but full widespread adoption of atomic energy may not be nessesary.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] ]
This is not a neocon vs conservative issue; it is a political issue that relies upon science to confuse the ill-informed. #It just so happens that more liberals are ill-informed than conservatives.


I think it's a matter that more neocons lack an in depth understanding of climate science and spend too much time reading what they want to hear rather than delving into the entire body of research which goes quite deep and is quite fascinating.


Actually its become a neocon versus common sense issue. The neocon argument is that somehow some government plot (perhaps by another nation or socialist europe) or perhaps some radical environmentalists had come up with a scheme to convince the world that the earth is heating up and we are all going to die. Of course the idea is to turn back the clock on technology and wreck the economy. Soi they co-opted thousands of the worlds most prominent climate scientists working at the most prominent and respected research institutions. Somehow they got these scientists to stake their reputations and fudge their results. Then they used that to co-opt our own government and the extremely liberal left wing media...blah blah blah. Yet there is not one shred of evidence to indicate any of this and most independent researchers who have reviewed the science consider it quite valid. Very strange plot indeed. I am sure they could have come up with something that is far far less trouble.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ June 21 2007,02:51)]Quote[/b] ]
Overtime, with the full adoption of nuclear energy, we can reduce carbon centric energy production. We cannot accomplish any significant reduction with any other known technology. Not windmills, not ethanol, not Tesla coils.


Actually we can. Windmils can be quite efficient. Hydroelectric energy is viable in some instances. Ethanol can help. Solar energy can help considerably. Localized alternative sources of energy can help considerably and take a great deal of strain off the already overworked power grids. There is no one single answer but there are many steps that can be taken which can make a big difference in the aggregate sense. Nuclear energy may have a place as well but full widespread adoption of atomic energy may not be nessesary.
Geothermal energy is another possibility - kill two birds with one stone and start extracting heat from the Yellowstone Caldera, which might make a future catastrophe less likely!

73

Brian G8ADD

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,02:21)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ June 20 2007,17:59)]
KC0UKK:

"Fact: Atmospheric CO2 follows global warming; it is not the cause of global warming."

Please justify this "fact", it seems to be a bald statement of a conclusion which does not march with published observations.
http://www.john-daly.com/press/lag-time.gif

[N1LAF]

The results of this study, along with those of many others we have described (see CO2-Temperature Correlations in our Subject Index), should put to rest the notion that atmospheric CO2 is a major driver of climate change. Throughout the greatest temperature transitions experienced by the planet over the past 420,000 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been proven to have been a follower, and not a leader, of climate change, rising from one to five thousand years after major increases in air temperature, and falling in similar manner throughout the course of the past four glacial/interglacial cycles. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N14/C1.jsp)

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,02:21)]
KC0UKK:

"Fact: Atmospheric CO2 follows global warming; it is not the cause of global warming."

Please justify this "fact", it seems to be a bald statement of a conclusion which does not march with published observations.

"Fact: Scientists do not know with any certainty what caused the the 'Little Ice Age' nor can they say why the 'Little Ice Age' ended."

Dubious relevance, nobody has suggested that natural variations don't still occur.

"Fact: The climate has been warming steadily since the 'Little Ice Age'. #Given that science cannot say anything about the cause of the ice age, neither can they say anything about the end of the ice age."

Can't say anything? It might be a work still in progress, but there has been a lot of work and a lot of progress.

"Fact: #CO2 can absorb energy only from a narrow band of infrared radiation. #There is only so much energy in that narrow band of infrared radiation and CO2 competes with clouds and water vapor to absorb that radiation.

Fact: There was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all available energy in that narrow band of infrared long before humans discovered rocks to play with."

An interesting pair of factoids which I think you would be hard pressed to justify. Note the internal contradiction, too. I will leave that as an exercise for you.

"Fact: #A man lighting a match in his basement will warm his house more than doubling #the anthropogenic CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will warm the globe."

Really? Have you done the calculations yourself? If so, please set them out so that others can see where you get this remarkable conclusion from.

"This is not a neocon vs conservative issue; it is a political issue that relies upon science to confuse the ill-informed. #It just so happens that more liberals are ill-informed than conservatives."

Well, my flabber is completely ghasted. I suppose I should not be so surprised, your whole post is a perfect example of the ill-informed being confused by science. Unfortunately you also seem to be confused by the politics, too, unless someone has actually suggested that it is a "neocon vs conservative issue", which is news to me. As to your ex-cathedra statement that "more liberals are ill-informed than conservatives" - another statement which I would be very interested to see FACTUAL proof for, you seem to have missed my earlier post on the subject. Has it occurred to you to wonder why the reality and cause of GW is only a party political issue in the USA? This whole fatuous circus is long done with elsewhere.

It has long baffled me as to why otherwise intelligent men and women become blind followers of the party line when they embrace politics. The proposition seems to be that one party, their own, is totally and infallibly right on all matters political, and the other party is totally and invariably wrong. They seem incapable of recognising that no single party has exclusive rights to truth. Show me a conservative, a liberal, a socialist, a neocon, a democrat or a republican, and I will show you a man wearing blinkers and rose-tinted spectacles prepared for any mental contortion that will justify his chosen world view.

73

Brian G8ADD
There is a finite amount of Infrared (IR) energy to be absorbed. The absorption characteristics of IR by CO2 is logrithmic; double the quantity of CO2 and it will absorb half the remaining IR. Most of the IR is already aborbed by the natural CO2 concentrations, I don't have the exact figure, but for purposes argument, lets say it is 80%. If we double the total CO2 concentration we will absorb half the remaining IR, or an additional 10%. We're now at 90%. Double CO2 again and it will absorb half the remaining IR, or 5%. Double the CO2 again and we're at 2.5%; Double once more and we're at 1.25% and so on.

If we keep in mind that anthropogenic CO2 amounts to less than 3% of total CO2 in the atmosphere, we aren't even in the ballpark let alone players.

That we do not understand the the causes of natural variation in temperatures and yet claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the 'cause' of our 0.7C warming (which itself cannot be measured, only calculated) is not science, it's absurd.

[w9uts]

Fact:
Everyone that eats at Joe's dies.

Some believe its the beef.

Some believe its the bread.

Some believe its the salad.

Some believe its the water.

Fact:
if you want to live "DON'T EAT AT JOE'S"

Its really very simple !!!!!

[G8ADD]

N1LAF:

A very pretty graph, but there is something crucial missing: error bars. If you superimpose quite generously small error bars and then put a best fit line through them, the lag vanishes. The significance becomes more stark if you study the following line in the article that you quote from :

"When CO2 values are compared with global ice volume data derived from a delta 18O record of a marine sediment core, it was shown that between 420 and 196 ka years ago, variation in CO2 lagged behind changes in glacial ice volume by 1.4 plus or minus 3.7 ka, whereas from 150 ka to the present they lead by 6.2 plus or minus 2.7 ka."

Between 420 and 196 ka BP according to the errors CO2 could have led by up to 2.3 ka or lagged by up to 5.1 ka. Nearer to the present, where confidence in the figures might be considered to be stronger, CO2 leads by between 3.5 and 8.9 ka.

In other words, the situation is by no means as cut and dried as you think, and no doubt a lot of work will go into refining those figures.

KC0UKK:

Your first paragraph implies that there is little more warming possible from any cause since most of the IR is already absorbed. Its not that simple!

In round figures pre-industrial CO2 was about 250 ppm, it is now about 350 ppm. If you will allow that the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times is anthropogenic, then our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not 3%, it is a whopping 28%.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether we are the cause of the measured (yes - measured) warming, although it looks increasingly likely that we are guilty. My stance is that whatever is causing the increase, it is dangerous, and anything we can do to ameliorate the effects of GW should be done. It is pointless arguing about who is to blame when there is a clear danger, it distracts, and we need clarity of thought if we are to deal successfully with that danger.

73

Brian G8ADD

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,08:25)]N1LAF:

A very pretty graph, but there is something crucial missing: error bars. If you superimpose quite generously small error bars and then put a best fit line through them, the lag vanishes. The significance becomes more stark if you study the following line in the article that you quote from :

"When CO2 values are compared with global ice volume data derived from a delta 18O record of a marine sediment core, it was shown that between 420 and 196 ka years ago, variation in CO2 lagged behind changes in glacial ice volume by 1.4 plus or minus 3.7 ka, whereas from 150 ka to the present they lead by 6.2 plus or minus 2.7 ka."

Between 420 and 196 ka BP according to the errors CO2 could have led by up to 2.3 ka or lagged by up to 5.1 ka. Nearer to the present, where confidence in the figures might be considered to be stronger, CO2 leads by between 3.5 and 8.9 ka.

In other words, the situation is by no means as cut and dried as you think, and no doubt a lot of work will go into refining those figures.

KC0UKK:

Your first paragraph implies that there is little more warming possible from any cause since most of the IR is already absorbed. Its not that simple!

In round figures pre-industrial CO2 was about 250 ppm, it is now about 350 ppm. If you will allow that the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times is anthropogenic, then our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not 3%, it is a whopping #28%.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether we are the cause of the measured (yes - measured) warming, although it looks increasingly likely that we are guilty. My stance is that whatever is causing the increase, it is dangerous, and anything we can do to ameliorate the effects of GW should be done. It is pointless arguing about who is to blame when there is a clear danger, it distracts, and we need clarity of thought if we are to deal successfully with that danger.

73

Brian G8ADD
The implication is that significant GW from CO2 is impossible.

Not all the IR is absorbed by CO2, just a very narrow frequency slice. The energy within that frequency slice is almost all absorbed at a lower CO2 concentration than presently exists.

H2O, which makes up 95% of the GH gasses, absorbs a much broader frequency slice than does CO2, hence, it is the major player in GW.

Why does the IPCC focus upon CO2? Because it gives them an opportunity to extract taxes from rich countries. There is an international movement to replicate the 'tax the rich' redidtribution policies now prevalent in most modern nation-states.

Trading carbon caps is just such a scheme. By paying every 1/4 acre, third world onion farmer 10 cents per year not to build a coal fired power plant, those saved carbon credits can be sold for billions of dollars to the rich carbon users. Al Gore actually had the chutzpah to justify his outlandish home energy usage by buying carbon credits from his own company.

As to windmills; oil companies have been trying to drill on a 1000 acre plot of land in ANWR for decades. Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of windmills will ever be built around the world?

As to ethanol: ethanol requires almost the same amount of fossil fuel to make as it replaces in the energy supply. In other words, it is a net consumer of fossil fuel, not a replacement for fossil fuel. With other biomass, such as switchgrass, the return in energy is so low as to be unfeasible in the forseeable future. Equatorial regions can efficiently harvest biomass for fuel, but the amount is limited to regional purposes. Any attempt to increase output requires forest destruction, fertilizer, transportation, ect.

As to solar panels: while remarkable progress has been made in efficiency, the physical area required for meaningful electrical generation is unsupportable. We need that space to grow food.

We do need nuclear energy if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. We cannot abide the visual, noise and physical polution of windmills, the soli depletion of ethanol or the space required by solar energy.

No viable case can be made for precipitous reduction in carbon fuel usage. As in all things, we must first identify what problems we face, the urgency of each problem, the possible solutions for each and which problem/solution pair has the best payback.

Unlike most forms of pollution, carbon emissions are relatively benign. But since they cannot be claimed as a benefit, we would be wise to take any reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions, preferrably in some form useful to modern society.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (kc9jqm @ June 20 2007,22:23)]Quote[/b] ]It would be nice if we only ate, but things just don't work that way.
What about hamfests and some of the
enormously obese people you see at them? http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/images/stirpot.gif http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/images/side_laugh.gif
I thought those were battery packs.

[kc0ukk]

"We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. We found that the forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."

GW: Forecasts by Scientists vs Scientific Forecasts (http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/warmaudit31.pdf)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ June 21 2007,15:00)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,08:25)]N1LAF:

A very pretty graph, but there is something crucial missing: error bars. If you superimpose quite generously small error bars and then put a best fit line through them, the lag vanishes. The significance becomes more stark if you study the following line in the article that you quote from :

"When CO2 values are compared with global ice volume data derived from a delta 18O record of a marine sediment core, it was shown that between 420 and 196 ka years ago, variation in CO2 lagged behind changes in glacial ice volume by 1.4 plus or minus 3.7 ka, whereas from 150 ka to the present they lead by 6.2 plus or minus 2.7 ka."

Between 420 and 196 ka BP according to the errors CO2 could have led by up to 2.3 ka or lagged by up to 5.1 ka. Nearer to the present, where confidence in the figures might be considered to be stronger, CO2 leads by between 3.5 and 8.9 ka.

In other words, the situation is by no means as cut and dried as you think, and no doubt a lot of work will go into refining those figures.

KC0UKK:

Your first paragraph implies that there is little more warming possible from any cause since most of the IR is already absorbed. Its not that simple!

In round figures pre-industrial CO2 was about 250 ppm, it is now about 350 ppm. If you will allow that the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times is anthropogenic, then our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not 3%, it is a whopping #28%.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether we are the cause of the measured (yes - measured) warming, although it looks increasingly likely that we are guilty. My stance is that whatever is causing the increase, it is dangerous, and anything we can do to ameliorate the effects of GW should be done. It is pointless arguing about who is to blame when there is a clear danger, it distracts, and we need clarity of thought if we are to deal successfully with that danger.

73

Brian G8ADD
The implication is that significant GW from CO2 is impossible.

Not all the IR is absorbed by CO2, just a very narrow frequency slice. The energy within that frequency slice is almost all absorbed at a lower CO2 concentration than presently exists.

H2O, which makes up 95% of the GH gasses, absorbs a much broader frequency slice than does CO2, hence, it is the major player in GW.

Why does the IPCC focus upon CO2? #Because it gives them an opportunity to extract taxes from rich countries. There is an international movement to replicate the 'tax the rich' redidtribution policies now prevalent in most modern nation-states.

Trading carbon caps is just such a scheme. #By paying every 1/4 acre, third world onion farmer 10 cents per year not to build a coal fired power plant, those saved carbon credits can be sold for billions of dollars to the rich carbon users. #Al Gore actually had the chutzpah to justify his outlandish home energy #usage by buying carbon credits from his own company.

As to windmills; oil companies have been trying to drill on a 1000 acre plot of land in ANWR for decades. Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of windmills will ever be built around the world?

As to ethanol: #ethanol requires almost the same amount of fossil fuel to make as it replaces in the energy supply. In other words, it is a net consumer of fossil fuel, not a replacement for fossil fuel. #With other biomass, such as switchgrass, the return in energy is so low as to be unfeasible in the forseeable future. #Equatorial regions can efficiently harvest biomass for fuel, but the amount is limited to regional purposes. #Any attempt to increase output requires forest destruction, fertilizer, transportation, ect.

As to solar panels: #while remarkable progress has been made in efficiency, the physical area required for meaningful electrical generation is unsupportable. #We need that space to grow food.

We do need nuclear energy if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. #We cannot abide the visual, noise and physical polution of windmills, the soli depletion of ethanol or the space required by solar energy.

No viable case can be made for precipitous reduction in carbon fuel usage. #As in all things, we must first identify what problems we face, the urgency of each problem, the possible solutions for each and which problem/solution pair has the best payback.

Unlike most forms of pollution, carbon emissions are relatively benign. #But since they cannot be claimed as a benefit, we would be wise to take any reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions, preferrably in some form useful to modern society.
Quote[/b] ]
he implication is that significant GW from CO2 is impossible.

Not all the IR is absorbed by CO2, just a very narrow frequency slice. The energy within that frequency slice is almost all absorbed at a lower CO2 concentration than presently exists.
he implication is that significant GW from CO2 is impossible.

Not all the IR is absorbed by CO2, just a very narrow frequency slice. The energy within that frequency slice is almost all absorbed at a lower CO2 concentration than presently exists.


Actually you are not the first person to consider this. This is an intersting area of gas properties and climatic study that has been studied and discussed and has received considerable amount of debate and which has unearthed a great deal of complexity. For the most part you are correct about there being a rather narrow band of absorbtion, however, if that was all there was to the equation and no other factors worthy of consideration were to come in to play then the debate about anthropogenic global warming wwith respect to CO2 would now be over and the conclusuion would be that most scientists had it wrong, CO2 is not a problem. Unfortunately it ain't so simple, which is why the CO2 / temp correlation still holds. It is actually science in progress as we speak.

Without delving into the complexities (QRZ is not suitable as well as the fact that I need to spend some hours studiing all the details) there are other dependencies. Absorbtion in and of itself cannot describe the "greenhouse behavior" as a whole. Both absorbtion and emission and the radiative transfer occuring between these two gassoous phenomenon are of particular impotance. Likewise is the vertical composition of the atmosphere, i,.e. where is the majority of the absorbtion taking place ? etc... As it turns out spectroscopic physics doesn't nessesarilly translate as simply as one muight be led to believe.

It can go on from there but I'll leave it at that for now and for simplicities sake. What you are essentially touching on is science in progress. No final consclusion has been reached and thus it is not advisable to argue that CO2 (i.e anthropogenic CO2) is of no significance based on spectroscopic absorbtion at this pouint in time as nothing conclusive has been reached at present.

Quote[/b] ]
Why does the IPCC focus upon CO2? #Because it gives them an opportunity to extract taxes from rich countries. There is an international movement to replicate the 'tax the rich' redidtribution policies now pr