$4,500 !!! For that kind of money I'm going to buy a bicycle-built-for-2, and hire an illegal alien to do most of the pedalling. And when they're not doing the pedalling, they'll be doing the cooking and cleaning.
why would that be? The earth and almost everything about it is regenerative. The aftermath of the volcanoes and asteroid strikes from millions of years ago are gone. 10,000 years ago, the ice at NYC was 2000 feet thick. All the people in the world would fit in a cubic mile box twice over. How many hundred of these boxes would fit inside Mt Everest? The body mass of just one kind of shrimp living under just one small part of the Antartic ice shelf outweight the world's entire mammal population, including man. We will run out of water in the Aquifer under Nebraska, the Asian Carp infestation is only 2 miles from getting into the Great Lakes, and the Japanese now have the oceans 90% devoid of edible fish. Far more concerning that a tenth of a degree of warming in 10 years.
Another problem that is easy to identify and remedy is getting little attention. Just not as global in nature as the AGW theory.
WASHINGTON, April 1, 2009 – For the first time, the U.S. Geological Survey has identified the top 150 polluting watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin that cause the annual 8,000 square-mile “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the USGS report released today, members of the Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative urge the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state policy makers to use the report to solve water quality problems both within the states and downstream in the Gulf.
In January of 2008, USGS identified commercial fertilizers and animal manure from farmland in 9* states as the cause of over 70 percent of the Dead Zone pollution. Evidence is mounting that the mandated push to increase corn production – one of the most fertilizer intensive crops – for ethanol exacerbates water quality problems within the states and in the Gulf. This year, the USGS identifies and ranks watersheds in the Basin by the amount of pollution that gets to the Gulf.
If it helps, I've built two new homes on Indiana farmland. The runoff is now filtered by grass. I never knew rivers were so brown until I moved to Indiana.
Corn was notr intended for human or animal consumption,guaranteed. Poop is so,so easy to legislate complete remediation and "Then" place back on crop land. Depletion of our systems here is "Systematic" and intentional. Energy production is easy,an "En Masse" assembly of people to demand that our "Special Case of engineering plans ,drawings and operations manuals be returned to my command and control will eliminate every energy problem we have,guaranteed. Our "Earth Foundation" was attacked about 4 years ago now to take that case,just as we were about to release its contents and issue licenses. All of you nasty "Cabalists" out there take warning,we are not going away anytime soon,and fight every day to stop your depletion of "Our" earth.
I think there's a lot to like in this hyperdimensional physics (?) view of AGW. Especially the poop part. Who knows - I mean astrophysicists are still looking for what 85% of the mass of the universe.
REYKJAVIK, Iceland – Authorities evacuated hundreds of people after a volcano erupted beside a glacier in southern Iceland, Iceland's civil protection agency said Sunday, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.
The eruption occurred around 11:30 p.m. Saturday (7:30 p.m. EDT) beside the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, the fifth largest in Iceland. Authorities initially said the eruption was below the glacier, triggering fears that it could lead to flooding from glacier melt, but scientists conducting an aerial survey in daylight located the eruption and said it did not occur below ice.
A European volcanic island in the North Atlantic, Iceland is largely an arctic desert with mountains, glaciers and volcanoes and agricultural areas in the lowlands close to the coastline.
The last time the volcano erupted was in the 1820s.
Only tier three guys say that 85 percent of the universe is missing. Some of us understand the structure and glue,and the physics,but we are tasked against constantly not to hold class or seminars in public institutions. I do not mind those minders,I am bigger than them,and that fight still goes forth. Tier three boys come up with all of their theories from a telescope view and none of their aficionadoes see through the absurditity of that or their Einsteinian gibberish that they would dis-locate your bones if they could , if you attempt to tarnish their idio-savant.
Steven,the mighty wheelchair bound math boy has it all backwards too,and he is in that state of being(The wheelchair) from someone not liking his family,but we are a handicapper driven society here,now are;nt we?
I had someone make a statement back to me after I released a comment that those idiotic colliders and the KOOKS that they are derived from have produced nothing of any value,specifically said that there would not be any space travel or electronics,or computers without the cyclotron process,and I almost fell off my chair laughing,and anyone with at least 2 neurons firing would do the same thing.
All of the public institution Kooks have brought us the global warming scenario and the "Smarter Boys" have cleaned everyones wallet out with that garbage ,while the real issue is being buried.
The uptick in volcanic activity,such as Iceland, is extra energy coming into the planet and of course this quadrant,and will abate.
The processes,known by everyone from my office,that create extra magma heat and glacial melting that are periodicities, known and historically provable by the visible evidence,and even the ice core data, are never spoken out because of a certain factions processes here that would stop their depletion of metals from their engineered positions that creates another thing for you idiots to deal with through your committes and peer review men ,who have destroyed our science systems and economy here due to being driven to stupidity when it comes to astrophysics or planet science.
If you astro-morons ever wake up and figure it out,I would be surprised.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced a “major policy revision” that aims to give bicycling and walking the same policy and economic consideration as driving.
“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”
The new policy, which was introduced a few days after Mr. LaHood gave a well-received speech from atop a table at the National Bike Summit, is said to reflect the Transportation Department’s support for the development of fully integrated transportation networks.
Final Statement of the article I agree with:
“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette subsequently commented. “I mean, what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”
So are the bike riders going to be willing to fork over about $450 per year to help maintain the roads? That is about the average paid by CA drivers in gas tax. Plus another $300-$500 in license fees per year. If anything the government agencies have done more for non motorized vehicle owners at the expense of motorized vehicle owners.
There is nothing green about most bike riding. They drive their vehicles to the local Albertson's and take up spaces that shoppers should have. Unload their bikes and clutter up our narrow roads with their rallies all spring and summer long. I would be surprised if 10% of bike riding in CA is for commuting to work. We need a big fat pleasure tax on bicycles. Or they can get together and buy land and build bike trails.
Who is going to send their kids to school on a bike with 1000s of child molesters allowed to live in our communities?
The committee said that climate scientists had to be much more open in future — for example by publishing all their data, including raw data and the software programs used to interpret them, to the Internet. Willis said there was far too much money at stake not to be completely transparent.
I agree. Where it stands now is NO significant increase in Temperature over the last 15 years per Dr Jones. That means that the increase in MM CO2 has not translated into higher global Temps.
gary says, "Where it stands now is NO significant increase in Temperature over the last 15 years per Dr Jones. That means that the increase in MM CO2 has not translated into higher global Temps. "
The second part is pure speculation on your part.
The first part, you forgot to mention the REST of what he said about that 15 year thing. From the full BBC interview:
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
So don't be quoting him to try and prove any points. You and he disagree COMPLETELY.
All that you said is not logical in reality. If CO2 is the major cause of GW, it should continue higher as global CO2 continues higher. No 15 year reprieves allowed if man is the major cause. Cannot have it both ways warmer and cooler. That is what Phil Jones is paid to say. So no I only agree with him on the last 15 years being cooler. The rest he says is paid for by those with a Cap n Trade agenda. You want to be sucked into that kind of tax and spend belief, go ahead. Do not expect those that think for themselves to follow like lambs to the slaughter. Phil Jones and Al Gore are what is commonly referred to as Judas goats.
Better think about that one. Not everyone that lies are always lying. Phil Jones admitted the last 15 years did not show any warming when he was up against the wall with his previous lies and half truths. So he had to be honest and admit there was NO significant warming over the last 15 years. That does not make him any less a hack for the AGW Cult. Just a scientist caught in lies having to back peddle.
Gary says, "So he had to be honest and admit there was NO significant warming over the last 15 years."
He also said this trend is not statistically significant. So don't forget to add that part when you are quoting him. You seem to obsess on the part you like and ignore the "but" part.
Of course it is not significant to an Alarmist like Jones. It is totally relevant to those of us that are not buying the whole AGW business. If GW is caused by MM GHG then it will rise with the increase of GHG.
Much to the chagrin of those buying the AGW theory, it got colder instead of increasingly warmer. It shoots their theory all to "you know where". Man's contribution to climate is insignificant. Pollution I agree with you on. Climate NO WAY
He also said this trend is not statistically significant.
Well if the last 15 years is statistically insignificant compared to the last 150 years that's at the heart of the debate, then even more so the last 150 years is insignificant compared to the length of time to the last Ice Age.
So if 15 out of 150 is not significant, then similarly 150 out of 20,000(?) is not significant either. The last 15 years might just be a fluke, and equally so might the last 150 years.
You posted this: "And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
And this:
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today program that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
larsb, it is fun to see you try to tap dance around the truth. The last 15 years with NO warming and actually some cooling is about as significant as you can get !
All those cow farts came to nothing ! Fifteen years, relative to my lifetime, is quite significant. He must have thought it was fairly significant when he was lying about it, but once he and his lies were dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight suddenly it is not significant, so he just lied for the hell of it?
Yes - the bit of warming. The last 150 years of supposed warming (the warming-rate) can be just as statistically insignificant compared to the trend of 200 centuries of changes, as 15 years of cooling is insignificant to 150 years.
But haven't you said that the more recent data is, the more relevant it is. Well then the last 15 years of climate data are the most valuable and important and tell us that there is no further warming, while the CO2 levels have increased quite a bit. Yes there can be other factors, but that then means CO2 is not that important.
If CO2 is an important fatcor then temperature would go up with CO2, no matter what the other factors did. If CO2 isn't an important, major factor then CO2 can increase as it has, and the temperature doesn't go up, as the other factors are more important.
What you have missed about Phil Jones is he is a test tube pusher for hire. He will generate data to say what you want it to say if the money is right. If he was on the side of reason that 15 years would be the clincher to shooting down the AGW cult. As a matter of fact it is the silver bullet that has sent much of the cult underground. .
An interesting report, that I guess President O'bama doesn't really believe in, since he seemed to realize today - that we need to explore and drill. Good decision to open up the SE Atlantic waters to exploration!
Anyway did anyone read thru the report to P.26? Well here is an interesting piece when you think about it for a few minutes:
There is also the possibility of even larger changes in climate than current scenarios and models project. Not all changes in the climate are gradual. The long record of climate found in ice cores, tree rings, and other natural records show that Earth’s climate patterns have undergone rapid shifts from one stable state to another within as short a period as a decade. The occurrence of abrupt changes in climate becomes increasingly likely as the human disturbance of the climate system grows.90 Such changes can occur so rapidly that they would challenge the ability of human and natural systems to adapt.105 Examples of such changes are abrupt shifts in drought frequency and duration. Ancient climate records suggest that in the United States, the Southwest may be at greatest risk for this kind of change, but that other regions including the Midwest and Great Plains have also had these kinds of abrupt shifts in the past and could experience them again in the future.
So the authors are warning us that man could cause the same types of sudden climate change that have occurred in the past. Does anyone else see this as illogical to attempt to prove, if it were to happen? Why would I or any other intelligent person say "this has happened many times before without mankind around, now that it is happening again it MUST be due to mankind! Ah the Sinners, we are! Let's repent and throw ourselves at the feet of our AGW idols!"
This AGW is a modern scientific version of 1) making people fear the God in the volcano, 2) a witchhunt, and 3) the use of science to prove the world is flat and that the Sun moves around the Earth. AGW will go down in history just like these other sciences-of-those-days as looking ridiculous. It's nothing more than false-science created by various political and scientific groups to increase their careers, wealth, and power.
So, a 0.6°C rise in temperature refers to a temperature anomaly, not a real temperature. You have used a buzz saw to average everything, and your result is a temperature anomaly. When asked about this, Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeller at Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated in writing to this author: “The computer models used for the IPCC projections do not use any observed temperature data directly. They are instead calculations from close to first principles just using the distribution of solar irradiation over seasons, the shape of the continents, and changes in atmospheric composition, i.e., greenhouse gases. Everything else is calculated.”
I have to wonder where the AGW folks fit the Anasazi Indians into the Climate Change scheme of things? They flourished for several hundred years in the San Juan Basin until about 1275 when drought forced them from their homes. They were all gone by about 1300. No SUVs or Coal fired power plants to blame on that heat wave and drought. Just by coincidence it happens at the same time as the Medieval Warming period that Phil Jones finally, reluctantly admitted was for real. Much warmer than today. Or anytime in the last 150 years.
The Medieval Warm Period from A.D. 800 to 1300 contributed to the megadrought epoch in North America, which for the Sierra region -- in what is now California -- resulted in the most severe droughts of the last 4-7,000 years, writes anthropologist Brian Fagan in 'The Great Warming.' The climate evidence for these megadroughts exists in tree rings, ice cores and growth layers in coral. A 50-year drought in the 1100s forced the Anasazi Indians to abandon Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. Later droughts in the 1200s caused the Anasazi to leave Mesa Verde and the Moctezuma Valley. Parched conditions also hit the Maya in Central America. Deep sediment cores from off of the Venezuelan coast and from a Yucatan lake bed show that droughts affected the Maya about every 50 years; the one from 910 to 916 proved to be the final straw, leading to the downfall of the parts of Maya civilization in the southern and central lowlands of the Yucatan Peninsula by the end of the 900s. On the other side of the world, in what is now Cambodia, the Khmer ruler King Suryavarman II started building the elaborate temple of Angkor Wat in 1117. The Angkorian empire was in decline by the 1400s and the city of Angkor abandoned by the end of the 1500s. The most likely causes: Drought and declining rice crop yields.
Until the AGW cult come to grips with the past they will not understand the present or the future. All the computer generated forecasts are speculation. Maybe when they figure out how to tell the weather through the end of the week they can predict into the next week and beyond. Until then I am not buying that these yahoos have a clue what it will be like in 2100. Nor will it make any difference to me or my grandchildren.
It is good to see more and more anthropologists are coming to grips with the violence between the different tribes throughout the ages. The crap we hear of peace loving Indians being mistreated by the white man are not the big picture. Man's nature is violent, red or yellow, black or white.
The most likely reason for moving on was lack of food. They may have wandered out into the plains and found all the buffalo. They may have been the ancestors of the plains Indians. I am sure there will be DNA tests to pin point where they ended up.
Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
Global Warming cannot be caused by my SUV. I put more miles on this year than the two previous years combined. Maybe it is causing the cooling and rain. Could we get more rain without the cooling. As long as the government thinks they can control the climate.
"Our results show that the ice loss, which has been well documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast," says Shfaqat Abbas Khan, lead author on a paper that was published March 19, in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
The team found that uplift rates near the Thule Air Base on Greenland's northwest coast rose by about 4 centimeters, or roughly 1.5 inches, from October 2005 to August 2009.
Although the low resolution of GRACE - a swath of about 250 kilometers, or 155 miles, across - is not precise enough to pinpoint the source of the ice loss, the fact that the ice sheet is losing mass nearer to the ice sheet margins suggests the flows of Greenland outlet glaciers there are increasing in velocity, said the study authors.
"When we look at the monthly values from GRACE, the ice mass loss has been very dramatic along the northwest coast of Greenland," says CU-Boulder physics professor and study co-author John Wahr, also a fellow at CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
"This is a phenomenon that was undocumented before this study," Wahr says. "Our speculation is that some of the big glaciers in this region are sliding downhill faster and dumping more ice in the ocean."
I presented news from a legitimate News source and you from an AGW blog site. With old sat photos. Strictly an opinion piece using old statistics. You need to wean yourself from that cult or they will suck you in. Click on the highlighted "Climate" link. It is all just an advertising web blog. With a smattering of data to push their alliance with the Sky is Falling global alarmists.
We just have to continue to disagree. I don't trust your scientists and you don't trust mine. Now this is cold:
Ever had this problem? Dang, now that's cold...!!! This message came from Stoney River Lodge,Alaska. The picture was taken on Jan 5th 2010 - Minus 51 F ...
"This is a phenomenon that was undocumented before this study," Wahr says. "Our speculation is that some of the big glaciers in this region are sliding downhill faster and dumping more ice in the ocean."
I don't see in this statement or thoughout those paragraphs how this is linked to suspected GW. :confuse: I believe the larger a glacier is, the more it weighs the more pressure it exerts, and the more it moves. To me this statement means that it has snowed more over the last decades and the ice is now moving faster due to the increased pressure.
If the temperature were 33F above the glacier and the ice was melting and the water was flowing into the ocean then I would say it's due to the climate. A glacier moving in sub-zero conditions is not due to GW.
Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide
Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.
In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.
However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.
Authors of the paper, published in Nature, say the research does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland.
How about this? And they want US to believe it is diesel vehicles causing all the NoX.
Estimated nitrous oxide emissions from temperate grasslands in places like Inner Mongolia as well as vast swatches of the United States, Canada, Russia and China account for up a third of the total amount of the greenhouse gas produced every year. Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.
Does that mean walking through a fallow pasture in the Spring can cause respiratory diseases or even cancer? I knew walking through a pasture with a Randy Bull was dangerous to your health. :P
Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China. He found that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring thaw when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because the greenhouse gas, also known as laughing gas, is released by microbes in the soil. When the grass is long snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water, however when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.
So it just occurred to me that killing off the buffalo was the real cause of GW. The buffalo kept the vast grasslands trimmed and Buffalo Bill killed them causing Global Warming 150 years later.
Recently watched the final episide of a superb BBC series; "Wonders of The Solar System" - you can see all 5 episodes on BBC iPlayer - and the presenter, a brilliant young guy called Prof. Brian Cox, (looks about 12 years old but radiates enthusiasm and wonder at his subject), stated that ants are responsible for releasing in the region of 5 million tons of methane into Earth's atmosphere every year.
So, GW is down to Buffalo Bill and the those goldarned ants !
I cannot recommend this series too highly. It really is brilliant in every respect.
Drudge posted 90 degrees in NYC on his headlines. Larsb said weather don't count so I did not post. We are still unseasonably cold in San Diego. Today is the first day in several weeks that is close to our normal temp. Hope NY is enjoying OUR sunshine and warmth.
I'm still on the extreme weather events as a possible indicator track.
Looking at the archives, Drudge posted a link to Bloomberg about the potential for a record on 4/5. Then ignored the story when it actually happened. Nothing about the record rain there last month. But he posts every cow story that comes down the path. :P
Around here we had a record cold stretch in December, then some record warmth off and on for a couple months, now it is cold again - snowfall in higher Seattle suburbs this morning. I wouldn't mind some of that warmth too.
The boogeymen at least need to use the term "climate change" in their quest for cash and power.
Why give the nut jobs in DC any more ammo than they already have from the AGW cult? Cap n Trade will be a HUGE tax bite out of the middle class in this country.
We may have a Civil war. The Tea Partyers against the Eco Nuts. The Tea Party bunch won the last war they were in. You have to know if the Eco Nuts get their way Edmund's will have no reason to exist. They want to do away with personal transportation completely. Or only allow it for the elite and wealthy. According to Al Gore the internal combustion engine is our worst enemy and should be done away with.
You think that picture you posted is gray. Wait until we are all wearing gray riding the bus to our cubicles from our caves each day.
I would guess that is an early morning fog which we get a lot of here in NH this time of year. The Green car Advisor doesn't think that CO2 has suddenly become visible do they?
Comparing the tea partiers to the bunch ~230 years ago is a bit out there, isn't it? Voting for the same old clown in a red suit won't change anything.
Comments
WASHINGTON, April 1, 2009 – For the first time, the U.S. Geological Survey has identified the top 150 polluting watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin that cause the annual 8,000 square-mile “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the USGS report released today, members of the Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative urge the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state policy makers to use the report to solve water quality problems both within the states and downstream in the Gulf.
In January of 2008, USGS identified commercial fertilizers and animal manure from farmland in 9* states as the cause of over 70 percent of the Dead Zone pollution. Evidence is mounting that the mandated push to increase corn production – one of the most fertilizer intensive crops – for ethanol exacerbates water quality problems within the states and in the Gulf. This year, the USGS identifies and ranks watersheds in the Basin by the amount of pollution that gets to the Gulf.
DEAD ZONE
Poop is so,so easy to legislate complete remediation and "Then" place back on crop land.
Depletion of our systems here is "Systematic" and intentional.
Energy production is easy,an "En Masse" assembly of people to demand that our "Special Case of engineering plans ,drawings and operations manuals be returned to my command and control will eliminate every energy problem we have,guaranteed.
Our "Earth Foundation" was attacked about 4 years ago now to take that case,just as we were about to release its contents and issue licenses.
All of you nasty "Cabalists" out there take warning,we are not going away anytime soon,and fight every day to stop your depletion of "Our" earth.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Volcano erupts in Iceland, hundreds evacuated
REYKJAVIK, Iceland – Authorities evacuated hundreds of people after a volcano erupted beside a glacier in southern Iceland, Iceland's civil protection agency said Sunday, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.
The eruption occurred around 11:30 p.m. Saturday (7:30 p.m. EDT) beside the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, the fifth largest in Iceland. Authorities initially said the eruption was below the glacier, triggering fears that it could lead to flooding from glacier melt, but scientists conducting an aerial survey in daylight located the eruption and said it did not occur below ice.
A European volcanic island in the North Atlantic, Iceland is largely an arctic desert with mountains, glaciers and volcanoes and agricultural areas in the lowlands close to the coastline.
The last time the volcano erupted was in the 1820s.
We live in an ever changing world. Adapt or die.
Some of us understand the structure and glue,and the physics,but we are tasked against constantly not to hold class or seminars in public institutions.
I do not mind those minders,I am bigger than them,and that fight still goes forth.
Tier three boys come up with all of their theories from a telescope view and none of their aficionadoes see through the absurditity of that or their Einsteinian gibberish that they would dis-locate your bones if they could , if you attempt to tarnish their idio-savant.
Steven,the mighty wheelchair bound math boy has it all backwards too,and he is in that state of being(The wheelchair) from someone not liking his family,but we are a handicapper driven society here,now are;nt we?
I had someone make a statement back to me after I released a comment that those idiotic colliders and the KOOKS that they are derived from have produced nothing of any value,specifically said that there would not be any space travel or electronics,or computers without the cyclotron process,and I almost fell off my chair laughing,and anyone with at least 2 neurons firing would do the same thing.
All of the public institution Kooks have brought us the global warming scenario and the "Smarter Boys" have cleaned everyones wallet out with that garbage ,while the real issue is being buried.
The uptick in volcanic activity,such as Iceland, is extra energy coming into the planet and of course this quadrant,and will abate.
The processes,known by everyone from my office,that create extra magma heat and glacial melting that are periodicities, known and historically provable by the visible evidence,and even the ice core data, are never spoken out because of a certain factions processes here that would stop their depletion of metals from their engineered positions that creates another thing for you idiots to deal with through your committes and peer review men ,who have destroyed our science systems and economy here due to being driven to stupidity when it comes to astrophysics or planet science.
If you astro-morons ever wake up and figure it out,I would be surprised.
“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”
The new policy, which was introduced a few days after Mr. LaHood gave a well-received speech from atop a table at the National Bike Summit, is said to reflect the Transportation Department’s support for the development of fully integrated transportation networks.
Final Statement of the article I agree with:
“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette subsequently commented. “I mean, what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/transportation-department-embraces-- bikes-and-business-groups-cry-foul/
So are the bike riders going to be willing to fork over about $450 per year to help maintain the roads? That is about the average paid by CA drivers in gas tax. Plus another $300-$500 in license fees per year. If anything the government agencies have done more for non motorized vehicle owners at the expense of motorized vehicle owners.
There is nothing green about most bike riding. They drive their vehicles to the local Albertson's and take up spaces that shoppers should have. Unload their bikes and clutter up our narrow roads with their rallies all spring and summer long. I would be surprised if 10% of bike riding in CA is for commuting to work. We need a big fat pleasure tax on bicycles. Or they can get together and buy land and build bike trails.
Who is going to send their kids to school on a bike with 1000s of child molesters allowed to live in our communities?
Inquiry: Climate data not manipulated (MSNBC)
Not that it much matters - green may still be in:
2010 New York Auto Show: More Hybrids, Diesels and Fuel-Sippers Rolling Our Way (Green Car Advisor)
I agree. Where it stands now is NO significant increase in Temperature over the last 15 years per Dr Jones. That means that the increase in MM CO2 has not translated into higher global Temps.
The second part is pure speculation on your part.
The first part, you forgot to mention the REST of what he said about that 15 year thing. From the full BBC interview:
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
So don't be quoting him to try and prove any points. You and he disagree COMPLETELY.
So, as in, "Have Cake and Eat it Too?"
He's either a liar or not. You can't cherry pick what you LIKE about what he says and then poo-poo everything else.
Better think about that one. Not everyone that lies are always lying. Phil Jones admitted the last 15 years did not show any warming when he was up against the wall with his previous lies and half truths. So he had to be honest and admit there was NO significant warming over the last 15 years. That does not make him any less a hack for the AGW Cult. Just a scientist caught in lies having to back peddle.
He also said this trend is not statistically significant. So don't forget to add that part when you are quoting him. You seem to obsess on the part you like and ignore the "but" part.
Much to the chagrin of those buying the AGW theory, it got colder instead of increasingly warmer. It shoots their theory all to "you know where". Man's contribution to climate is insignificant. Pollution I agree with you on. Climate NO WAY
Well if the last 15 years is statistically insignificant compared to the last 150 years that's at the heart of the debate, then even more so the last 150 years is insignificant compared to the length of time to the last Ice Age.
So if 15 out of 150 is not significant, then similarly 150 out of 20,000(?) is not significant either. The last 15 years might just be a fluke, and equally so might the last 150 years.
From an earlier post:
You posted this: "And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
And this:
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today program that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
All those cow farts came to nothing ! Fifteen years, relative to my lifetime, is quite significant. He must have thought it was fairly significant when he was lying about it, but once he and his lies were dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight suddenly it is not significant, so he just lied for the hell of it?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Yes - the bit of warming. The last 150 years of supposed warming (the warming-rate) can be just as statistically insignificant compared to the trend of 200 centuries of changes, as 15 years of cooling is insignificant to 150 years.
But haven't you said that the more recent data is, the more relevant it is. Well then the last 15 years of climate data are the most valuable and important and tell us that there is no further warming, while the CO2 levels have increased quite a bit. Yes there can be other factors, but that then means CO2 is not that important.
If CO2 is an important fatcor then temperature would go up with CO2, no matter what the other factors did.
If CO2 isn't an important, major factor then CO2 can increase as it has, and the temperature doesn't go up, as the other factors are more important.
Report 20 years in the making.
Oh my God! Oh my God!
The ski is falling! The sky is falling!
PS: We need to raise taxes to control this menace!
Anyway did anyone read thru the report to P.26? Well here is an interesting piece when you think about it for a few minutes:
There is also the possibility of even larger changes
in climate than current scenarios and models
project. Not all changes in the climate are gradual.
The long record of climate found in ice cores, tree
rings, and other natural records show that Earth’s
climate patterns have undergone rapid shifts from
one stable state to another within as short a period
as a decade. The occurrence of abrupt changes in
climate becomes increasingly likely as the human
disturbance of the climate system grows.90 Such
changes can occur so rapidly that they would challenge
the ability of human and natural systems to
adapt.105 Examples of such changes are abrupt shifts
in drought frequency and duration. Ancient climate
records suggest that in the United States, the Southwest
may be at greatest risk for this kind of change,
but that other regions including the Midwest and
Great Plains have also had these kinds of abrupt
shifts in the past and could experience them again
in the future.
So the authors are warning us that man could cause the same types of sudden climate change that have occurred in the past.
This AGW is a modern scientific version of 1) making people fear the God in the volcano, 2) a witchhunt, and 3) the use of science to prove the world is flat and that the Sun moves around the Earth. AGW will go down in history just like these other sciences-of-those-days as looking ridiculous. It's nothing more than false-science created by various political and scientific groups to increase their careers, wealth, and power.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_voodoo.pdf
So, a 0.6°C rise in temperature refers to a temperature
anomaly, not a real temperature. You have used a buzz saw to
average everything, and your result is a temperature anomaly. When asked about this, Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeller at Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, stated in writing to this author:
“The computer models used for the IPCC projections do
not use any observed temperature data directly. They are instead
calculations from close to first principles just using the
distribution of solar irradiation over seasons, the shape of the
continents, and changes in atmospheric composition, i.e.,
greenhouse gases. Everything else is calculated.”
The Medieval Warm Period from A.D. 800 to 1300 contributed to the megadrought epoch in North America, which for the Sierra region -- in what is now California -- resulted in the most severe droughts of the last 4-7,000 years, writes anthropologist Brian Fagan in 'The Great Warming.' The climate evidence for these megadroughts exists in tree rings, ice cores and growth layers in coral. A 50-year drought in the 1100s forced the Anasazi Indians to abandon Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. Later droughts in the 1200s caused the Anasazi to leave Mesa Verde and the Moctezuma Valley. Parched conditions also hit the Maya in Central America. Deep sediment cores from off of the Venezuelan coast and from a Yucatan lake bed show that droughts affected the Maya about every 50 years; the one from 910 to 916 proved to be the final straw, leading to the downfall of the parts of Maya civilization in the southern and central lowlands of the Yucatan Peninsula by the end of the 900s. On the other side of the world, in what is now Cambodia, the Khmer ruler King Suryavarman II started building the elaborate temple of Angkor Wat in 1117. The Angkorian empire was in decline by the 1400s and the city of Angkor abandoned by the end of the 1500s. The most likely causes: Drought and declining rice crop yields.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/earth-the-biography/all/warming-dro- ught
Until the AGW cult come to grips with the past they will not understand the present or the future. All the computer generated forecasts are speculation. Maybe when they figure out how to tell the weather through the end of the week they can predict into the next week and beyond. Until then I am not buying that these yahoos have a clue what it will be like in 2100. Nor will it make any difference to me or my grandchildren.
The most likely reason for moving on was lack of food. They may have wandered out into the plains and found all the buffalo. They may have been the ancestors of the plains Indians. I am sure there will be DNA tests to pin point where they ended up.
Arctic sea ice back to normal
Global Warming cannot be caused by my SUV. I put more miles on this year than the two previous years combined. Maybe it is causing the cooling and rain. Could we get more rain without the cooling. As long as the government thinks they can control the climate.
Greenland losing ice fast
"Our results show that the ice loss, which has been well documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast," says Shfaqat Abbas Khan, lead author on a paper that was published March 19, in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
The team found that uplift rates near the Thule Air Base on Greenland's northwest coast rose by about 4 centimeters, or roughly 1.5 inches, from October 2005 to August 2009.
Although the low resolution of GRACE - a swath of about 250 kilometers, or 155 miles, across - is not precise enough to pinpoint the source of the ice loss, the fact that the ice sheet is losing mass nearer to the ice sheet margins suggests the flows of Greenland outlet glaciers there are increasing in velocity, said the study authors.
"When we look at the monthly values from GRACE, the ice mass loss has been very dramatic along the northwest coast of Greenland," says CU-Boulder physics professor and study co-author John Wahr, also a fellow at CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental
Sciences.
"This is a phenomenon that was undocumented before this study," Wahr says. "Our speculation is that some of the big glaciers in this region are sliding downhill faster and dumping more ice in the ocean."
I presented news from a legitimate News source and you from an AGW blog site. With old sat photos. Strictly an opinion piece using old statistics. You need to wean yourself from that cult or they will suck you in. Click on the highlighted "Climate" link. It is all just an advertising web blog. With a smattering of data to push their alliance with the Sky is Falling global alarmists.
Look at the link.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_ha- ppening_before_your_eyes
It's no surprise that he takes your world view.
And how is August 2009 OLD?
Now this is cold:
Ever had this problem? Dang, now that's cold...!!!
This message came from Stoney River Lodge,Alaska.
The picture was taken on Jan 5th 2010 - Minus 51 F ...
I don't see in this statement or thoughout those paragraphs how this is linked to suspected GW. :confuse: I believe the larger a glacier is, the more it weighs the more pressure it exerts, and the more it moves. To me this statement means that it has snowed more over the last decades and the ice is now moving faster due to the increased pressure.
If the temperature were 33F above the glacier and the ice was melting and the water was flowing into the ocean then I would say it's due to the climate. A glacier moving in sub-zero conditions is not due to GW.
Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.
In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.
However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.
Authors of the paper, published in Nature, say the research does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland.
Where's the Beef?
What about Pigs? Or were they carbon neutral all along?
Estimated nitrous oxide emissions from temperate grasslands in places like Inner Mongolia as well as vast swatches of the United States, Canada, Russia and China account for up a third of the total amount of the greenhouse gas produced every year. Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.
Does that mean walking through a fallow pasture in the Spring can cause respiratory diseases or even cancer? I knew walking through a pasture with a Randy Bull was dangerous to your health. :P
Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China. He found that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring thaw when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because the greenhouse gas, also known as laughing gas, is released by microbes in the soil. When the grass is long snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water, however when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.
So it just occurred to me that killing off the buffalo was the real cause of GW. The buffalo kept the vast grasslands trimmed and Buffalo Bill killed them causing Global Warming 150 years later.
So, GW is down to Buffalo Bill and the those goldarned ants !
I cannot recommend this series too highly. It really is brilliant in every respect.
Animal and insect activity is likely unchanged over the recent past.
The pollution and "things put into the air" by humans and our activities HAVE CHANGED.
That's why no one with a lick of sense is blaming cows, ants, or hippos for climate changes.
Looking at the archives, Drudge posted a link to Bloomberg about the potential for a record on 4/5. Then ignored the story when it actually happened. Nothing about the record rain there last month. But he posts every cow story that comes down the path. :P
The boogeymen at least need to use the term "climate change" in their quest for cash and power.
Green Car Advisor
I'm sure there's a global conspiracy behind it all somewhere.
You think that picture you posted is gray. Wait until we are all wearing gray riding the bus to our cubicles from our caves each day.
Pass the Soylent Green, please. mmmm good.