'Global warming

[K3XR]

Exposing the religion of global warming.

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/09/bombshell-nasa-revises-recent-us-temperatures-downward-after-y2k-bug-fix/?print=1)

[W2ILP]

Yeah

That article and those responding to it say that Global Warming is faith based. Well now if the data shows that there is global warming it is most probably true that there is global warming at least for the periods compared for in the data...but the so called atmospheric green house gasses that are alleged to be man made and causing global warming are most lightly faith based...and need to be given a breath of fresh air. CO too.

Greenhouse gasses...if elected... might become Whitehouse gas if not faith based in mass. Meanwhile they may become an excuse for sending industries and jobs to China, where folks may have a different faith to base their progress with....Maybe Redhouse gasses.

w2ilp (Inert Little Photons)...don't favor any greenhouse gas more than the average molecules that they get radiated at.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 09 2007,13:40)]Is there no end to the propaganda and lies from the global warming crowd???

http://newsbusters.org/node/14754/print
But is there no end to the stupidity of newsbusters.

[kf6rdn]

41 pages, and it's STILL Haliburton's doing no matter what you all say!

[K3XR]

And the shine continues to dull on the global warming hoax.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/twisting_science_to_fit_the_gl.html)

[K3XR]

It's not easy being green and even more difficult keeping up with news of the great global warming hoax.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14792/print

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Aug. 09 2007,23:50)]41 pages, and it's STILL Haliburton's doing no matter what you all say!
Halliburton is a good company. I wonder how they are enjoying Dubai City. I hear is a nice place.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 10 2007,04:58)]And the shine continues to dull on the global warming hoax.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/twisting_science_to_fit_the_gl.html)
Phew !! Did you have to open the door that leads to the americanstinker again. You stunk out the entire Internet again. Please, leave that door closed !!

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 10 2007,17:19)]It's not easy being green and even more difficult keeping up with news of the great global warming hoax.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14792/print
More Noel Shepperd nonsense no doubt.

[K3XR]

For you ZED global warming "experts".

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/freeman_dyson_joins_globwarm_s.html)

[K3XR]

Mean Green Machine.....

http://www.nypost.com/php....rl=http (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/green_meanies_opedcolumnists_jay_ambrose.htm)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 11 2007,05:23)]For you ZED global warming "experts".

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/freeman_dyson_joins_globwarm_s.html)
And the "american stinker" is also taking Freeman Dyson out of context. Freeman Dyson does not dismiss global warming he embraces it. He also embraces the concept of man made global warming. Where Freeman Dyson takes issue with GW is with regard to computer modeling which he feels that while a valuable tool is often over emphasised in as far as making climactic predictions. He also de-emphasises the importance of GW somewhat.

However, Freeman Dyson is by no means a global warming skeptic or denier. Sadly another great thinker is being taken out of context by the American Stinker.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,08:14)]Mean Green Machine.....

http://www.nypost.com/php....rl=http (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/green_meanies_opedcolumnists_jay_ambrose.htm)
Talk about conspiracy theories, Lets look at it logically. If the goal of the environmentalists is to shut down industry, ruin the economy, and turn our way of life into some prehistoric lifestyle, and if they have all that power and money to thwart science and buy off thousands of the worlds leading climate reasearchers, to buy off world governments into adopting global warming policy, have the backing of the wealthy such as Al Gore, John Kerry, The Heinz family, etc... why would they even bother with global warming ? With all that power and money at their disposal they could simply take a direct approach.

[K3XR]

At least one person in the LIB media is starting to get it right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=57131 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57131)

[W2ILP]

The whole problem is that some folks are saying that sunshine can see through "greenhouse gasses" better one way than another, and others can see through greenhouse gasses...going and coming.

w2ilp (Intelligent little photons)...Are they penetrating particles or can they wave goodbye when reflected?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif? Will the lovers who will eventually be able to live on the Moon be able to spoon by the light of the silvery Earth?....or will they be in a darkness caused by impeding "greenhouse Gasses". Wait till the Earth shines Nelly and the greenhouse gas layer goes drifting by! What a revolting development!

[W4DFW]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,13:58)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,08:14)]Mean Green Machine.....

http://www.nypost.com/php....rl=http (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/green_meanies_opedcolumnists_jay_ambrose.htm)
Talk about conspiracy theories, Lets look at it logically. If the goal of the environmentalists is to shut down industry, ruin the economy, and turn our way of life into some prehistoric lifestyle, and if they have all that power and money to thwart science and buy off thousands of the worlds leading climate reasearchers, to buy off world governments into adopting global warming policy, have the backing of the wealthy such as Al Gore, John Kerry, The Heinz family, etc... why would they even bother with global warming ? With all that power and money at their disposal they could simply take a direct approach.
Oh, they did!

It was called "Kyoto."

And it was called out for what it was, an attempt to destroy Western Industry by giving Asia a break.

China has now passed the US of A as the leading contributor to CO2 gases, but China was given a "break," as a "developing country." Kyoto didn't apply to China.

Sweet!

I've been to China. You lib'rul lunes who think WE in the WEST are the problem are living in a fantasy world!

I can't wait till the Olympics and the camera focuses on the Sun, or what part of it you can't see due to the pollution. Of course, knowing the good Chinese, they will suspend all industry within 200 miles months beforehand.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Aug. 12 2007,19:38)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,13:58)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,08:14)]Mean Green Machine.....

http://www.nypost.com/php....rl=http (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/green_meanies_opedcolumnists_jay_ambrose.htm)
Talk about conspiracy theories, Lets look at it logically. If the goal of the environmentalists is to shut down industry, ruin the economy, and turn our way of life into some prehistoric lifestyle, and if they have all that power and money to thwart science and buy off thousands of the worlds leading climate reasearchers, to buy off world governments into adopting global warming policy, have the backing of the wealthy such as Al Gore, John Kerry, The Heinz family, etc... why would they even bother with global warming ? #With all that power and money at their disposal they could simply take a direct approach.
Oh, they did!

It was called "Kyoto."

And it was called out for what it was, an attempt to destroy Western Industry by giving Asia a break.

China has now passed the US of A as the leading contributor to CO2 gases, but China was given a "break," as a "developing country." #Kyoto didn't apply to China. #

Sweet!

I've been to China. #You lib'rul lunes who think WE in the WEST are the problem are living in a fantasy world!

I can't wait till the Olympics and the camera focuses on the Sun, or what part of it you can't see due to the pollution. #Of course, knowing the good Chinese, they will suspend all industry within 200 miles months beforehand.
Puleezze... they wouldn't waste their time with Kyoto. You guys need to rethink your conspiracy theories. They are getting lame.

[K3XR]

Who is that masked man ??

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/global_warming_masked.html)

[n2ize]

The fact that 1934 was slightly warmer than 1998 was acknowledged as far back as 2001 by Hansen. This is pointed out (directly quoted) in the article below along with a direct link to Hansen's 2001 paper (in pdf format).

Link Again (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)

[K3XR]

Where have all the greenies gone...

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts....ge=http (http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/15/103933.shtml?s=ic)

[K3XR]

Why I would never buy a cup of Starbucks coffee. (not that I ever would)

http://newsbusters.org/node/14884/print

[K3XR]

More from the Al Gore network.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14897/print

[K3XR]

They don't believe you, Al.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14883/print

[K3XR]

More from the greenie nut jobs.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14917/print

[K3XR]

Who do you trust??? (thanks Johnny Carson)

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/why_would_anyone_nasas_trust_c.html)

[K3XR]

"Trouble in global paradise" #

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/global_climate_models_fail_yet.html)

[K3XR]

So much for biofuel...

http://newsbusters.org/node/14990/print

[K3XR]

Largely irrelavant, no they are not taking about the Goreacle.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=57253 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253)

[K3XR]

Start spreading the news, it's real cool today, your gone to freeze your back side off, New York, New York. If you can freeze it there, you'll freeze it anywhere, It's up to you, New York, New York.#(Sorry Frank Sinatra)

http://newsbusters.org/node/15027/print

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] ]“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

US Senate (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=)

Many links to new peer reviewed reports. Enjoy!

[KE5FRF]

Wow. I wonder how many carbon offsets this thread needs for the fossil fuels burnt to keep the servers rolling with this one.

42 pages (probably 20 added since I last snuck a peek.

IZE still at it. Still trying to convince everyone that we know the future based on 100 or so years (give or take) of reliable data. Swearing that the world is about to boil over without a lick of proof that this hasn't happened a thousand times over in history...all based on a half degree Celsius or so variance in temperature in the past 100 years.

Right or wrong, there is no evidence that it is a bad thing for the world, and some would argue it's a good thing (if true).

I'm proud of ya IZE. I just hope you're buying plenty of carbon offsets for the rest of us.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,12:22)]Wow. I wonder how many carbon offsets this thread needs for the fossil fuels burnt to keep the servers rolling with this one.

42 pages (probably 20 added since I last snuck a peek.

IZE still at it. Still trying to convince everyone that we know the future based on 100 or so years (give or take) of reliable data. Swearing that the world is about to boil over without a lick of proof that this hasn't happened a thousand times over in history...all based on a half degree Celsius or so variance in temperature in the past 100 years.

Right or wrong, there is no evidence that it is a bad thing for the world, and some would argue it's a good thing (if true).

Translation to Northerner language:

Hold my beer and watch...

[KE5FRF]

Yeah, if I even drank alcohol it might be true. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,17:22)]Wow. I wonder how many carbon offsets this thread needs for the fossil fuels burnt to keep the servers rolling with this one.

42 pages (probably 20 added since I last snuck a peek.

IZE still at it. Still trying to convince everyone that we know the future based on 100 or so years (give or take) of reliable data. Swearing that the world is about to boil over without a lick of proof that this hasn't happened a thousand times over in history...all based on a half degree Celsius or so variance in temperature in the past 100 years.

Right or wrong, there is no evidence that it is a bad thing for the world, and some would argue it's a good thing (if true).

I'm proud of ya IZE. I just hope you're buying plenty of carbon offsets for the rest of us.

Are you really that proud of your ignorance of the subject ?

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 21 2007,19:48)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,17:22)]Wow. I wonder how many carbon offsets this thread needs for the fossil fuels burnt to keep the servers rolling with this one.

42 pages (probably 20 added since I last snuck a peek.

IZE still at it. Still trying to convince everyone that we know the future based on 100 or so years (give or take) of reliable data. Swearing that the world is about to boil over without a lick of proof that this hasn't happened a thousand times over in history...all based on a half degree Celsius or so variance in temperature in the past 100 years.

Right or wrong, there is no evidence that it is a bad thing for the world, and some would argue it's a good thing (if true).

I'm proud of ya IZE. I just hope you're buying plenty of carbon offsets for the rest of us.
Are you really that proud of your ignorance ?
Ignorance would denote lack of awareness of the data. I am not unaware of the data. I'm skeptical of the data, the methods, the academic culture, the arrogance (as demonstrated by those who call skeptics ignorant), the unwillingness to consider other alternatives, the dismissal of other considerations, did I mention arrogance? Arrogance that we know everything we need to know and that fallable computer models (only as good as the programmer) can give us all the answers. I'm skeptical of anyone or any group who claims the theoretical to be factual. I'm skeptical of the motivations behind this movement and I am skeptical that we even have enough data at this point to conclude anything. I'm also concerned that we are about to embark on yet another fiasco where humankind thinks it can manipulate mother nature and where we aren't able to forsee all the consequences. SO many examples throughout history have occured where we do more harm than good by trying to control our environment rather than adapt to it. (Read levees on the Miss. River as a great example)

I'm skeptical that you or anyone else has it all figured out. It's very easy to read through internet articles on the subject and take the evidence (as presented) at face value. It's another thing altogether to question the methodology by which the data is collected.

You make a crucial mistake in logic, which is uncharacteristic of a professed mathematician. You insist that if someone hasn't drawn the same conclusion as you that they are "ignorant". Well, that is pretty much the same chain of reasoning that landed us in Iraq. People didn't question the evidence. They took it at face value and they trusted our leaders to have their facts in order. Well, that trust was misplaced and look where we are.

By the same token, I do not think this particular realm of science is infallable, and I do not think all the options have been considered to the fullest. Skeptics and dessenters present alternative data and it is outright dismissed as politically motivated by "Big Oil". Until politics are completely removed from this picture, I put "Anthropogenic GW" in the same categoty as Y2K. A big Adieu about nothing.

If that is ignorance, I apologize.

Now that I've stuck my nose in the pile and stirred the nest, I'll be on my way back to the radio forum. TU for your time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,18:11)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 21 2007,19:48)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,17:22)]Wow. I wonder how many carbon offsets this thread needs for the fossil fuels burnt to keep the servers rolling with this one.

42 pages (probably 20 added since I last snuck a peek.

IZE still at it. Still trying to convince everyone that we know the future based on 100 or so years (give or take) of reliable data. Swearing that the world is about to boil over without a lick of proof that this hasn't happened a thousand times over in history...all based on a half degree Celsius or so variance in temperature in the past 100 years.

Right or wrong, there is no evidence that it is a bad thing for the world, and some would argue it's a good thing (if true).

I'm proud of ya IZE. I just hope you're buying plenty of carbon offsets for the rest of us.
Are you really that proud of your ignorance ?
Ignorance would denote lack of awareness of the data. I am not unaware of the data. I'm skeptical of the data, the methods, the academic culture, the arrogance (as demonstrated by those who call skeptics ignorant), the unwillingness to consider other alternatives, the dismissal of other considerations, did I mention arrogance? Arrogance that we know everything we need to know and that fallable computer models (only as good as the programmer) can give us all the answers. I'm skeptical of anyone or any group who claims the theoretical to be factual. I'm skeptical of the motivations behind this movement and I am skeptical that we even have enough data at this point to conclude anything. I'm also concerned that we are about to embark on yet another fiasco where humankind thinks it can manipulate mother nature and where we aren't able to forsee all the consequences. SO many examples throughout history have occured where we do more harm than good by trying to control our environment rather than adapt to it. (Read levees on the Miss. River as a great example)

I'm skeptical that you or anyone else has it all figured out. It's very easy to read through internet articles on the subject and take the evidence (as presented) at face value. It's another thing altogether to question the methodology by which the data is collected.

You make a crucial mistake in logic, which is uncharacteristic of a professed mathematician. #You insist that if someone hasn't drawn the same conclusion as you that they are "ignorant". Well, that is pretty much the same chain of reasoning that landed us in Iraq. People didn't question the evidence. They took it at face value and they trusted our leaders to have their facts in order. Well, that trust was misplaced and look where we are.

By the same token, I do not think this particular realm of science is infallable, and I do not think all the options have been considered to the fullest. Skeptics and dessenters present alternative data and it is outright dismissed as politically motivated by "Big Oil". Until politics are completely removed from this picture, I put "Anthropogenic GW" in the same categoty as Y2K. A big Adieu about nothing.

If that is ignorance, I apologize.

Now that I've stuck my nose in the pile and stirred the nest, I'll be on my way back to the radio forum. TU for your time. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Well, the synopsis of climatology that you provided in your prior posting would generally indicate an ignorance of the subject.

Incidentally, the issue is not one in which the climatologists have called the skeptics ignorant. The problem is that the skeptics have failed to provide an adequate explaination for the rapid changes in climate that we are now experiencing. The "natural cycles" explaination just doesn't cut it.

The problem I have with most of the un-professional skeptics is that I have met very few with an open mind. They tend to like to latch onto the skeptics explainations regardless of the fact that they have severe shortcomings while at the same time dismissing the climatologists as "alarmists", "corrupted by environmentalists" ,etc.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that the skeptics have failed to provide an adequate explaination

And the question of the hour...Who gets to decide what the adequate explanation is? The people who espouse the Anthropogenic GW stuff in the first place? YOU?

That is the problem Jeeves. There is no disinterested juror to pass the task of "deciding" off to.

My answer to your comment is that the Anthropogenic crowd has failed to provide an adequate explanation. Now, do I get to make that decision?

And the open mind thing is a two way street, and I haven't seen busloads of open minds on their way to Carbon Credit Concerts to listen to "Green Day" tell them to go back to the dark ages.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that the skeptics have failed to provide an adequate explaination

And the question of the hour...Who gets to decide what the adequate explanation is? The people who espouse the Anthropogenic GW stuff in the first place? YOU?

That is the problem Jeeves. There is no disinterested juror to pass the task of "deciding" off to.

My answer to your comment is that the Anthropogenic crowd has failed to provide an adequate explanation. Now, do I get to make that decision?

And the open mind thing is a two way street, and I haven't seen busloads of open minds on their way to Carbon Credit Concerts to listen to "Green Day" tell them to go back to the dark ages.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,18:11)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 21 2007,19:48)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,17:22)]Wow. I wonder how many carbon offsets this thread needs for the fossil fuels burnt to keep the servers rolling with this one.

42 pages (probably 20 added since I last snuck a peek.

IZE still at it. Still trying to convince everyone that we know the future based on 100 or so years (give or take) of reliable data. Swearing that the world is about to boil over without a lick of proof that this hasn't happened a thousand times over in history...all based on a half degree Celsius or so variance in temperature in the past 100 years.

Right or wrong, there is no evidence that it is a bad thing for the world, and some would argue it's a good thing (if true).

I'm proud of ya IZE. I just hope you're buying plenty of carbon offsets for the rest of us.
Are you really that proud of your ignorance ?
Ignorance would denote lack of awareness of the data. I am not unaware of the data. I'm skeptical of the data, the methods, the academic culture, the arrogance (as demonstrated by those who call skeptics ignorant), the unwillingness to consider other alternatives, the dismissal of other considerations, did I mention arrogance? Arrogance that we know everything we need to know and that fallable computer models (only as good as the programmer) can give us all the answers. I'm skeptical of anyone or any group who claims the theoretical to be factual. I'm skeptical of the motivations behind this movement and I am skeptical that we even have enough data at this point to conclude anything. I'm also concerned that we are about to embark on yet another fiasco where humankind thinks it can manipulate mother nature and where we aren't able to forsee all the consequences. SO many examples throughout history have occured where we do more harm than good by trying to control our environment rather than adapt to it. (Read levees on the Miss. River as a great example)

I'm skeptical that you or anyone else has it all figured out. It's very easy to read through internet articles on the subject and take the evidence (as presented) at face value. It's another thing altogether to question the methodology by which the data is collected.

You make a crucial mistake in logic, which is uncharacteristic of a professed mathematician. You insist that if someone hasn't drawn the same conclusion as you that they are "ignorant". Well, that is pretty much the same chain of reasoning that landed us in Iraq. People didn't question the evidence. They took it at face value and they trusted our leaders to have their facts in order. Well, that trust was misplaced and look where we are.

By the same token, I do not think this particular realm of science is infallable, and I do not think all the options have been considered to the fullest. Skeptics and dessenters present alternative data and it is outright dismissed as politically motivated by "Big Oil". Until politics are completely removed from this picture, I put "Anthropogenic GW" in the same categoty as Y2K. A big Adieu about nothing.

If that is ignorance, I apologize.

Now that I've stuck my nose in the pile and stirred the nest, I'll be on my way back to the radio forum. TU for your time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In general scepticism is an admirable thing.

In this particular case, sceptical inertia might be disasterous.

What if the climatologists are right? Not only right but over conservative? Read the item on "Tipping Points" in last weeks "New Scientist". It seems that we are already past the point where serious consequences can be avoided and rapidly approaching the point where a large scale disaster is inevitable.

Eventually it will either be plain that we have been sat on our a***s playing our fiddles and enjoying the warmth from the conflagration, or a large number of scientists will find that they have been playing Cassandra with dud data. When that day dawns I hope you will be congratulating yourself on your perspicacity rather than bewailing your inertia.

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

"vastly overblown"

http://newsbusters.org/node/15032/print

[K3XR]

"driven by hysteria"

http://newsbusters.org/node/15050/print

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 22 2007,04:09)]What if the climatologists are right? Not only right but over conservative? Read the item on "Tipping Points" in last weeks "New Scientist". It seems that we are already past the point where serious consequences can be avoided and rapidly approaching the point where a large scale disaster is inevitable.
That being the case Brian, then maybe we need to forget about trying to slow or stop the warming and move full speed ahead with how to deal with a world climate several to 10 degrees warmer than present. #After all, the period of the last 2-3 million years is one of the rare cool periods in global climate history. #At some point, with or without help from human activities, the global temperatures were bound to return to the values that were dominant for the bulk of the past 1 billion or more years. #Who really knows if we are on the beginning of that change in our generation. #Far better to prepare to deal with a warmer world than waste energy and money on efforts to slow or halt the warming when such cannot be accomplished in any event.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 22 2007,12:45)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 22 2007,04:09)]What if the climatologists are right? Not only right but over conservative? Read the item on "Tipping Points" in last weeks "New Scientist". It seems that we are already past the point where serious consequences can be avoided and rapidly approaching the point where a large scale disaster is inevitable.
That being the case Brian, then maybe we need to forget about trying to slow or stop the warming and move full speed ahead with how to deal with a world climate several to 10 degrees warmer than present. #After all, the period of the last 2-3 million years is one of the rare cool periods in global climate history. #At some point, with or without help from human activities, the global temperatures were bound to return to the values that were dominant for the bulk of the past 1 billion or more years. #Who really knows if we are on the beginning of that change in our generation. #Far better to prepare to deal with a warmer world than waste energy and money on efforts to slow or halt the warming when such cannot be accomplished in any event.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
The whole issue regarding whether or not we will be able to adapt to significantly higher earth temperatures is going to depend on how fast those temperatures rise. If MMGW is real (as science seems to indicate) and we do nothing to reduce that effect, it could mean a rise in temp that is too rapid to adsorb in a manner that is both feasible and realistic. Dramatic changes to the climate are going to require dramatic changes in the way we live, the way we do business and where we live. For example, if mass relocation's of major population centers along the east and west coasts are going to be required it is much easier to do them over the long term... than over the short term. Same for other things as well such as devising new ways to build living centers that can be efficiently and reliably cooled and kept cool. Such artificially and effectively and reliably cooled living quarters will likely be MANDATORY in order to survive the extreme and long term heatwaves that will likely occur during the spring, summer and autumn months. New places and new ways to grow crops and raise food may be vital as today's methods may no longer be effective in a dramatically changed environment. Countless other changes will likely be required if we are to meet the challenge of a changed and different climate

Such changes are going to be extremely costly. Our ability to meet the challenges involved in living within a changed climate will largely be determined by the time frame in which we have to make those changes. This is one reason why reducing the man made factors which affect climate change are important, if in the very least as far as buying us the time needed to adapt.

One of the biggest fears of the global warming skeptic is that to do anything about global climate change will damage the economy. Well, in all likelihood if we do nothing and then have to adapt to rapid climactic changes as a matter of survival then in all likelihood we won't even have an economy to talk about. Therefore, even if we are going to talk about adaptability we still need to think in terms of reducing the factors that contribute to MMGW. There is no getting around it.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 22 2007,12:45)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 22 2007,04:09)]What if the climatologists are right? Not only right but over conservative? Read the item on "Tipping Points" in last weeks "New Scientist". It seems that we are already past the point where serious consequences can be avoided and rapidly approaching the point where a large scale disaster is inevitable.
That being the case Brian, then maybe we need to forget about trying to slow or stop the warming and move full speed ahead with how to deal with a world climate several to 10 degrees warmer than present. After all, the period of the last 2-3 million years is one of the rare cool periods in global climate history. At some point, with or without help from human activities, the global temperatures were bound to return to the values that were dominant for the bulk of the past 1 billion or more years. Who really knows if we are on the beginning of that change in our generation. Far better to prepare to deal with a warmer world than waste energy and money on efforts to slow or halt the warming when such cannot be accomplished in any event.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Mike, I believe that most if not all of the cooler periods of Earth history coincided with major orogenies and the virtual absence of shallow epicontinental seas. I believe I am right in saying that the current Alpine-Himalayan orogeny has some tens of millions of years still to go. I therefore tend to think that a natural return to greater temperatures is not imminent.

I agree that attempts to halt or even slow the warming are unlikely to succeed, whether it is man-made or natural.

Having said that, a lot depends now on the rapidity of GW, if it is very rapid then the scenario that IZE paints is all too real. In an earlier thread I outlined how a major civil engineering program could deal with the first metre or so of sea-level rise to give us a breathing space to deal with relocation (and incidentally provide a source of renewable energy) and if - IF I say - the sea level rise is not too rapid then cities can be rebuilt on timescales close to the natural lifetime of man-made structures, which would considerably reduce the cost of relocation.

As I have said before, I do not regard the full warming scenario as an absolute certainty, but it is looking more and more likely now, and even if we are not constrained to act right now, we should be making detailed plans for future action.

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Aug. 21 2007,19:20)]Quote[/b] ]The problem is that the skeptics have failed to provide an adequate explaination

And the question of the hour...Who gets to decide what the adequate explanation is? The people who espouse the Anthropogenic GW stuff in the first place? YOU?

That is the problem Jeeves. There is no disinterested juror to pass the task of "deciding" off to.

My answer to your comment is that the Anthropogenic crowd has failed to provide an adequate explanation. Now, do I get to make that decision?

And the open mind thing is a two way street, and I haven't seen busloads of open minds on their way to Carbon Credit Concerts to listen to "Green Day" tell them to go back to the dark ages.
Quote[/b] ]

And the question of the hour...Who gets to decide what the adequate explanation is? The people who espouse the Anthropogenic GW stuff in the first place? YOU?


The scientists.

Quote[/b] ]
My answer to your comment is that the Anthropogenic crowd has failed to provide an adequate explanation. Now, do I get to make that decision?


They have actually provided quite an adequate explaination based upon very sound science.

Now, if you have a different theory on what is happening you are free to present it. And if your fact can falsify present day theory of MMGW then fine. Thus far that has not been accomplished.

[n2ize]

Gots ta keep this thread going... Can't let it die.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 22 2007,16:15)]The whole issue regarding whether or not we will be able to adapt to significantly higher earth temperatures is going to depend on how fast those temperatures rise. If MMGW is real (as science seems to indicate) and we do nothing to reduce that effect, it could mean a rise in temp that is too rapid to adsorb in a manner that is both feasible and realistic.
This assumes that the rate of warming based upon a CO2 driver is increasing and will increase faster as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. There are now several peer reviewed papers published or about to be published which challenge this assumption and make the claim that the bulk of warming has already occured and little or no additional warming will take place even if no change in CO2 emissions takes place between now and 2100.

Read this paper and tell me what you think.

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf)

This paper will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research later this year. It seem to state that the earth's climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gas forcing than the currect UN report indicates and may well be below the level of dangerous anthropogenic influence on global climate.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[K3XR]

The religion of global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15102/print

[G8ADD]

Just when the debate is starting to sound startlingly intelligent, along comes Mr. Gadfly with another dose of triviality to bring us down to earth with a bump!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 24 2007,07:51)]Just when the debate is starting to sound startlingly intelligent, along comes Mr. Gadfly with another dose of triviality to bring us down to earth with a bump!

73

Brian G8ADD
He does serve a purpose. The links keep this thread alive and on the top of the front page. Otherwise the links are mostly ignored. Looking back on the thread I noticed he posted about a dozen links in a row and nobody commented on any of them. In any event I'd like to come to this board 5 years from now and still see this thread going strong and at the top. Heck, climate change is probably the most important issue we are presently facing so it should be a hot and ongoing topic that should continue indefinately.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 23 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 22 2007,16:15)]The whole issue regarding whether or not we will be able to adapt to significantly higher earth temperatures is going to depend on how fast those temperatures rise. If MMGW is real (as science seems to indicate) and we do nothing to reduce that effect, it could mean a rise in temp that is too rapid to adsorb in a manner that is both feasible and realistic.
This assumes that the rate of warming based upon a CO2 driver is increasing and will increase faster as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. #There are now several peer reviewed papers published or about to be published which challenge this assumption and make the claim that the bulk of warming has already occured and little or no additional warming will take place even if no change in CO2 emissions takes place between now and 2100.

Read this paper and tell me what you think.

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf)

This paper will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research later this year. It seem to state that the earth's climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gas forcing than the currect UN report indicates and may well be below the level of dangerous anthropogenic influence on global climate.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Well, I'm not a climate researcher so my opinions may not be accurate. But I'll give it a look see and let y'all know what I think. I'd also like to dig around and see what various climate researchers have to say about it as well.

Meanwhile I have read some other papers dealing with the notion that temperature as a function of CO2 concentration approaches a limit and beyond that "limit" temperature rise becomes less and less significant in proportion to CO2 increase. If I remember correctly there were several solid rebuttals which made sense. However, it's been a while and I don;t remember all the details.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 24 2007,12:24)]Meanwhile I have read some other papers dealing with the notion that temperature as a function of CO2 concentration approaches a limit and beyond that "limit" temperature rise becomes less and less significant in proportion to CO2 increase. If I remember correctly there were several solid rebuttals which made sense. However, it's been a while and I don;t remember all the details.
I think the observational data are showing or starting to show this to actually be the case. Go to the US Senate link several posts up and then read the actual papers linked to in that blog. Do not rely upon the opinion of the blogger, but read the original research articles referenced.

It is the data and conclusions of the articles themselves that are important to discuss. They are not dismissing the observation of global warming but seem to provide alternatives to or limits on an anthropogenic cause and may indicate we do have sufficient time to deal with the consequences of a warmer world in an orderly, panic-free manner. Some also seem to indicate that reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate global warming may have little or no impact. That does not mean we should not reduce fossil fuel consumption anyway since there are a variety of other valid reasons to do so.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Aug. 24 2007,10:06)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 24 2007,12:24)]Meanwhile I have read some other papers dealing with the notion that temperature as a function of CO2 concentration approaches a limit and beyond that "limit" temperature rise becomes less and less significant in proportion to CO2 increase. If I remember correctly there were several solid rebuttals which made sense. However, it's been a while and I don;t remember all the details.
I think the observational data are showing or starting to show this to actually be the case. #Go to the US Senate link several posts up and then read the actual papers linked to in that blog. #Do not rely upon the opinion of the blogger, but read the original research articles referenced. #

It is the data and conclusions of the articles themselves that are important to discuss. #They are not dismissing the observation of global warming but seem to provide alternatives to or limits on an anthropogenic cause and may indicate we do have sufficient time to deal with the consequences of a warmer world in an orderly, panic-free manner. Some also seem to indicate that reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate global warming may have little or no impact. #That does not mean we should not reduce fossil fuel consumption anyway since there are a variety of other valid reasons to do so.
Well, I sure hope that is the case. I would like to know that there is a limit to how hot and how fast we can heat things up. However, we must accept the fact that be it slow or fast, adapting to a changed and warmer world is not going to be easy and is going to be very expensive. And there may some who simply cannot adapt. However, the more time that is on our side the better.

[W2ILP]

I read with care the paper that WA3KYY has been good enough to call our attention to.

This paper makes some very wild assumptions that I would not expect a scientist from Long Island's Brookhaven Labs to make, but this is typical of many scientists who continue assuming stuff that others of good repute have also incorrectly assumed.

There is no such thing as GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE (GMST)...because if there was then we would have to look at such other nonsense as global mean rainfall, snow fall or hail fall.
None of these can determine real Global Climate or its variation with time.

As I said previously there are parts of our Earth where it never rains and parts of our Earth where it always rains. #Collecting a SIGMA...or total summation that could be smoothed to a mean value becomes meaningless. #There are also parts of our Earth where no industrial "greenhouse gasses" have been generated or where the production of such gasses has not significantly increased in recent decades. #And parts of industrial nations where there has been constant smoke stack CO2 generation. The mathematical summation with the intention of predicting the Earth's time delay or purported increase of green house distributed effects is thus too variable, as the local effects must be weighed as to individual surface areas and not mean total global summations, such as GMST implies. #There is nothing that is not dynamically variable about this sort of reasoning and nothing constant except Boltzman's constant.

This all reminds me of an engineer who presented a lecture at an IEEE show many years ago. #He was trying to predict the effect of long wave radio propagation due to the earth ground conductivity.
As an experiment he decided to scale the problem by using a microwave generator instead of a long wave radio transmitter and conducting the experiment in a big fish tank that had gravel, sand and water that was supposed to similate the mean values found on the earth. (As if Mean values were to have any meaning). # The engineer was the only lecturer who I ever witnessed getting laughed off the stage.

Simple Simon went a fishing for to catch a whale;
All the water that he had was in his mother's pail.
#--Old Mother Goose--

How can we be sure that the cause or effect of "greenhouse gas" is but a drop or rise in the bucket...and expect it to simulate the ocean...no less the entire Earth's surface?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Is a greenhouse layer only a one way street?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #Or dose some radiant heat get through both ways...and is the ratio of that which gets through to that which does not get through a constant? #Is it a saturatible effect, a constant effect or a run away effect? #Are there many other factors that tend to force equlibrium either locally of Globally?

Unfortunately this can not be modeled in a lab...even in Brookhaven.

w2ilp (IR's Limited Passage?)

Man stopped by a mean policeman for going the wrong way on a one way street:-
"But officer... I was only going one way."

[n2ize]

Where's the Link n Run man. This thread scrolled off the front page !! Can't let that happen.

[K3XR]

The eco-Nazis will be looking to send this guy off to a retraining camp to get his mind straight.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15149/print

[n2ize]

Thats more like it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K3XR]

You can always count on a laugh from the global warming nut jobs.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15170/print

[n0jaa]

Please note the date.


The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

#http://www.denisdutton.com




Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf).

Here's a partial excerpt...

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

[N8UZE]

I remember those days. This was a very common topic in the media. Science fiction writers were creating any number of stories and novels placed in the future Ice Age. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[K3XR]

And you can wash it down with a Starbucks and really impress you eco-Nazis friends.
http://newsbusters.org/node/15183/print

[K3XR]

"More alarmist than alarming".

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010529

[K3XR]

So much for "consensus".

http://newsbusters.org/node/15252/print

[K3XR]

Chill out, weather stations have a problem.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15275/print

[N1LAF]

Remember that I have posted awhile back concerning the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillilation that has a period of 60 to 80 something years? Look at the two known highest temperature readings, 1998 and 1934 (I believe), wouldn't this fit the AMO?

Also....

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.

How can this be? After all the publicity.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Aug. 30 2007,12:38)]Remember that I have posted awhile back concerning the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillilation that has a period of 60 to 80 something years? #Look at the two known highest temperature readings, 1998 and 1934 (I believe), wouldn't this fit the AMO?

Also....

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.

How can this be? #After all the publicity.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists #were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.
Sound pretty strange to me. First of all #Medical Researcher is doing a survey of peer reviewed papers ? His study is yet unpublished. What is his criteria for "aggreement" verus "dissagreement" and what led to his choice of the 500 papers he "surveyed". He is in effect saying that the concensus of the science community is a pre-judgement and the science was tailored to conform to the concensus rather than the other way around and then his "proof" of this is based on his survey and interpretations of 500 papers he chose ? It sounds more like a loose game of semantics and interpretation as opposed to anything else. It will be interesting to see how this medical researchers paper revolutionizes our views on climate change once it's published. But judging from the sound of thigs I wouldn;t hold my breath.

This statement really got me puzzled...


They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?


Huh ? So this is what global warming is all about ? A political plot to build a world police state ? My God, talk about conspiracy theories, #this is like Uber tinfoil hat stuff. A few eeeks ago it was crazed hippie tree huggers who want to take over the world. So all this time the oil, gas and coal industries who are anti global warming because they feel it will hurt their business model are fighting for our rights by resisting a vast evil world government conspiracy to build the ultimate police state ? Is that intentional or a purely coincidental relationship ? And why ? If it were really a conspiracy to build a huge police state why would government waste their time with global warming when they have so many more effective ways to reach such goals ?

It sounds like they are clutching straws at this point. All they need to do is identify which natural cycle is causing the present day warming and show how that cycle refutes and falsified present day theory. Simple, but in light of all the undisputable "proofs" it remains undone.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Aug. 30 2007,12:38)]Remember that I have posted awhile back concerning the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillilation that has a period of 60 to 80 something years? Look at the two known highest temperature readings, 1998 and 1934 (I believe), wouldn't this fit the AMO?
Well, does it? You tell us. Give us data on the rise and fall of this oscillation and show us that these highs fit the peaks of the cycle, and whilst you're at it, show us how the lows fit into the cycle, too. Don't limit yourself to just one pulse of the cycle, go back two or three to show that it is no coincidence.

If its all a conspiracy, the evidence must be out there.

73

Brian G8ADD

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Aug. 31 2007,01:10)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Aug. 30 2007,12:38)]Remember that I have posted awhile back concerning the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillilation that has a period of 60 to 80 something years? Look at the two known highest temperature readings, 1998 and 1934 (I believe), wouldn't this fit the AMO?
Well, does it? You tell us. Give us data on the rise and fall of this oscillation and show us that these highs fit the peaks of the cycle, and whilst you're at it, show us how the lows fit into the cycle, too. Don't limit yourself to just one pulse of the cycle, go back two or three to show that it is no coincidence.

If its all a conspiracy, the evidence must be out there.

73

Brian G8ADD
A Source: NOAA (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php)

What is the AMO?

The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

How much of the Atlantic are we talking about?

Most of the Atlantic between the equator and Greenland changes in unison. Some area of the North Pacific also seem to be affected.

What phase are we in right now?

Since the mid-1990s we have been in a warm phase.

What are the impacts of the AMO?

The AMO has affected air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe. It is associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes. It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming.

(Note: Warmer Europe)

How does the AMO affect rainfall and droughts?

Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dustbowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite - warm AMO, more rainfall.

Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?

Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation.


Another source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation)
Climate impacts worldwide

The AMO index is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe. It is associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes. It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming. Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent or prolonged. Vice-versa for negative AMO (cool phase). Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite — warm AMO, more rainfall.

Jeff Masters, Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=265&tstamp=200512)

What causes the AMO, and can we predict it?
The causes of the AMO are not well-understood, but some "coupled" computer models that simulate the behavior of both the atmosphere and the ocean are beginning to shed light on this. One of the leading theories is that changes in the ocean's salt content causes a speed up or slow down of the Gulf Stream, due to the fact that density differences between lighter fresh water and heavier salty water drive weaker and stronger ocean currents, respectively. This circulation (called the "thermohaline circulation") is thought to cause the warm phase of the AMO and warmer Atlantic SSTs when it speeds up, and cooler SSTs and a cool AMO phase when it slows down. It is also possible, but less likely, that changes in atmospheric circulation cause the AMO. We are a long way from being able to predict when a particular phase of the AMO will begin or end. The last warm phase lasted for 44 years. The current cycle began in 1995, so it may not be until 2040 that the current active period of hurricane activity dies down.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/amo.gif

7. Is Global Warming Responsible for the Large Upswing in 2004-2005 U.S. Hurricane Landfalls? (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2007/june2007/index.htm)
he U.S. landfall of major hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 and the four Florida landfalling hurricanes of 2004 (Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne) raised questions about the possible role that global warming played in these two unusually destructive seasons.



The global warming arguments have been given much attention by many media references to recent papers claiming to show such a linkage.�� Despite the global warming of the sea surface that has taken place over the last 3 decades, the global numbers of hurricanes and their intensity have not shown increases in recent years except for the Atlantic (Klotzbach 2006), where recent hurricane increases are likely a result of naturally occurring multi-decadal Atlantic Ocean circulation variations.



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.� For instance, when we compare Atlantic basin hurricane numbers over the 15-year period (1990-2004) with an earlier 15-year period (1950-1964), we see no difference in hurricane frequency or intensity even though the global surface temperatures were cooler and there was a general global cooling during 1950-1964 as compared with global warming during 1990-2004.

Despite a fairly inactive 2006 hurricane season, we believe that the Atlantic basin is currently in an active hurricane cycle associated with a strong thermohaline circulation and an active phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).� This active cycle is expected to continue for another decade or two at which time we should enter a quieter Atlantic major hurricane period like we experienced during the quarter century periods of 1970-1994 and 1901-1925.� Atlantic hurricanes go through multi-decadal cycles.� Cycles in Atlantic major hurricanes have been observationally traced back to the mid-19th century, and changes in the AMO have been inferred from Greenland paleo ice-core temperature measurements going back thousands of years.

-- Is that enough, Brian, or how much more 'proof' do you need?

You have a chart, sample sourcing, and text to discuss the AMO, all from respectable sources.

Come to think of it, you don't provide any sources or points. Next time you comment, please provide sources to back up your claims.

EDIT(Added) - PS: Notice how 1934 is near the peak of the last warm phase!!

also...

NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim (http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/nasa-backtracks-on-1998-warmest-year-claim)
NASA Corrects 120 Years Worth of Bad Data, Notes NCPA Expert

DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

"Hansen's conclusions that the majority of the 10 hottest years occurred since 1990 are false," Burnett said. "While Hansen's original declaration made headlines, NASA's correction has been ignored."

{Note: because it is contrary to popular agenda drive - forget the truth}

According to NASA's newly published data:

* The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
* The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
* Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
* Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

NASA's ground based temperature records for the past 120 years, which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions, have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.

"Much of the current global warming fear has been driven by Hansen's pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming," said Burnett. "Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent - I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship."

--- back to you!

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Aug. 31 2007,05:42)]-- Is that enough, Brian, or how much more 'proof' do you need?

You have a chart, sample sourcing, and text to discuss the AMO, all from respectable sources.

Come to think of it, you don't provide any sources or points. Next time you comment, please provide sources to back up your claims.

EDIT(Added) - PS: Notice how 1934 is near the peak of the last warm phase!!
What claims am I supposed to have made? Check back, you will find that I have made no claim for GW stronger than a comment to the effect that the grounds for doubt (about the reality of MMGW) seem to be lessening. I have tried to maintain a detached attitude to the to-ing and fro-ing of the controversy here, the science has continued to move in the backgound, albeit seemingly at a snail's pace, and that, my friend, is where it really is at, not the feverish discussions on the Zed which have contributed little beyond exchanges of opinion and personalities. Obscure graduates researching in obscure university departments around the globe will eventually trump the Zedders, conspiracy theorists, political activists and gas and oil interests.

What I have been trying to do is show where the anti- postings are depending on poor science, and poking gentle fun at conspiracy theories. In your case you posed a rhetorical question, so I suggested that you yourself show how the AMO fits the temperature record, something that doesn't come clearly from your quoted sources, incidentally, probably because they are concerned more with secondary commentary than data analysis. One thing that is apparent from your quoted graph is that there is an apparent upward trend in the three maxima shown, and a less definate upward trend in the two minima. This suggests that either an external heating effect is impinging on the AMO or there is a much longer period oscillation beating with the AMO. On this sparce evidence either could be true.

The AMO is good science, its been known about for a long time: I did an Oceanography course over 25 years ago and it was dealt with then (along with the causes and effects of the thermohaline circulation). I have do doubt of its reality, but I do have doubts that a local effect, even if it does cover quite a wide locality, is adequate to explain a world-wide phenomenon. For instance does it tie in with sea ice variations around Antarctica and the disintegrating southern ice shelves? Note that the significant melting of glaciers and ice shelves around the Arctic have no parallel with previous maxima of the AMO, either, although if there is a longer period oscillation beating with the AMO then this melting might be thus accounted for.

Believe me in this: nobody would be more pleased than me if the current warming phase turned out to be entirely an artifact of a coincidence of two or more cycle's maxima, but I have no intention of indulging myself in wishful thinking!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Well, there is one sure fire way to test the AMO cycle as the cause of GW. Lets simply do nothing about GW, let's keep increasing the amounts of carbon we spew out and in 20 to 40 years we'll know. Because in 20 to 40 years either the increased temperatures and changes we've been seeing will either have reversed themselves due to the cycle and will be back down to normal, or, we'll be seeing even hotter temps, more arctic melt and more killer heatwaves. At that point 20 - 40 years in our future we'll know for sure whether it's the AMO or whether it has to do with man made activity.

I tend to feel that man made activity plays a significant role in this mess. First there are many changes that the AMO cannot accounbt for, changes occuring in todays world that did not occur during previous AMO cycles. Even if the AMO is playing a role in all this it seems apparent that some other contributing factor is a work here. That contributing factor appears to be man made activity

Even if it were absolutely proven that GW was entirely man made and that it will eventually overtake us I highly doubt humans would be willing to make the changes needed to avert it. Humans (myself included) are locked into rituals and patterns. Once we find a niche that works for ourselves we tend to latch on and avoid change. Even if our niche is far from perfect and could stand great improvement we tend to avoid change, even if it would make things better. In lkight of this climate change is just as much a sociological (human behavioral) issue as well as a scientific and political issue.

So, let's just sit back and enjoy the show. Or at least try to enjoy it. Time will eventually prove beyond a shadow of doubt whether climate change is natural or man made. And if it does turn out to be man made it will by then probably be far to late to do anything to change it anyway. So lets sit back , relax, and watch the thermometer rise.

[N1LAF]

The ancient Egyptians agricultural calender has references th the AMO cycle from over 2000 years ago, so this re-enforces the AMO effects and how it changes rainfall pattern.

The ice cores at Antarctica do show the 1500 year cycle.

Just because we have the AMO cycle, doesn't mean that the cooler phase cannot produce warmer years. 1921 being one of them.

And for N2IZE also, it doesn't mean we do nothing, that is a negative reply, and not what I have said all along. We should be good stewards of this planet. I am disputing the alarming GW alarmist who do not understand the complexity and inter-relationships that exist, the feedback cycles, that the typical (not including N2IZE) GW alarmist just parrots other GWA's, and do not get down and dirty to find objective truths, and just blame everything to one component, CO2. Thats my point. There are natural cycles, other 'impulse cycles that are random by nature and magnitude (such as volcanic activity), and I think that there are natural mechanisms in place to try to maintain an average, its just that the periods to do so are so long, and are variables to other natural cycles, making them complex.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 31 2007,10:17)]I tend to feel that man made activity plays a significant role in this mess. First there are many changes that the AMO cannot accounbt for, changes occuring in todays world that did not occur during previous AMO cycles. Even if the AMO is playing a role in all this it seems apparent that some other contributing factor is a work here. That contributing factor appears to be man made activity
I tend to think that man made activity in the CO2 arena is not as significant - and thats where we differ. The AMO is not the only cycle at play. The 1500 year cycle is also dominant, and we are on the rising edge of the 1500 year cycle. Add the two together, and we have a rising 1500 year cycle with the AMO, adding and subtracting from it. If you look at the last 300 years, you see the upward trend, that the upward moves longer than the downward with the influence of AMO. And there are other mini cycles at play - El Nino, La Nina, the neutral years, and their cycles are erradic. Thats another thing, cycles are neither period specific, or magnitude and shape specific. Look at the AMO cycle, looks more like a curvy square wave with two peaks on the warm cycle.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Aug. 31 2007,13:04)]
First of all I still don't understand who are these so called "alarmists". The more one reads about climate research the more one realizes that natural cycles are understood by researchers and are indeed taken into consideration. The AMO phenomenon doesn't evenly affect the entire scope of global data and indeed, many changes are occuring globally that natural cycles are unable to account for.

As far as the climate change issue goes it has become far too polarized and politicized to spend a whole lot of time on. Unless one is employed as a researcher of course. This coupled with the fact that regardless of what science tells us, or doesn't tell us, people are going to do nothing anyway. Even if tomorrow it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming is entirely due to man and the end result is going to be complete devestation unless we do something fast, do you really envision people making the needed changes ? I don't. it's hard enough to get people to respond to things that are problematic right now, let alone something that will only be a major problem for future generations. If global warming does have devestating impact the majority of us will be long dead by that time and it will be our grand children or great grand children who will be facing the music. People are not going to make sacrafices and/or changes for some way off in the future generation. Life is too cozy and comfortable in the here and now. So why bother.

So, things will have plenty of time to play out and in time we or some future generation will find out for sure if it was due to man made pollution or due to natural cycles. If it's natural cycles then it's either won;t be a problem as it will reverse itself or, it will be a problem that we have/had no control over. If it is man made activity it will likely be way too late to do anything about it.

Whatever will be will be. All we can do is watch and find things out as time reveals them.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Aug. 31 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 31 2007,10:17)]I tend to feel that man made activity plays a significant role in this mess. First there are many changes that the AMO cannot accounbt for, changes occuring in todays world that did not occur during previous AMO cycles. Even if the AMO is playing a role in all this it seems apparent that some other contributing factor is a work here. That contributing factor appears to be man made activity
I tend to think that man made activity in the CO2 arena is not as significant - and thats where we differ. #The AMO is not the only cycle at play. #The 1500 year cycle is also dominant, and we are on the rising edge of the 1500 year cycle. #Add the two together, and we have a rising 1500 year cycle with the AMO, adding and subtracting from it. #If you look at the last 300 years, you see the upward trend, that the upward moves longer than the downward with the influence of AMO. #And there are other mini cycles at play - El Nino, La Nina, the neutral years, and their cycles are erradic. #Thats another thing, cycles are neither period specific, or magnitude and shape specific. #Look at the AMO cycle, looks more like a curvy square wave with two peaks on the warm cycle.
This is where there lies a problem. At some point this stuff must leave the desk of the climate researcher and be placed on the desk of the mathematician. The underlying issue of what is taking place with regards to all these cycles and their interaction required the mind, the patience and the skill of the mathematcian. With his keen ability for pattern recognition and the vast array of ideas and analytical tools at his disposal the mathematician can give us deep insights that the climate researcher cannot. When you compare the level of analysis that the climate researchers can offer versus what the skilled mathematician can accomplish it's sort of like comparing a simple crayon drawing to the work of Rembrandt, Vermeer, Michelangelo, etc.

It's the job of the climate researcher to get out there, gather data, look for patterns, cycles, etc. It's the job of the analyst to make sense out of it. Unfortunately the weak analytical skills of the climate researcher cannot bring to life the interrelationships we need to understand in order to make real sense of this mess.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 31 2007,13:58)]Even if tomorrow it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming is entirely due to man and the end result is going to be complete devestation unless we do something fast, do you really envision people making the needed changes ? I don't. it's hard enough to get people to respond to things that are problematic right now, let alone something that will only be a major problem for future generations. If global warming does have devestating impact the majority of us will be long dead by that time and it will be our grand children or great grand children who will be facing the music. People are not going to make sacrafices and/or changes for some way off in the future generation. Life is too cozy and comfortable in the here and now. So why bother.

So, things will have plenty of time to play out and in time we or some future generation will find out for sure if it was due to man made pollution or due to natural cycles. If it's natural cycles then it's either won;t be a problem as it will reverse itself or, it will be a problem that we have/had no control over. If it is man made activity it will likely be way too late to do anything about it.

Whatever will be will be. All we can do is watch and find things out as time reveals them.
With the deepest regret I have to agree with you there.

There never was enough altruism to go around. The future will have to look after itself.

Sad. Well, I'm off to sleep on it now. Goodnight all.

73

Brian G8ADD

[W2ILP]

The North Koreans have shut down their oldest least efficient nuclear power plant. They have replaced a number of coal burning power plants with new nuclear power plants.

I will leave it up to you guys to decide...
Are they doing this to reduce global Warming?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Are they one of the few nations actually conforming to Kyoto Accord methods?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

w2ilp (Ignite Less Pollution)...Don't smoke it...Nuke it.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Aug. 31 2007,22:36)]The North Koreans have shut down their oldest least efficient nuclear power plant. They have replaced a number of coal burning power plants with new nuclear power plants.

I will leave it up to you guys to decide...
Are they doing this to reduce global Warming?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Are they one of the few nations actually conforming to Kyoto Accord methods?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

w2ilp (Ignite Less Pollution)...Don't smoke it...Nuke it.
... and the US hasn't started a new nuclear plant since the 70's, and been replaced by the same.

Trend?

[K3XR]

Global warming, get rid of the humans.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15388/print

[K3XR]

What's up with the eco-Nazis, they can't afford Leo's movie??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295768,00.html

[KC2ESD]

I have to say this: If CO2 is increasing then why is O2 not decreasing??? If there is a crisis due to increase CO2 then there should be a crisis about less O2 in the air to breathe and yet I here nothing about O2 depletion. Remeber CO2=C+O2 and if more O2 is connected to C then there is less O2.

Think about that one.

[K3XR]

BBC dumps climate special.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330685504-105236,00.html

[K3XR]

Forget the fat in your diet, it's the global warming that could kill you.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/global_warming_lie_of_the_day_1.html)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Sep. 05 2007,16:49)]I have to say this: If CO2 is increasing then why is O2 not decreasing??? If there is a crisis due to increase CO2 then there should be a crisis about less O2 in the air to breathe and yet I here nothing about O2 depletion. Remeber CO2=C+O2 and if more O2 is connected to C then there is less O2.

Think about that one.
I see somebody flunked basic grammar school science. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC2ESD]

Thats all you can do is attack the grammar? I guess you can't debate the science of my post.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Sep. 06 2007,06:36)]Thats all you can do is attack the grammar? I guess you can't debate the science of my post.
At its simplest, O2 is present in 10's of percent, CO2 is present in parts per million. Indeed it is true that oxidation of fossil carbonaceous matter will deplete O2 levels, but the depletion will be relatively insignificant. Before we noticed any shortage of oxygen we would be suffering the effects of excess CO2 on our bodies.

Hope that helps,

73

Brian G8ADD

[K3XR]

This is sweet, bet he would support an underwater exit ramp.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidec....07.html (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Kennedy_Wind_Frams/2007/09/06/30307.html)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Sep. 06 2007,06:36)]Thats all you can do is attack the grammar? I guess you can't debate the science of my post.
I see someone flunked reading as well.

[K3XR]

Kids and "globaloney".

http://newsbusters.org/node/15457/print

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Sep. 06 2007,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Sep. 06 2007,06:36)]Thats all you can do is attack the grammar? I guess you can't debate the science of my post.
I see someone flunked reading as well.
Sometimes I want to crawl in a hole and forget that I have Irish blood.

[K3XR]

What's the problem AL, you can't fly commercial???

http://www.drudgereport.com/gore.htm

[K3XR]

Slip and fall lawyers and eco-Nazis take a hit.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15484/print

[K3XR]

Hysterical or historical???
http://newsbusters.org/node/15493/print

[K3XR]

Not that you would believe what the UN had to say.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15507/print

[K3XR]

"Baby it's cold outside."

http://newsbusters.org/node/15587/print

[K3XR]

"Baby it's cold outside."

http://newsbusters.org/node/15587/print

[w4qwx]

Quote[/b] (ac3p @ Mar. 16 2007,12:13)]In about 30 years or so, there will be a drop in population as we boomers depart this mortal coil. That should result in quite a drop in manmade the CO2 levels.

But regardless of that, when Apophis hits in 2036 it will all be a moot point anyway.
Actually when us old geezers(me included) check out, there will be a significant reduction in flatulation.

[K3XR]

LIB media, out of touch, as usual.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15668/print

[K3XR]

Let's see, where did I put that heavy winter coat???
http://www.investors.com/editori....&view=1 (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290&view=1)

[K3XR]

Attention global warming nut jobs.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15852/print

[K3XR]

"Shilling" for George.

http://newsbusters.org/node/15927/print

[K3XR]

From the crowd, that prior to 9/11, caused more death and destruction, in the country, then any other terror group.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/v-print/story/403055.html

[K3XR]

"Dirty little secret"...on front page of NY Slimes.

http://newsbusters.org/node/16011/print

[G8ADD]

Hey, Mr Gadfly, you're having a lot of fun with these postings, can I join in?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs...._1.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070928/tsc-uk-summit-climate-9ff7fe2_1.html)

More later!

73

Brian G8ADD

[G8ADD]

Ooh! That was fun! Here's another:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp...._1.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070927/tsc-canada-climate-environment-science-a-blf5339_1.html)

more to follow!

73

Brian G8ADD

[N1LAF]

Yup

from your link, came the following...

1. "The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years," James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Reuters.

Hansen said he is seeking more study of causes of the melt, widely blamed on greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels but perhaps slightly stoked by soot from forest fires or industries in Russia and China. Ice darkened by soot melts faster.

2. NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that...

The Times piece continued:

The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."

[W4BCR]

Global warming is a natural process, its been proven by common sense science time and time again. The people who say it is man made are a part of the left that wants every one back in a cave because they fear, or hate progress.

[K3XR]

And this from the land of fruits and nuts.

http://www.latimes.com/news....-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lightsout29sep29,0,6828741,print.story?coll=la-home-center)

[K3XR]

It all fits, phony Al, phony weather data.

http://newsbusters.org/node/16031/print

[K3XR]

Another scientist silenced by the Stalinist LEFT.

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/01/scientist-silenced-by-politician-for-his-position-on-global-warming/?print=1)

[W4HAY]

Link: (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20070928.jpg)

[K3XR]

Surprise, UK figures out the Goracle.

http://newsbusters.org/node/16115/print

[W4HAY]

Quote[/b] ]...Democrats took over Congress vowing to make global warming a top priority, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planned to notch a quick victory with a bill that was long on political symbolism and cost, if short on actual emissions reductions.

Standing in her way has been Mr. Dingell. Much to the speaker's consternation, the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is insisting that any bill should actually accomplish something, and that its pain be borne by all Americans (rather than just his Detroit auto makers). In recent months he has been circulating his own proposals for hefty new taxes on energy, gasoline and homeowners--ideas that are already giving the rest of his party the willies.

*****
If Mr. Dingell has learned anything in his time in Washington, it's to call them as he's sees them, and when I ask how many votes he thinks he'd get if he offered up his legislation tomorrow, he chuckles and says, "Well, at least one."

I mention that many of his fellow Democrats are still hoping to slip some sort of climate legislation and CAFE rule into the smaller energy legislation on which the House and Senate are about to start negotiations. How does he intend to block that offensive? He chuckles again and says, "If you have any ideas, let me know."

Not that he's about to give up, which gets back to his legendary tenacity. He tells me about working on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. "I remember people said, 'Dingell, what a great job you did on Clean Air, you passed it on the House floor in 13 hours.' And I said, "Yeah, it only took me 13 years to do it.' "

Will, 13 years from now, he have seen his climate proposal through? This evokes more than a chuckle; it's a giant laugh. "Before 13 years are up, I'm going to seek my 'permanent career,' " he quips. What, I ask, could possibly follow 50-odd years of Washington jousting? "Hunting, fishing and chasing a gorgeous blonde around the bedroom."
Dingell's inconvenient truths (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010699)

We now pause for the predictable knee-jerk rants from the usual suspects.

[K3XR]

Goracle slideshow, on the way.
http://newsbusters.org/node/16224/print

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Oct. 09 2007,11:30)]Goracle slideshow, on the way.
http://newsbusters.org/node/16224/print
Good, thats good news. Good to know that more people all over the world are taking the issue of climate change seriously. That is why the anti-environment crowd is acting out of sheer desperation and spewing out the propaganda faster than you could say jackie Robinson.

Of course it must really irk the anti-environmental crowd, you know, the ones who feel that corporations should be given full control to trash and pollute everything in sight and treat every resource as a business commodity. So lets rejoice that people are taking these things seriously for a change.

[K4GUN]

Here's something that bothers me about this "debate". The bongwater brigade says that if we continue on our present path, all these calamities are going to strike. It is assumed that means that if we change our practices that disaster will be averted. That's really not the case though, is it?

The argument always seem to be "if we produce x amount of greenhouse gasses, temperatures will rise x degrees, over x number of years, resulting in x number of feet rise in sea level." I don't recall ever seeing an article or claim that if we reduce our emissions to a certain level, that temperatures will not rise anyway. It might add a few years to how long they take to rise, but they are going up anyway. That makes me very suspicious of the motives of those making the claims.

[K3XR]

Some global warming facts, for a change ??

http://www.newsmax.com/insidec....55.html (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/10/17/41855.html)

[K4GUN]

As long as this topic is back, could somebody explain what humans did to cause the Sahara to form and displace thousands of humans and change the face of Africa forever? What happened there is on the same level with the worst gloom and doom stories we hear now and I'd like to know what humans did to cause this.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Oct. 18 2007,05:11)]As long as this topic is back, could somebody explain what humans did to cause the Sahara to form and displace thousands of humans and change the face of Africa forever? What happened there is on the same level with the worst gloom and doom stories we hear now and I'd like to know what humans did to cause this.
As I understand it the blame is shared between the rain producing weather systems changing their tracks and making the area more arid, and the introduction of goat herding leading to overgrazing.

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Oct. 09 2007,12:00)]Here's something that bothers me about this "debate". #The bongwater brigade says that if we continue on our present path, all these calamities are going to strike. #It is assumed that means that if we change our practices that disaster will be averted. #That's really not the case though, is it? #

The argument always seem to be "if we produce x amount of greenhouse gasses, temperatures will rise x degrees, over x number of years, resulting in x number of feet rise in sea level." #I don't recall ever seeing an article or claim that if we reduce our emissions to a certain level, that temperatures will not rise anyway. #It might add a few years to how long they take to rise, but they are going up anyway. #That makes me very suspicious of the motives of those making the claims.
I suggest you do some more detailed reading on the topic. The interpretations you're presenting here are not accurate representations of what scientists are actually saying. Research does show that there is a high probability that much of the warming we see today is due to man made pollutants. There are extremely detailed studies indicating as to why scientists believe this to be so. Obviously is it is likely that man made activity is causing temps to rise it is reasonable to suspect that the rate of increase will be affected by a reduction in emitted pollutants. It is possible to project what the effects might be but the ultimate experiment would be to actually reduce greenhouse gas emmissions and nonotor global temperature changes very carefully.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W4BCR @ Sep. 30 2007,13:27)]Global warming is a natural process, its been proven by common sense science time and time again. The people who say it is man made are a part of the left that wants every one back in a cave because they fear, or hate progress.
Really ? what is "common sense science" and how does it differ from the science performed by leading climate scientists ? Also, you might explain how you prove a theory about the world or universe in science ? That should make for an entertaining explaination.

Also, I didn't know that all those scientists that feel that global warming is largely due to man made sources are a part of the left who hate progress and want to live in caves. That's a new one on me. Seems very strange to me that people who hate progress would take up science to begin with. A rather odd profession for a progress hater.

Is it something in the water or have uyou been smoking some strange cigarettes ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K4GUN]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,11:50)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Oct. 09 2007,12:00)]Here's something that bothers me about this "debate". #The bongwater brigade says that if we continue on our present path, all these calamities are going to strike. #It is assumed that means that if we change our practices that disaster will be averted. #That's really not the case though, is it? #

The argument always seem to be "if we produce x amount of greenhouse gasses, temperatures will rise x degrees, over x number of years, resulting in x number of feet rise in sea level." #I don't recall ever seeing an article or claim that if we reduce our emissions to a certain level, that temperatures will not rise anyway. #It might add a few years to how long they take to rise, but they are going up anyway. #That makes me very suspicious of the motives of those making the claims.
I suggest you do some more detailed reading on the topic. The #interpretations you're presenting here are not accurate representations of what scientists are actually saying. #Research does show that there is a high probability that much of the warming we see today is due to man made pollutants. There are extremely detailed studies indicating as to why scientists believe this to be so. Obviously is it is likely that man made activity is causing temps to rise it is reasonable to suspect that the rate of increase will be affected by a reduction in emitted pollutants. It is possible to project what the effects might be but the ultimate experiment would be to actually reduce greenhouse gas emmissions and nonotor global temperature changes very carefully.
That's the exact flawed logic argument that I'm talking about. I'll even pretend to agree with you that global warming is due to man. Let's give you that for now. What, exactly, will be the result of a reduction in man made emissions? If all human activity stopped today, would the sea level drop? Would the glaciers expand? Would droughts cease? No? OK, then would the rate of heating be reduced and if so, by how much?

Remember, I'm asking what would happen if all human activity and emissions suddenly just ended. Let's say all humans die of a super virus and the planet is again "pristine". Are you claiming that temperatures would not still rise? If so, you would be the first one I have heard make that claim.

Now let's look at just reducing emissions to the levels the greenies will tolerate. How much do you really think it can be done? Can we reduce human generated greenhouse emissions by 20 percent? Maybe 50 percent? So with huge amounts of disruption to the world economy, we reduce greenhouse emissions by half. Then what? Do temperatures decline?

Of course they don't decline. The best the greenies can claim is that it will reduce the rate of rise. What good does that do? Florida is still going to be the next reef and Greenland will still be a temperate zone. Meanwhile, we've spent billions and stifled development of ways to accommodate the changes.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Oct. 18 2007,12:12)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,11:50)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Oct. 09 2007,12:00)]Here's something that bothers me about this "debate". #The bongwater brigade says that if we continue on our present path, all these calamities are going to strike. #It is assumed that means that if we change our practices that disaster will be averted. #That's really not the case though, is it? #

The argument always seem to be "if we produce x amount of greenhouse gasses, temperatures will rise x degrees, over x number of years, resulting in x number of feet rise in sea level." #I don't recall ever seeing an article or claim that if we reduce our emissions to a certain level, that temperatures will not rise anyway. #It might add a few years to how long they take to rise, but they are going up anyway. #That makes me very suspicious of the motives of those making the claims.
I suggest you do some more detailed reading on the topic. The #interpretations you're presenting here are not accurate representations of what scientists are actually saying. #Research does show that there is a high probability that much of the warming we see today is due to man made pollutants. There are extremely detailed studies indicating as to why scientists believe this to be so. Obviously is it is likely that man made activity is causing temps to rise it is reasonable to suspect that the rate of increase will be affected by a reduction in emitted pollutants. It is possible to project what the effects might be but the ultimate experiment would be to actually reduce greenhouse gas emmissions and nonotor global temperature changes very carefully.
That's the exact flawed logic argument that I'm talking about. #I'll even pretend to agree with you that global warming is due to man. #Let's give you that for now. #What, exactly, will be the result of a reduction in man made emissions? #If all human activity stopped today, would the sea level drop? #Would the glaciers expand? #Would droughts cease? #No? #OK, then would the rate of heating be reduced and if so, by how much? #

Remember, I'm asking what would happen if all human activity and emissions suddenly just ended. #Let's say all humans die of a super virus and the planet is again "pristine". #Are you claiming that temperatures would not still rise? #If so, you would be the first one I have heard make that claim. #

Now let's look at just reducing emissions to the levels the greenies will tolerate. #How much do you really think it can be done? #Can we reduce human generated greenhouse emissions by 20 percent? #Maybe 50 percent? #So with huge amounts of disruption to the world economy, we reduce greenhouse emissions by half. #Then what? #Do temperatures decline? #

Of course they don't decline. #The best the greenies can claim is that it will reduce the rate of rise. #What good does that do? #Florida is still going to be the next reef and Greenland will still be a temperate zone. #Meanwhile, we've spent billions and stifled development of ways to accommodate the changes.
Quote[/b] ]
Of course they don't decline. #The best the greenies can claim is that it will reduce the rate of rise. #What good does that do? #Florida is still going to be the next reef and Greenland will still be a temperate zone. #Meanwhile, we've spent billions and stifled development of ways to accommodate the changes.


Well, the arguments for man made climate change are pretty darned compelling from the readings I have done, which include reading some of the dry and boring peer reviewed journals and not just the Al Gore - Rock Concert - Hippie Environmentalist stuff. I would argue that the probability is quite good that the anthropogenic component is indeed a reality.

But regardless, ultimately we have to start somewhere and significantly reducing CO2 emissions would make sense. #This approach would have several advantages. #First it would buy extra time, even if not in the immediate or relatively near future then #in the longer term. How fast things change will largely affect how readilly one can adapt. Secondly, it may mitigate effects of climate change in the long term by removing a significant amount of CO2 from "the production line" so to speak. Third it would be of scientific value and would give scientists a deeper insight i to the mechanism of climate change and a more thorough understanding of man's role in climate change and mitigation. Fourth, even if we disregard global warming it may lead to less pollution, cleaner air, etc. Fifth, less reliance on fossil fuel would spur research and development of alternative energy sources.

Thus I see it as the way to go.

[K4GUN]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,13:10)]Well, the arguments for man made climate change are pretty darned compelling from the readings I have done, which include reading some of the dry and boring peer reviewed journals and not just the Al Gore - Rock Concert - Hippie Environmentalist stuff. I would argue that the pro