A couple of corrections, using your numbers as reference:
1. Data was not "compromised" - it was "manipulated" - big difference. The warming data is VALID, it was just MANIPULATED in a way to make it look more severe. That does not INVALIDATE the data - it invalidates only one interpretation of the data. It does not change the upward curve of higher global temp averages we have seen for a couple of decades now.
5. There IS INDEED evidence that CO2 has something to do with warming. I can't force you to believe that, but there is a ton of information about that on the web. Believe it or not, there are "many, many scientists" who believe it to be true.
No, i did not watch the video. There are tons of videos on both sides of the argument - you could drive yourself insane trying to watch them all.
Believe it or not, there are "many, many scientists" who believe it to be true.
Unfortunately we only here the pundits and politicians that believe it is true. A credible scientist is not going to stick his neck out on such flimsy evidence. When Ice core samples prove just the opposite. CO2 rises following a temperature increase. Find a scientist that refutes the ice sample evidence.
I'm hampering my own argument a tad here, but I think the data and the math is worth that.
This page cites a lot of math and science to show that INDEED, rising CO2 will cause higher global temps.
But:
1. Not to the DEGREE that AlGore and the IPCC want we the people to believe, and 2. Not within the short timeframe that the IPCC and AlGore continue to warn us about.
But it proves that rising CO2 will indeed rise temps.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.
The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.
But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.
"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.
"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization."
Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.
The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.
Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.
Just because the IPCC and AlGore are going overboard with their, ahem, "projections" does not invalidate the fact that CO2 is shown to increase global temps by the math shown on the page I posted earlier.
Nor does it invalidate the fact that temps have been above average for 34 years in a row.
Looking more and more like the latest incarnation of my opinion is the right one:
Global warming IS BOTH REAL AND A SCAM ( by the few who have chosen to cry wolf about it and have figured out how to make money on it. )
You folks have convinced me (to a degree) that SOME people MIGHT be "gaming the system" for a little Green (pun intended.)
The fact that I have accepted that fact shows I have an open mind - something that VERY FEW of us around here EVER indicate.
But it does not change the facts - CO2 levels rising CAN increase global temps. And the global temp average has been above normal for 34 years in a row. And the arctic ice is melting. And a lot of glaciers are getting smaller.
So that shows me that BOTH things appear to be happening. The scam and the warming.
How could it be otherwise, given the known facts?
It's not a rationalization of anything. I have not said the cold winter is related to climate change. It may or may not be, but I haven't said it was, or agreed with anyone who has said that.
Now consider the fact that those who are gaming the system the most just happen to be the very ones who started the whole GW scam to begin with.
There are many valid environmental concerns out there to deal with, but in my mind, these GW guys have just about poisoned the whole environmental movement.
But it does not change the facts - CO2 levels rising CAN increase global temps
That is in no way a fact. It is the mantra of the AGW cult. A mantra is NOT a FACT. Ice core studies show the exact opposite has occurred. Periods of warming are FOLLOWED by higher CO2. The very worst scenario allows for plant growth over a larger portion of the World. We will need it to feed the gain in population.
Here is a site that does not try to twist the facts to say what they want.
In all three of the most recent glacial terminations, the earth warmed well before there was any increase in the air's CO2 content. In the words of the authors, "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." During the penultimate (next to last) warm period, there is also a 15,000-year time interval where distinct cooling does not elicit any change in atmospheric CO2; and when the air's CO2 content gradually drops over the next 20,000 years, air temperatures either rise or remain fairly constant.
What it means One of the reasons for conducting studies of this type is to see what can be learned about the ability of increases in atmospheric CO2 to enhance earth's natural greenhouse effect and induce global warming. As is readily evident from the work described here, however, the relationship between temperature and CO2 appears to be just the reverse of what is assumed in all of the climate model studies that warn of dramatic warming in response to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: temperature rises first, and then comes an increase in atmospheric CO2. Or, CO2 remains essentially unchanged while temperatures drop. Or, CO2 drops while air temperature remains unchanged or actually rises. Nothing even comes close to resembling what we are continually being warned about by state-of-the-art global climate models.
So what is one to believe? Theoretical predictions or historical fact? The choice of wisdom would appear to us to be history. It has an uncanny way of repeating itself.
Oh, sorry Gary, I forgot to post the page I was talking about which uses math to prove that CO2 increase will lead to increased global temps. ( See my post #955 for the full background for this post. Thanks )
This is NOT from a pro-global warming site. This is NOT from an agency that promotes MMGW agenda.
This is a guy using MATH ( which we all know DOES NOT LIE ) to explain how CO2 levels DO INDEED increase global temps.
He's not preaching GW.
He's pointing out that the IPCC and AlGore were a little "over exuberant" in their projections about HOW much and how FAST the CO2 will rise in coming years and decades.
His math shows without a doubt that increase CO2 will contribute to higher global temps. Just FAR SLOWER and possibly less than the IPCC/AlGore are trying to lead us to believe.
As you can see, he's on your side Gary. Look at the sentence I used for my url title:
Pardon the off-topic aside, but what's oil running up your way? My neighbor is paying $3.09 and my friend up in Seward AK just had to get topped up for $3.94 a gallon. He's really disgusted because he took off for TX for a few months and didn't think it'd go up that much. He would have drained his pipes if he'd known, and let the house freeze up.
My heating bill was $190 last month and I'm glad I'm glad the furnace uses natural gas (there is an oil tank taking up room in the basement).
I don't think anyone uses heating oil here in San Diego. My last propane fill in December was at $2.99. Less than winter of 2007-08 when I paid $3.29 per gallon equivalent. I made the mistake of trying to keep the house at 70 degrees and spent over $500 for about 35 days. Natural gas would be nice. Not likely it will ever come our way. With everyone on an acre plus the density does not justify the expense. It never cost this much in Anchorage to keep our house toasty warm all winter. And we had natural gas at the top of Rabbit Creek Rd sometime before I moved there in 1970.
PS I got the wood stove insert cookin' hot. Trying to save on non renewable fossil fuel. :shades:
My in-laws use propane but I keep forgetting to ask about their bill. Must be nuts.
My neighbor complaining about the $3.09 heating oil would burn wood but his wife is afraid of burning the house down and won't let him.
My wife mentioned today that she's not smelling much wood smoke; she anticipated a lot more. Of course, in normal times up here much of the population is snowbirding in Florida, and in these times with no jobs, it seems like every other house is empty so no fuels, fossil or otherwise, are being used.
I'd love a couple of solar panels right now, but I'd have to park a couple of windmills over them to blow the snow off.
I would not burn wood if I did not get it for just hauling it off a friends property. $275 a cord is too much. I checked on cutting downed trees in the National Forest and they want $25 for a one cord permit good for 30 days. At $275 per cord I would say natural gas is cheap heat. I don't think Propane is that high. Most of it is a mix of pine and oak.
The day I ordered it it was like $3.05/gal, but that jumped within 3 days to $3.19/gal. I believe propane is always slightly more - maybe about +$0.25/gal.
Even if propane was cheaper, I wouldn't get it as you put the tank outside which is ugly, and it is flammable, where heating oil isn't.
Natural gas isn't an option for the same reason as gagrice pointed out. I have my own 10 acres of woods so I get my own, and reduce my oil consumption. My woodstove can keep the house warm if the temp. is above 40F.
I picture that if oil becomes scarcer and more expensive over the next decades, you will see more homes converting to electric heating. Then you will see a great demand to increase the number of power-plants. They'll probably burn coal. If I lived here in New England in a few decades, I'd probably put in a coal furnace in my house.
I agree with you - solar energy isn't very practical this time of year in our areas. Everythings coated with ice, and more snow forecast for tonight.
I know - there's a trade-off involved: "Do I want MORE work in the winter to keep my panels clean?" That's an individual decision. Some people think it's worth the extra effort, some don't.
From a solar owner in CO who has this problem:
Sue Okerson, a 1BOG member in Denver, says that “It does mean we have to shovel the south side of the house more than once, but it’s so worth it. Our last Xcel bill was $6.36 fees and taxes! We love our system!”
Another trick is using ground-mounted panels (if you have the real estate) which can be tilted to a steeper degree in the winter to help snow slide off more easily.
A face cord is comprised of a stack 4' high x 8' long x 16" wide. Here, face cords are charged the same whether they are 12, 14 or 16" sticks.
i know I asked u this before but never did find out. I suspect face cord. I would sell more wood if i could get 825/ bush cord. It is about the most back-breaking, hard on your body (also among the more dangerous occupations) out there in order to help pay the bills.
I am going to say a Face Cord. Most times they haul it in the back of a PU truck and it is a load not much higher than the sides of the PU bed. I have never bought any here so am not sure. I will check with one of the vendors parked along the roads out here. It seems to be a thriving business. At least 3-4 guys parked along the road with a load of wood for sale. Mostly they sell what looks like a big arm load for $5.
Yes, I think you're right. Cuz 1 face cord of hardwood ranges 2000 to 2300 lb.
Takes a major truck to bring a bush cord all at once. At least one of those duallies and even then they would be overloaded by law. Around here they use a Dodge Cummins diesel usually, with a 4x4 and tow a tandem dump-type gravel trailer. They put a cord in the truck and 2 in the trailer. But the commercial guys will use a 5 ton truck and with really big orders, they use a tractor-trailer dump.
Back when I was younger I had considered that business. My plan was to sell TT loads that I would deliver myself to various landscape outlets down in the city (about 6 hours return) By the time you mark it up there would be an ok living out of it, but at that scale you are into very heavy expensive equipment - TT around 200k, skidder about 100k and a wood processor which can run easily 80 to 100k. A good business if i had done it over 20 years ago.
That handfull for 5 bucks sounds similar to here. In the grocery store you will see small woven bagged wood (probably around 30 lb) for usually 6 to 7 bucks. So you can see how there is money in it if you are set up at the right level. If i was doing it commercially, I'd like to have the entire process right from falling the tree to even bagging and stacking skid loads at the variety store level. But it is very cutthroat just like trucking (I used to own my own truck) There will always be some guy willing to do it for less. They don't survive however, but what they are successful at doing is getting/keeping the rates low enough that the only real winners are the buyers of the product.
Well I haven't been on the computer much lately. I've been sealing and insulating every slider in my place, and bringing in lots of wood for the stove. My car thermometer said -14F this morning, but my wife said hers was more like -21F. I doubt whether these readings will ever find their way into the temperature data for 2011. I'm sure 2011 will go down as one of the top 2 or top 3 hottest years ever! LOL.
Yes sir, god-forbid that I get sick of temperatures that are 115F less than my body-temperature. Why if this global warming keeps going on in a few decades it'll only get to -18F! Oh the humanity!
Lots of snow and extremely cold here is eastern Kansas. I am also sure 2011 will be designated as one of the hottest years on record as the sensors here probably won't start working until they thaw out about April.
Must be all the snow cover that's muffling sounds.
"If Greenland's early sunrise is due to global warming, it is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). Beyond the commonly spoken results of global warming, there are many unusual occurrences around the world that may also be due to our changing climate. While it seems counterintuitive, the bizarre blizzards that have recently hit the US may in fact be due to a warming Arctic. Another weird result of global warming may be that satellites speed through air faster due to increased levels of carbon dioxide creating a less dense atmosphere. Global warming has also been blamed for increased allergies, raging wildfires, and the potential reintroduction of smallpox from dead corpses. Very weird."
Another weird result of global warming may be that satellites speed through air faster due to increased levels of carbon dioxide creating a less dense atmosphere.
Satellites speeding through the air, what air? What moron wrote that? I guess it makes about as much sense as anything else in the article.
Of course, nothing in the Huffington Post would surprise me.
Lol, well, there is a bit of stuff in the upper atmosphere isn't there. Wasn't the little bit of friction one of the reasons Skylab's orbit deteriorated? I didn't think it was entirely gravity. Times like these I really miss Tidester....
I just read that article, and I think the most doubtful scientific statement in it, is this:
"As icecaps melt, the horizon sinks down as well, which makes the sun appear earlier over the horizon."
I can't figure out how this would happen, since the distance you see to the horizon is solely dependent on the curvature of the Earth. The higher one is in elevation the further on'es horizon is. That's something people figured out many years ago, when they put the lookout at the top of the masts.
So if I were standing on a glacier in greenland looking south for the sun, and the glacier was lower and lower each year due ot melting, then I would expect the sun to appear on the horizon - later.
Also: I just looked in my CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and saw the density of N2 which is the main component of air = 1.2506 g/liter, O2 the 2nd most plentiful component in air = 1.429 g/liter and CO2 = 1.977 g/liter. So an increase in CO2 replacing plain O2 or displacing N2, would actually make the air more dense!
The author of this article might well stop to think that the answer could lie in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which is not constant each year, or the bending of the sun's light on that given day due to the weather conditions of the time.
Well, my neighbor has piled up enough snow that you could show a drive-in movie on it and it's sure blocking my horizon.
What was odd was the date changing. Two days "early" is odd. If the sun came back in Barrow two days early, it would sure make the news. Even when it returns on the usual date, it still makes the news (Arctic Sounder). And tacos are half off that day too.
Note that the sunrise seemed longer up there this year due to a a mirage known as the "false sunrise". A two day long mirage seems a bit much though.
I would say a logical reason for the difference in the sun coming up could be the shift of the axis. We just read about Tampa airport having to change their runway designations. That the magnetic North pole shifted some 40 miles. When I worked in the Arctic it was always between the 19th and 21st that we would see the sun peek over the horizon.
Remember what Dr. Evil emphatically yelling to "Fire the LAS-ER" at the Earth's "MAG-MA", in the Austin powers movies?
Also in your previous note you said the mirage was 2-days long. That really isn't what the article said;they said it was 2 days early, and may have only been a couple of minutes each day. I'd guess there was some refraction of the sun's light going on thru the atmosphere due to the particular weather that day. Maybe a lot of water vapor in the air? Think of how when you look into water in a stream and try to grab that fish, you're usually off a little as the water distorts the location. What's happening? The water is changing the angle of the light reflected off the fish, as the light passes thru the water.
Sheesh, you'd think the search engine would have found "magma" for me.
Good point about the mirage. It's also odd to me that the sun in Barrow just shows up one day and then stays up for an hour or so. You'd think it'd build up to it.
In Prudhoe it was usually around the 20th of January that the sun would show up on the horizon. You would see about half of it. The next day the whole sun and it would be there to enjoy for about an hour. It was not always on the 20th. It would be a day either side for the first view. Very exciting after two months of no sun at all.
Wind generation has run into a giant snag in San Diego County and elsewhere. There is a two page article in our local paper explaining why home values within 5 miles of a wind generator will lose 20-40% of their value. Plus the long term health affects which include but not limited to sleep deprivation, headaches, heart palpitations, vertigo, tinnitus, gastrointestinal problem, anxiety etc.
The proposal is to require anyone building a wind generation system to put up a bond that will mitigate any loss in value to property owners within 5 miles. So far the only wind generation used in San Diego is on Indian Land. They don't give a rip about people's health, they just want the loot.
Currently their are 392 Wind Turbine permits pending further investigation into health risks and loss of property values.
Sometimes the devil we know is less of a problem than the one we don't know. We pretty well know the risks of nuclear and coal. Solar and wind open up a whole new set of problems.
It could also be the size of the wind generator. Most of the studies are going on in Canada and EU. As they have a lot more long term experience. We have experience with wind in CA that dates back to the 1970s. And most of those projects are history. If you ever drive Interstate 10 to Palm Springs you will see 100s of old wind generators laying on the ground. They have served their purpose. Government subsidies and huge tax breaks. Out with the old in with the new scams. Why did T Boone back out of TX wind generation if it has such a wonderful future?
DON QUIXOTE FIGHTS THE WINDMILLS—AND SO DO THE FOLKS IN BOULEVARD
Linehan said, “There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no scientific studies that have shown health effects from being close to wind energy. We’re all looking forward to seeing an academic peer-review of what Nina Pierpont comes out with. There’s no doubt that some people are more sensitive to wind turbines or any kind of a noise, than others.
“We have thousands who live around our turbines,” Linehan added. “Some find them annoying but the vast majority don’t. They find them less noisy than they expected.”
If such a thing as Wind Turbine Syndrome has yet to be proved, the folks in Boulevard will be living in a wind farm Petri dish, if all the projects proposed for the area go up.
“For people who didn’t want to see turbines, I think it’s likely they’re more physiologically sensitive to them,” Linehan said. We’ll have to comply with California noise standards, and I think we will very easily. But sometimes they will hear them more than others, sometimes not at all,” he said.
Iris: “You can feel how close my horses are going to be to this, and they’re gonna go bananas.” Leslie: “I can feel the vibrations sometimes and it feels like a mild earthquake!”
Michael Connelly of Campo had a different take. He’s heard of the health effects but says they are minute. “Vibrations? I’ve never heard of anybody affected by them. You can’t even feel them, really. We have a tribal member that lives a third of a mile from the turbine. In the summertime, when her windows are open, she hears them. She says in the beginning it used to wake her in the middle of the night, because she’d think her washing machine was on. Once she got used to it, she said it was kind of like the noise of the ocean. She enjoyed it. Then she would wake up at night if they weren’t going.
“There are people who are sensitive to flicker,” Connolly said. “These are the same people who can’t work under fluorescent lights, and they’re a small portion of the population. The wind farm office is right underneath a turbine, so they get flicker, because the shadow of the turbine blades will go over their building. You get that darkness-brightness-darkness-brightness. The supervisor’s office gets the worst of it. The first day he thought, ‘oh, no, this is going to drive me crazy,’ but after the first day he just tuned it out.
“There are people who can’t tolerate that,” he said, but likened the majority of anticipated concerns to a sort of ‘turbine phobia.’ Tribal members living within a half or three quarters of a mile haven’t complained to him, he said.
“When the turbines are going the fastest is when the winds are the highest, so you can’t hear the turbines over the wind,” he added. “If people can’t stand the noise, why would they be living in one of the windiest areas in the county, the wind is just whistling through their trees, through their houses. The sound of the turbine blades isn’t grating, it’s a very soft whoosh-whoosh sound.”
There are a TON of undeveloped areas in this country where you could put up THOUSANDS of wind turbines without disturbing a "sensitive" soul.
PROPERTY VALUES AND HEALTH IMPAIRED BY WIND TURBINES, EXPERTS TELL EAST COUNTY RESIDENTS
January 28, 2011 (San Diego’s East County) --East County residents who oppose a growing collection of industrial wind turbines proposed near rural residences have discovered that they have much in common with wind farm neighbors in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, Canada and other parts of the United States. Residents who have lived near windmills for years are now publicizing impacts to health and property values.
In fact, a standing-room-only crowd got an earful on those impacts last Wednesday, when experts from Illinois and Canada discussed them at the Boulevard Fire Station.
Experts speak on impacts to health, property values
Speakers included appraisal consultant Mike McCann, of Chicago, Ill., Carmen Krogh, of Ontario, Canada, Bill Powers, of Powers Engineering in San Diego, Dave Elliott, of Boulevard, and Donna Tisdale, also of Boulevard.
McCann stated in no uncertain terms that property value losses of about 25 percent are becoming the norm within two miles of a wind farm. Krogh shared a litany of health ills related to the strobe light affect of the turbines and both audible and inaudible sound.
Reported health effects include sleep deprivation, headaches, heart palpitations, vertigo, tinnitus, gastrointestinal problems, anxiety and cognitive impairment, Krogh said. Matching results are reported in every country that has erected large numbers of industrial turbines, she added.
Krogh, a retired pharmacist who networks with health professionals worldwide to track and document wind turbine health affects, said the impacts of both audible and inaudible sound cannot be mitigated: “The only mitigation is to remove the people from the environment they are in,” she said.
McCann - whose resume includes real estate zoning evaluations, property value impact studies, analysis of wind turbine generating facilities and evaluation of eminent domain real estate acquisitions - advised residents bluntly that no permits should be issued on any wind generation project without a property value guarantee for homeowners in the turbine area of influence.
The impact zone of a wind farm is two to five miles, he said. In addition to 20 to 40 percent value loss of homes in that area, residents have increased costs of health care, costs to try to retrofit homes to block noise or the strobe light affect of the turbine shadows, and the complete losses of people who are forced to walk away from their homes.
Krogh brought filmed interviews with wind turbine neighbors from Norway, Canada and Japan. The sound levels from their homes, in some cases, drowned out their voices and the nature of the sound was so distressing that audience members asked that it be turned down.
Krogh is a member of Society for Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, acousticians and other professionals who seek to quantify heath risks and ensure that permitting authorities and wind turbine operators acknowledge and remedy those risks. So far, she said, there has been great resistance from governments, who seek to provide “green” alternatives and who receive tax money from wind farm profits.
Industrial wind farm operators in the United States and Canada, most of whom receive taxpayer supported benefits and highly favorable permit conditions, resist revelations of adverse effects by requiring property owners from whom they lease lands to sign non-disclosure agreements, McCann said. The few off-site residents that have received buy-out offers from wind companies are required to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of the buy-out.
I think T Boone could see the reality of what could happen if he caused harm to people with this whole Wind deal and decided it was not worth the risk. It surprises me that someone that worries about the most minute PM or NOX would be so complacent about the health of others.
Sure, there's the science, and it's anything but simple and needs to be seen and debated. But.......how about the MONEY aspect of global warming. Listening/watching independent news (not corporate-owned news that practises true journalism), The Koch brothers huge multi-million dollar donations to the media global warming-denial campaign was a big story (as was their funding of the tea party movement, which carries the global-warming-denial torch).
Did anyone see that story in the mainstream media anywhere? Money talks, or, money stops the talking, whichever it wishes, but usually both.
Funny, I say only pay attention to the science on this one, but now maybe the money is even more important. Big money can hire a lot of very persuasive talking heads.
Linehan said, “There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no scientific studies that have shown health effects from being close to wind energy. We’re all looking forward to seeing an academic peer-review of what Nina Pierpont comes out with.
I wonder if something similar was said to that, when it took the government decades to determine that all the lung cancers weren't just anecdotal evidence to cigarette smoking.
PUT. THEM. IN. ALL. THE. VAST. AREAS. OF. THE. WORLD. WHERE. PEOPLE. ARE. NOT. LIVING. RIGHT. BESIDE. THEM.
Gosh.
Don't ruin such a fabulous way to produce electricity just because of a few overly sensitive people.
You just don't get it do you? The wide open spaces you refer to are mostly Federal BLM land. The Eco Nuts that control Washington have blocked numerous projects. Then if they do get a go ahead to build in the wilderness more eco nuts come out of the woodwork and block transmission lines going across country. It is a no win situation for those that are trying to put these projects together. You read what is going on in San Diego. It is the same all over CA. Same for Hi Speed rail. They get people to vote for it then say NIMBY. Like you and your solar we may be forced to just use what we can generate ourselves. I am looking at a propane generator. Without that Solar is not much good in CA. Or maybe a huge battery backup plant like the phone companies all have.
I have people with solar all around me. Wind generators would not work as we do not get that much wind. For me to have solar I will need to sue my neighbor to cut down about half a dozen huge trees that block the sun from my roof during the winter months. So how would that come out CO2 wise on a net basis?
Indeed we are DIRECTLY enjoined from doing solar. If we don't get that DIRECTLY, all the various rules,regulations and lack of economic feasibility, indirectly but directly enjoin us also.
Comments
1. Data was not "compromised" - it was "manipulated" - big difference. The warming data is VALID, it was just MANIPULATED in a way to make it look more severe. That does not INVALIDATE the data - it invalidates only one interpretation of the data. It does not change the upward curve of higher global temp averages we have seen for a couple of decades now.
5. There IS INDEED evidence that CO2 has something to do with warming. I can't force you to believe that, but there is a ton of information about that on the web. Believe it or not, there are "many, many scientists" who believe it to be true.
No, i did not watch the video. There are tons of videos on both sides of the argument - you could drive yourself insane trying to watch them all.
Unfortunately we only here the pundits and politicians that believe it is true. A credible scientist is not going to stick his neck out on such flimsy evidence. When Ice core samples prove just the opposite. CO2 rises following a temperature increase. Find a scientist that refutes the ice sample evidence.
This page cites a lot of math and science to show that INDEED, rising CO2 will cause higher global temps.
But:
1. Not to the DEGREE that AlGore and the IPCC want we the people to believe, and
2. Not within the short timeframe that the IPCC and AlGore continue to warn us about.
But it proves that rising CO2 will indeed rise temps.
The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.
But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.
"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.
"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization."
Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.
The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.
Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_20110119163335
Just because the IPCC and AlGore are going overboard with their, ahem, "projections" does not invalidate the fact that CO2 is shown to increase global temps by the math shown on the page I posted earlier.
Nor does it invalidate the fact that temps have been above average for 34 years in a row.
Looking more and more like the latest incarnation of my opinion is the right one:
Global warming IS BOTH REAL AND A SCAM ( by the few who have chosen to cry wolf about it and have figured out how to make money on it. )
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You folks have convinced me (to a degree) that SOME people MIGHT be "gaming the system" for a little Green (pun intended.)
The fact that I have accepted that fact shows I have an open mind - something that VERY FEW of us around here EVER indicate.
But it does not change the facts - CO2 levels rising CAN increase global temps. And the global temp average has been above normal for 34 years in a row. And the arctic ice is melting. And a lot of glaciers are getting smaller.
So that shows me that BOTH things appear to be happening. The scam and the warming.
How could it be otherwise, given the known facts?
It's not a rationalization of anything. I have not said the cold winter is related to climate change. It may or may not be, but I haven't said it was, or agreed with anyone who has said that.
Now consider the fact that those who are gaming the system the most just happen to be the very ones who started the whole GW scam to begin with.
There are many valid environmental concerns out there to deal with, but in my mind, these GW guys have just about poisoned the whole environmental movement.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That is in no way a fact. It is the mantra of the AGW cult. A mantra is NOT a FACT. Ice core studies show the exact opposite has occurred. Periods of warming are FOLLOWED by higher CO2. The very worst scenario allows for plant growth over a larger portion of the World. We will need it to feed the gain in population.
Here is a site that does not try to twist the facts to say what they want.
In all three of the most recent glacial terminations, the earth warmed well before there was any increase in the air's CO2 content. In the words of the authors, "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." During the penultimate (next to last) warm period, there is also a 15,000-year time interval where distinct cooling does not elicit any change in atmospheric CO2; and when the air's CO2 content gradually drops over the next 20,000 years, air temperatures either rise or remain fairly constant.
What it means
One of the reasons for conducting studies of this type is to see what can be learned about the ability of increases in atmospheric CO2 to enhance earth's natural greenhouse effect and induce global warming. As is readily evident from the work described here, however, the relationship between temperature and CO2 appears to be just the reverse of what is assumed in all of the climate model studies that warn of dramatic warming in response to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: temperature rises first, and then comes an increase in atmospheric CO2. Or, CO2 remains essentially unchanged while temperatures drop. Or, CO2 drops while air temperature remains unchanged or actually rises. Nothing even comes close to resembling what we are continually being warned about by state-of-the-art global climate models.
So what is one to believe? Theoretical predictions or historical fact? The choice of wisdom would appear to us to be history. It has an uncanny way of repeating itself.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N8/C3.php
This is NOT from a pro-global warming site.
This is NOT from an agency that promotes MMGW agenda.
This is a guy using MATH ( which we all know DOES NOT LIE ) to explain how CO2 levels DO INDEED increase global temps.
He's not preaching GW.
He's pointing out that the IPCC and AlGore were a little "over exuberant" in their projections about HOW much and how FAST the CO2 will rise in coming years and decades.
His math shows without a doubt that increase CO2 will contribute to higher global temps. Just FAR SLOWER and possibly less than the IPCC/AlGore are trying to lead us to believe.
As you can see, he's on your side Gary. Look at the sentence I used for my url title:
Even though global warming has become mostly an academic concern now that the climate has moved into a cooling phase [24], it's still important to understand what is and is not factual about the climate.
He says "we have entered a cooling phase" which is right up your alley.
He shows without a doubt that increased CO2 will raise global temps.
Prove his math wrong. Go ahead.
Pardon the off-topic aside, but what's oil running up your way? My neighbor is paying $3.09 and my friend up in Seward AK just had to get topped up for $3.94 a gallon. He's really disgusted because he took off for TX for a few months and didn't think it'd go up that much. He would have drained his pipes if he'd known, and let the house freeze up.
My heating bill was $190 last month and I'm glad I'm glad the furnace uses natural gas (there is an oil tank taking up room in the basement).
PS
I got the wood stove insert cookin' hot. Trying to save on non renewable fossil fuel. :shades:
My neighbor complaining about the $3.09 heating oil would burn wood but his wife is afraid of burning the house down and won't let him.
My wife mentioned today that she's not smelling much wood smoke; she anticipated a lot more. Of course, in normal times up here much of the population is snowbirding in Florida, and in these times with no jobs, it seems like every other house is empty so no fuels, fossil or otherwise, are being used.
I'd love a couple of solar panels right now, but I'd have to park a couple of windmills over them to blow the snow off.
Even if propane was cheaper, I wouldn't get it as you put the tank outside which is ugly, and it is flammable, where heating oil isn't.
Natural gas isn't an option for the same reason as gagrice pointed out. I have my own 10 acres of woods so I get my own, and reduce my oil consumption. My woodstove can keep the house warm if the temp. is above 40F.
I picture that if oil becomes scarcer and more expensive over the next decades, you will see more homes converting to electric heating. Then you will see a great demand to increase the number of power-plants. They'll probably burn coal. If I lived here in New England in a few decades, I'd probably put in a coal furnace in my house.
I agree with you - solar energy isn't very practical this time of year in our areas. Everythings coated with ice, and more snow forecast for tonight.
Many people in snowy locales use this tool:
http://www.roofrake.com/
I know - there's a trade-off involved: "Do I want MORE work in the winter to keep my panels clean?" That's an individual decision. Some people think it's worth the extra effort, some don't.
From a solar owner in CO who has this problem:
Sue Okerson, a 1BOG member in Denver, says that “It does mean we have to shovel the south side of the house more than once, but it’s so worth it. Our last Xcel bill was $6.36 fees and taxes! We love our system!”
Another trick is using ground-mounted panels (if you have the real estate) which can be tilted to a steeper degree in the winter to help snow slide off more easily.
Here is a good little page on this issue too:
How to Remove Snow from Solar Panels
A bush cord has 3 face cords.
A face cord is comprised of a stack 4' high x 8' long x 16" wide. Here, face cords are charged the same whether they are 12, 14 or 16" sticks.
i know I asked u this before but never did find out. I suspect face cord. I would sell more wood if i could get 825/ bush cord. It is about the most back-breaking, hard on your body (also among the more dangerous occupations) out there in order to help pay the bills.
Takes a major truck to bring a bush cord all at once. At least one of those duallies and even then they would be overloaded by law. Around here they use a Dodge Cummins diesel usually, with a 4x4 and tow a tandem dump-type gravel trailer.
They put a cord in the truck and 2 in the trailer. But the commercial guys will use a 5 ton truck and with really big orders, they use a tractor-trailer dump.
Back when I was younger I had considered that business. My plan was to sell TT loads that I would deliver myself to various landscape outlets down in the city (about 6 hours return)
By the time you mark it up there would be an ok living out of it, but at that scale you are into very heavy expensive equipment - TT around 200k, skidder about 100k and a wood processor which can run easily 80 to 100k. A good business if i had done it over 20 years ago.
That handfull for 5 bucks sounds similar to here. In the grocery store you will see small woven bagged wood (probably around 30 lb) for usually 6 to 7 bucks.
So you can see how there is money in it if you are set up at the right level. If i was doing it commercially, I'd like to have the entire process right from falling the tree to even bagging and stacking skid loads at the variety store level. But it is very cutthroat just like trucking (I used to own my own truck) There will always be some guy willing to do it for less. They don't survive however, but what they are successful at doing is getting/keeping the rates low enough that the only real winners are the buyers of the product.
Yes sir, god-forbid that I get sick of temperatures that are 115F less than my body-temperature. Why if this global warming keeps going on in a few decades it'll only get to -18F! Oh the humanity!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"If Greenland's early sunrise is due to global warming, it is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). Beyond the commonly spoken results of global warming, there are many unusual occurrences around the world that may also be due to our changing climate. While it seems counterintuitive, the bizarre blizzards that have recently hit the US may in fact be due to a warming Arctic. Another weird result of global warming may be that satellites speed through air faster due to increased levels of carbon dioxide creating a less dense atmosphere. Global warming has also been blamed for increased allergies, raging wildfires, and the potential reintroduction of smallpox from dead corpses. Very weird."
Did The Sun Rise 2 Days Early In Greenland? Global Warming May Be Cause (HuffPo)
Satellites speeding through the air, what air? What moron wrote that? I guess it makes about as much sense as anything else in the article.
Of course, nothing in the Huffington Post would surprise me.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"As icecaps melt, the horizon sinks down as well, which makes the sun appear earlier over the horizon."
I can't figure out how this would happen, since the distance you see to the horizon is solely dependent on the curvature of the Earth. The higher one is in elevation the further on'es horizon is. That's something people figured out many years ago, when they put the lookout at the top of the masts.
So if I were standing on a glacier in greenland looking south for the sun, and the glacier was lower and lower each year due ot melting, then I would expect the sun to appear on the horizon - later.
Also: I just looked in my CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and saw the density of N2 which is the main component of air = 1.2506 g/liter, O2 the 2nd most plentiful component in air = 1.429 g/liter and CO2 = 1.977 g/liter. So an increase in CO2 replacing plain O2 or displacing N2, would actually make the air more dense!
The author of this article might well stop to think that the answer could lie in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which is not constant each year, or the bending of the sun's light on that given day due to the weather conditions of the time.
What was odd was the date changing. Two days "early" is odd. If the sun came back in Barrow two days early, it would sure make the news. Even when it returns on the usual date, it still makes the news (Arctic Sounder). And tacos are half off that day too.
Note that the sunrise seemed longer up there this year due to a a mirage known as the "false sunrise". A two day long mirage seems a bit much though.
Shoot, not "magna". I didn't think it was "mantle" either. The molten stuff in the earth that moves around.
You got me, I just remember reading about the 40 mile shift. I miss the Tidester also. He knew this kind of technical stuff.
Also in your previous note you said the mirage was 2-days long. That really isn't what the article said;they said it was 2 days early, and may have only been a couple of minutes each day. I'd guess there was some refraction of the sun's light going on thru the atmosphere due to the particular weather that day. Maybe a lot of water vapor in the air? Think of how when you look into water in a stream and try to grab that fish, you're usually off a little as the water distorts the location. What's happening? The water is changing the angle of the light reflected off the fish, as the light passes thru the water.
Good point about the mirage. It's also odd to me that the sun in Barrow just shows up one day and then stays up for an hour or so. You'd think it'd build up to it.
ln Tuesday's State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized developing and deploying clean-energy technology as part of an effort to improve American competitiveness and create jobs. Rather than promoting a cap-and-trade system for creating a market for clean energy—an approach that failed in the Senate last year—he suggested a goal that 80 percent of the electricity in the United States come from such sources as solar, wind, nuclear, "clean" coal, and natural gas.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.windvigilance.com/about_ahe.aspx
The proposal is to require anyone building a wind generation system to put up a bond that will mitigate any loss in value to property owners within 5 miles. So far the only wind generation used in San Diego is on Indian Land. They don't give a rip about people's health, they just want the loot.
Currently their are 392 Wind Turbine permits pending further investigation into health risks and loss of property values.
Sometimes the devil we know is less of a problem than the one we don't know. We pretty well know the risks of nuclear and coal. Solar and wind open up a whole new set of problems.
http://www.infinitepower.org/projects.htm
Must be that weak California constitution. :shades:
DON QUIXOTE FIGHTS THE WINDMILLS—AND SO DO THE FOLKS IN BOULEVARD
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/436_windmills
PS
If I was so unfortunate to be stuck on a farm in the windy flatlands of TX, I would probably put up a wind generator myself.
Linehan said, “There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no scientific studies that have shown health effects from being close to wind energy. We’re all looking forward to seeing an academic peer-review of what Nina Pierpont comes out with. There’s no doubt that some people are more sensitive to wind turbines or any kind of a noise, than others.
“We have thousands who live around our turbines,” Linehan added. “Some find them annoying but the vast majority don’t. They find them less noisy than they expected.”
If such a thing as Wind Turbine Syndrome has yet to be proved, the folks in Boulevard will be living in a wind farm Petri dish, if all the projects proposed for the area go up.
“For people who didn’t want to see turbines, I think it’s likely they’re more physiologically sensitive to them,” Linehan said. We’ll have to comply with California noise standards, and I think we will very easily. But sometimes they will hear them more than others, sometimes not at all,” he said.
Iris: “You can feel how close my horses are going to be to this, and they’re gonna go bananas.”
Leslie: “I can feel the vibrations sometimes and it feels like a mild earthquake!”
Michael Connelly of Campo had a different take. He’s heard of the health effects but says they are minute. “Vibrations? I’ve never heard of anybody affected by them. You can’t even feel them, really. We have a tribal member that lives a third of a mile from the turbine. In the summertime, when her windows are open, she hears them. She says in the beginning it used to wake her in the middle of the night, because she’d think her washing machine was on. Once she got used to it, she said it was kind of like the noise of the ocean. She enjoyed it. Then she would wake up at night if they weren’t going.
“There are people who are sensitive to flicker,” Connolly said. “These are the same people who can’t work under fluorescent lights, and they’re a small portion of the population. The wind farm office is right underneath a turbine, so they get flicker, because the shadow of the turbine blades will go over their building. You get that darkness-brightness-darkness-brightness. The supervisor’s office gets the worst of it. The first day he thought, ‘oh, no, this is going to drive me crazy,’ but after the first day he just tuned it out.
“There are people who can’t tolerate that,” he said, but likened the majority of anticipated concerns to a sort of ‘turbine phobia.’ Tribal members living within a half or three quarters of a mile haven’t complained to him, he said.
“When the turbines are going the fastest is when the winds are the highest, so you can’t hear the turbines over the wind,” he added. “If people can’t stand the noise, why would they be living in one of the windiest areas in the county, the wind is just whistling through their trees, through their houses. The sound of the turbine blades isn’t grating, it’s a very soft whoosh-whoosh sound.”
There are a TON of undeveloped areas in this country where you could put up THOUSANDS of wind turbines without disturbing a "sensitive" soul.
Well, he hasn't said, but I'm willing to bet it's not because "some people might whine about it."
January 28, 2011 (San Diego’s East County) --East County residents who oppose a growing collection of industrial wind turbines proposed near rural residences have discovered that they have much in common with wind farm neighbors in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, Canada and other parts of the United States. Residents who have lived near windmills for years are now publicizing impacts to health and property values.
In fact, a standing-room-only crowd got an earful on those impacts last Wednesday, when experts from Illinois and Canada discussed them at the Boulevard Fire Station.
Experts speak on impacts to health, property values
Speakers included appraisal consultant Mike McCann, of Chicago, Ill., Carmen Krogh, of Ontario, Canada, Bill Powers, of Powers Engineering in San Diego, Dave Elliott, of Boulevard, and Donna Tisdale, also of Boulevard.
McCann stated in no uncertain terms that property value losses of about 25 percent are becoming the norm within two miles of a wind farm. Krogh shared a litany of health ills related to the strobe light affect of the turbines and both audible and inaudible sound.
Reported health effects include sleep deprivation, headaches, heart palpitations, vertigo, tinnitus, gastrointestinal problems, anxiety and cognitive impairment, Krogh said. Matching results are reported in every country that has erected large numbers of industrial turbines, she added.
Krogh, a retired pharmacist who networks with health professionals worldwide to track and document wind turbine health affects, said the impacts of both audible and inaudible sound cannot be mitigated: “The only mitigation is to remove the people from the environment they are in,” she said.
McCann - whose resume includes real estate zoning evaluations, property value impact studies, analysis of wind turbine generating facilities and evaluation of eminent domain real estate acquisitions - advised residents bluntly that no permits should be issued on any wind generation project without a property value guarantee for homeowners in the turbine area of influence.
The impact zone of a wind farm is two to five miles, he said. In addition to 20 to 40 percent value loss of homes in that area, residents have increased costs of health care, costs to try to retrofit homes to block noise or the strobe light affect of the turbine shadows, and the complete losses of people who are forced to walk away from their homes.
Krogh brought filmed interviews with wind turbine neighbors from Norway, Canada and Japan. The sound levels from their homes, in some cases, drowned out their voices and the nature of the sound was so distressing that audience members asked that it be turned down.
Krogh is a member of Society for Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, acousticians and other professionals who seek to quantify heath risks and ensure that permitting authorities and wind turbine operators acknowledge and remedy those risks. So far, she said, there has been great resistance from governments, who seek to provide “green” alternatives and who receive tax money from wind farm profits.
Industrial wind farm operators in the United States and Canada, most of whom receive taxpayer supported benefits and highly favorable permit conditions, resist revelations of adverse effects by requiring property owners from whom they lease lands to sign non-disclosure agreements, McCann said. The few off-site residents that have received buy-out offers from wind companies are required to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of the buy-out.
A lot more to the story
I think T Boone could see the reality of what could happen if he caused harm to people with this whole Wind deal and decided it was not worth the risk. It surprises me that someone that worries about the most minute PM or NOX would be so complacent about the health of others.
Did anyone see that story in the mainstream media anywhere? Money talks, or, money stops the talking, whichever it wishes, but usually both.
Funny, I say only pay attention to the science on this one, but now maybe the money is even more important. Big money can hire a lot of very persuasive talking heads.
I wonder if something similar was said to that, when it took the government decades to determine that all the lung cancers weren't just anecdotal evidence to cigarette smoking.
PUT.
THEM.
IN.
ALL.
THE.
VAST.
AREAS.
OF.
THE.
WORLD.
WHERE.
PEOPLE.
ARE.
NOT.
LIVING.
RIGHT.
BESIDE.
THEM.
Gosh.
Don't ruin such a fabulous way to produce electricity just because of a few overly sensitive people.
THEM.
IN.
ALL.
THE.
VAST.
AREAS.
OF.
THE.
WORLD.
WHERE.
PEOPLE.
ARE.
NOT.
LIVING.
RIGHT.
BESIDE.
THEM.
Gosh.
Don't ruin such a fabulous way to produce electricity just because of a few overly sensitive people.
You just don't get it do you? The wide open spaces you refer to are mostly Federal BLM land. The Eco Nuts that control Washington have blocked numerous projects. Then if they do get a go ahead to build in the wilderness more eco nuts come out of the woodwork and block transmission lines going across country. It is a no win situation for those that are trying to put these projects together. You read what is going on in San Diego. It is the same all over CA. Same for Hi Speed rail. They get people to vote for it then say NIMBY. Like you and your solar we may be forced to just use what we can generate ourselves. I am looking at a propane generator. Without that Solar is not much good in CA. Or maybe a huge battery backup plant like the phone companies all have.
Stop trying to use alternative energy sources because they are imperfect?
That no matter what we do, the "Eco Nuts" are going to fight it?
NIMBY is impossible to overcome?
Anything worth doing is worth fighting for.