Welcome to the dark side Jip. Even though I was not impressed with Bush in 2000 I just saw so much phony behavior from Gore that I couldn't vote for him. When he reinvented himself a few years later that same phony baloney was so clear that I looked at global warming myself rather than trust him. It was then that I realized what a scam it is.
So thank you Al. you opened my eyes.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Until fossil fuel burning has been eliminated as a possible contributor to the warming trend, then the contribution of the automobile to such warming cannot be eliminated.
This debate will rage on until another scare tactic is found. We will be using fossil fuel in our vehicles long after we are all dead and gone. At least 75 more years. When we run out we quit driving and the earth will cool back down. The water will recede and the lost cities of New York and Miami can be reclaimed. If anyone wants them.
Those Wascally Bush guvmint folks !!! Changing the definition of "homeless" to make the numbers look better !!
Caught in the act !!!
There is a rather large asterisk on the new data, however, the result of an ongoing effort to more narrowly define who is actually considered homeless. This is the third annual national HUD count, and in previous years, some cities had been counting families who were living two families to an apartment, for example, or those living in RVs, as homeless. This year, they weren't. This count, say the report's authors, was the most successful so far in tallying only those who were actually in shelters or on the streets — the official HUD definition of a homeless person.
This has advocates like Michael Stoops, the acting executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, saying that the rosy numbers are being produced in part for political effect in an election year. "It's kind of premature to say that there's less homeless people now because of all the great things that HUD and the Bush Administration are doing," he says. "Our grassroots networks around the country haven't seen this kind of difference."
I won't be happy until they strip Gore of all his ill gotten gain including the phony Nobel prize.
I pegged him as a crackpot when I read parts of his "Earth in the Balance" book. For those that do not believe he is whacked out on drugs just read that book and you will be convinced. There are hundreds of copies on Amazon for a penny each plus postage. It was a waste of trees to print it.
Gary says, "We will be using fossil fuel in our vehicles long after we are all dead and gone. At least 75 more years."
Longer than that I hope.
If I and people of similar ilk have our way ( conservers ) then we will start consuming FAR LESS fossil fuel and it can thus last longer.
More solar. More wind. More nuclear. More biodiesel. Less Coal. All that equals having diesel engines around a lot longer, which is the only fuel I care about seeing still around 150 years from now. Maybe a few CNG engines too. Regular unleaded can be the first to go if you ask my opinion.
Nobody was caught unless it was the people counting 2 or more families living in one apartment as homeless. Homeless means just that. They are on the street or in an overnight shelter. Living in an RV is not homeless. 10 families living in the same place is not homeless. That is the way people cope with the high cost of living. Of course the guy running the Homeless coalition is going to want the number as high as possible. That is how he justifies more money coming in.
Of course taking people off the streets does contribute more to the GHG. So I can understand your wanting more homeless people.
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth?
Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-[non-permissible content removed] who deny the Holocaust.
Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.
This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.
From the Publisher Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
You need to understand some basics here. Satellite measurements are not direct temperature measurements. A lot of digital magic has to go into extracting temperature from a few channels of IR data. In addition to the inherent inaccuracy of the data itself, that extraction process produces quite large error bars (which, conveniently, are not shown in most of the available graphs). Extrapolations of a few hundredths of a degree to a few tenths of a degree per decade for tropospheric heating rates are pretty much meaningless when the error bars are much larger than that.
this would not be enough to say there is no GW
The point was that the data does not support GW theory. Again, the burden of proof is on those putting forth such theories. They have to explain why the theory does not comport with reality.
Cherry-picking a few isolated examples to counter a mass of studies won't do the trick.
Excuse me, but it is the proponents who do the cherry picking. You asked for data. I provided it. Whatever difficulties you are having accessing the internet does not constitute cherry picking on my part. And you are also playing the "consensus game here" with notions of "mass of studies." The mass of historical data (over millions of years) shows absolutely no variation today from natural variability. When you ignore all of that data then you (and all those authors too!) are cherry picking.
Are you still calling Global warming a "myth" ?
Don't twist my words. Debate by "marginalization" isn't particularly convincing. Global warming theory is deeply flawed and has precious little scientific basis to support it. I've pointed out some of its weaknesses and shortcomings. You choose to ignore it. Fine. That's your prerogative.
The post that you replied to just contains some general observations based on your previous posts. What's not to understand? I thought it was rather clear.
Apart from maybe having some coal or oil stocks buried somewhere in a mutual fund, my main interest here is to refute the "sky is falling gloom and doom" scenario that we see here so often.
Conservation and doing what you can to prevent waste is a good thing, but committing vast resources in support of nothing more than a theory does not seem like a wise choice to me.
Most agreed. Now if the topic was retitled is Krakatoa a major source of global warming, then I still couldn't agree. I believe it snowed in Pennsylvania the summer after.
Tide, you wrote: " You need to understand some basics here. Satellite measurements are not direct temperature measurements. A lot of digital magic has to go into extracting temperature from a few channels of IR data. In addition to the inherent inaccuracy of the data itself, that extraction process produces quite large error bars (which, conveniently, are not shown in most of the available graphs). Extrapolations of a few hundredths of a degree to a few tenths of a degree per decade for tropospheric heating rates are pretty much meaningless when the error bars are much larger than that. "
A poor business major and lacking your scientific expertise I decided to fax in your graphs to the Mt. Sinai medical database. Unfortunately they interpreted only the first graph but were able to conclude: 1) The patient is in Defib
2) The Sinus rhythym is seriously scary.
3) Recommended 35 cc epinephrine stat !
4) Paddles, code blue.
Thankfully Dr. House, rejecting the cardio-vascular data was able to conclude that it was natural (normal) variability and after commenting on Cutty's thong conluded that the Earth might last a few more years.
Please note that this graph represent the measures of the tropical (Lat +20 to -20) part of the troposphere, whereas global temperatures means Lat +80 -80 roughly.
There is a measured global trend of 0.171 K per decade, in line with GW assessment.
>Extrapolations of a few hundredths of a degree to a few tenths of a degree per decade for tropospheric heating rates are pretty much meaningless when the error bars are much larger than that.
I am not sure if the error bar is much larger than that as you say, Uncertainty is the reason for which many measures have been done by different research teams and the results compiled to get a general temperature trend which, unfortunately, is an increasing one.
>The point was that the data does not support GW theory.
Well even following your quoted sources it does after all.
>Again, the burden of proof is on those putting forth such theories
I could say that if, against the general trend, someone is putting forth the theory that there is no GW, the burden of proof is his/hers.
In fact I don't view it like this. This is not a trial where there is an accused, innocent until proven guilty. I rather view this as a debate where each party is invited to bring supporting evidence in equal terms.
>Excuse me, but it is the proponents who do the cherry picking
Why would I need to? There is so much literature about this and the latest research (the one I provided link above was updated in june 08) tend to show more consistency towards some GW.
>You asked for data. I provided it.
Thank you. I hope you believe I read it carefully (except the book, but will see when I am back to EU). You are not saying I did not provide data are you ?
>the mass of historical data (over millions of years) shows absolutely no variation today from natural variability
If we exclude the last 50/100 years, I agree with you.
>Don't twist my words.
Your post #3187 : "The American Physical Society no longer buys the global warming myth". I don't have the feeling the article mentioned GW as a myth.
>Debate by "marginalization" isn't particularly convincing
It is true and such is not my intention. If did give you such an impression, I apologise
>I've pointed out some of its weaknesses and shortcomings. You choose to ignore it
Unless something has slipped, I pretty much responded to all.
I could say that if, against the general trend, someone is putting forth the theory that there is no GW, the burden of proof is his/hers.
That's silly. You could say that except only the GW crowd is pushing a theory. Pointing out deficiencies and shortcomings in a theory does not itself constitute a theory. Surely, you understand that.
Well even following your quoted sources it does after all.
Well, no it doesn't. First, as I pointed out, the error bars are too large to be meaningful and second, even ignoring that, GW theory predicts greater warming than "observed". It was interesting that before corrections were made to the satellite data, the GW crowd went into utter panic scrambling to reconcile stratospheric cooling with global warming theory. They came up with all kinds of explanations to support the notion that GW theory is consistent with stratospheric cooling. Now that corrections have been made they insist that GW theory is consistent with stratospheric warming. Trying to have it both ways is a bit disingenuous wouldn't you say?
This is not a trial where there is an accused, innocent until proven guilty. I rather view this as a debate where each party is invited to bring supporting evidence in equal terms.
But things are not equal. Science does not work that way. If you bring forth a new theory then it has to be consistent with data and the precepts of science. That's the burden and it's not just a show of hands. GW proponents routinely and casually dismiss data that does not comport with their world view. That is bad science and bad science should not be the basis of public policy.
Unless something has slipped, I pretty much responded to all.
Well, no, you haven't. Of the many issues I have mentioned, I'll briefly review three of them that are central to the issue:
First, the long term historical record (millions of years) clearly shows that global warming precedes increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and CO2 concentrations fall only after the Earth has cooled. The data indicates that GW causes higher levels of CO2 and not the other way around. GW theory attempts to reverse causality in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
(Technically, there is one exception. The Earth's oceans were once covered ENTIRELY by ice more than a mile thick and it was only after heat from the Earth's core released huge amounts of CO2 [FAR greater than levels today] which eventually seeped into the atmosphere and allowed for the planet to eventually warm up and melt the ice.)
Second, to show any connection between mankind and GW you must demonstrate clearly that global climate today differs in some significant way from the natural variability over the entire history of Earth's climate. It simply does not. This particular interglacial period is not remarkable in any way except to the politically motivated. In brief, the Laws of Nature are not known to have undergone any revision since the Big Bang.
Finally, none of the GW models predicted the last decade of flat or falling "global temperatures." The models are deeply flawed and have no reliable predictive capacity.
I'll also add to this the fact that CO2 is a minor "greenhouse gas" yet it is placed far above the most significant and effective GH gas, water. It's like driving a 500 hp race car and being concerned that your rear view mirror may be affecting performance while neglecting to properly tune your engine.
Why would I need to? There is so much literature about this and the latest research (the one I provided link above was updated in june 08) tend to show more consistency towards some GW.
See above. Also, you're playing the "consensus card" again. Bad form.
If we exclude the last 50/100 years, I agree with you.
We will disagree on that. 50 to 100 years is but a blip on the time scale of global climate change. Considering that we have just come out of (some say we're still in) an ice age, we expect (naturally) warming trends and fluctuations. There is nothing unusual about that.
Your post #3187 : "The American Physical Society no longer buys the global warming myth".
Sorry, that came with the article I referenced.
And finally,
Please note that this graph represent the measures of the tropical (Lat +20 to -20) part of the troposphere, whereas global temperatures means Lat +80 -80 roughly.
That is precisely where GW theory predicts (substantial) warming of the troposphere. And it's another place where GW proponents try to have it both ways. They believe the troposphere is warming but surface temperatures aren't as high as the models predict. The solution? Well, obviously, warming of the troposphere causes surface cooling! Do you see anything wrong with that? (I think that conversation was somewhere on realclimate.org but I didn't save the link. )
So here we have a wonderful example of another article which infers that GW is causing changes in the environment.
However the article fails to mention that there has been no increase in the ocean temperatures. Therefore the change to the fish sexes is not temperature related! But, and let me quote "It could be because of chemical pollution or it could be because of climate change. We don't know," cautions Piferrer. "But the field data matches our predictions."
So in other words researchers can go find something that is changing in the environment - which Darwinism teaches us is always occurring,; and then you make a prediction in your GW theory - and tada! you've got a change that matches your theory! Oh this type of science is wonderfully simple!
There is a measured global trend of 0.171 K per decade, in line with GW assessment
Using that higher trend tells me that the temperature will raise 1.7 degrees over the next 100 years. How does that relate to REAL temperatures in fahrenheit? Is that anywhere near what the GW Cult says it will be in 100 years?
There is a measured global trend of 0.171 K per decade, in line with GW assessment.
You just posted a perfect example of cherry-picking data. What is the trend 3-lines below that. I see -0.336 !
Also on that link, look at the colors of the globes above and you'll see that for every area slightly warmer there are as many areas with temperature decreases.
A wonderful story G, although " A RICH Arab " is almost an oxymoron. Ok, corrected, no almost to it.Very nice car btw. Loved the comment : " And Jenny Evans, of pressure group Plane Stupid, said: “This horrifies me. It is another example of how rich people exploit and pollute the planet because of their money, " Uh Jenny, because they can? Anyway, whats $47,000 for an oil change anyway .Surely one wouldn't expect him to get down beneath the Lam in his nice pressed white robes with his fram filter and big bottle of synthetic and risk getting a stain. We have made them very rich and recently rich to the extremes. Let the silliness continue. On a separate topic, hopefully no more death threats ( barked into the phone? ) against the ex queen of mean's small dog terrible.
I ran into this guy with a bamboo covered van while having lunch at our favorite Thai restaurant. Talked to him for a bit and he gave me his card. He wants US all to use bamboo for just about everything. I think it will solve GW in just a few weeks. 1 ANNUALLY RENEWABLE - Bamboo is the fastest growing, most versatile woody plant in the world. It can grow up to a whole foot a day! 2 REVERSES GLOBAL WARMING - Incredible and true, bamboo consumes carbon dioxide FOUR times faster than any other plant! Bamboo plantations are large factories for photosynthesis which reduces greenhouse gases. Bamboo plants absorb about 5 times the amount of carbon dioxide (a primary greenhouse gas) and produces about 35% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees. 3 PLENTIFUL: There are over 1500 species of bamboo in the world. 4 PROVIDES SAFE HOUSING - Over 1 billion people in the world live in bamboo houses. In most cases, bamboo buildings have proven to be earthquake proof. 5 HARDY: Bamboo was the first plant life to return after the atomic bombings in Japan. 6 NUTRITION FOR HUMANS AND ANIMALS - Bamboo contains Germanium which is known to reverse the aging process in cells. 7 DID YOU KNOW.. Thomas Edison used bamboo filaments in his first light bulbs, and one of those bulbs is STILL burning today at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.
Indeed someone flying their cars intercontinental for an oil change is the ultimate reality check. !!!???
Another is we vilify the SO CALLED oil rich countries, when we have/own/ have rights to EXPONENTIALLY greater reserves than even the most "filthy rich" oil rich countries!!!
I imagine the plane was carrying other freight. Is it anymore polluting than Al Gore flying around to speaking engagements in his private jet? The rich have BIG carbon footprints. Was it GW activist Madonna that spews more CO2 than 200 of her fellow Brits?
It gets back to whether you believe in excess of any kind. That PHD with his bamboo covered Van. He could have covered a Fit and wasted less bamboo. One persons idea of excess is another's idea of personal need. Maybe the rich Arab did not trust his fellow Arabs to service his $300,000 car. Maybe he was flying his 100 Wives to go shopping in London and just brought the car along to be serviced. What ever happened a lot of people benefited financially from his display of extravagance. At least he is spending some of that money we keep sending over. Better than buying rocket launchers.
"Solar, wind tax credits stalled LAWMAKERS SQUABBLE OVER LEGISLATION, PUTTING PROJECTS 'ON HOLD' By Frank Davies Mercury News Washington Bureau Article Launched: 08/01/2008 01:34:33 AM PDT
8. Makes a darn nice deterrent to evil doers when soaked in brine water and vigorously applied to the rear end. We could use some of that when we catch a politician with his hand in the cookie jar.
Of course, I do. But globally rejecting GW and saying is not happening at all (or attributing to natural causes) is another theory in itself, isn't it ? Never mind if we disagree, I agree to support what I say with facts.
>First, as I pointed out, the error bars are too large to be meaningful.
Well, the data seemed meaningful when you first posted the link (from a "serious and reputable" source-post 3433) showing that lower troposphere temps were remaining pretty constant. Now that the corrected data is showing a warming trend, the uncertainty suddenly becomes so great that it is not meaningful any more?
>Trying to have it both ways is a bit disingenuous wouldn't you say?
I fully agree. Looks like I have just seen it somewhere... Anyway, I am OK to keep with ground temperatures. These are the ones which impact us the most. Do we agree at least that there is a current GW trend ? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
>GW proponents routinely and casually dismiss data that does not comport with their world view.
Frankly, I rather see it the other way around. I see many skeptics clinging on whatever remaining fact that could support their view, trying to exaggerate its impact on the debate. I agree that it is bad science and that it should not be the basis of public policy. Its good to see we have the same thinking patterns even though our views differ.
>First, the long term historical record (millions of years) clearly shows that global warming precedes increased CO2 concentrations.
I am not sure if it isn't the other way around, at least for the last 300.000 years. extract from the Vostok ice core : Interestingly, at least during certain deglaciation periods, the trace gas increase precedes the onset of most melting of the northern ice sheets by several thousand years. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html
Even if the opposite was true, the correlation is still compelling. That the GW was initiated by another phenomenon is possible. However, once CO2 is increasing, the temperatures increase is sustained.
Together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, these (C02 and CH4) greenhouse gases have amplified the initial orbital forcing, and they account for about half of the glacial-interglacial climate changes (same source)
>GW theory attempts to reverse causality in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That's a bold statement. I am rather overwhelmed by the lack of evidence for this view, which I certainly respect because it is yours
> Earth's core released huge amounts of CO2 [FAR greater than levels today]
Must have been more than 400000 years ago because CO2 level never peaked above 300 ppm as revealed by ice core extracts, except for the last 40 years of course.
>you must demonstrate clearly that global climate today differs in some significant way from the natural variability over the entire history of Earth's climate
You know that it is perfectly impossible, while demonstrating the opposite is impossible too. I understand why you prefer to keep the burden of the proof for me.
>none of the GW models predicted the last decade of flat or falling "global temperatures
Of course, they failed to predict something that did not happen. Unless you are telling me the Nasa site i just put a link for has a pro GW agenda.
>CO2 is a minor "greenhouse gas" in comparison to CH4 for instance, yes it is. But its concentration is much higher, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm So it is the first man-made contributor, followed by CH4
It is true that the contribution of increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to GW deserves further studies. There are conflicting views on whether the water vapor will act as a temp booster http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html or if after all will act as a brake.
>you're playing the "consensus card" again
As much as you do when you say: ".... in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary"
There is maybe a 10 to 1 ratio of scientists defending GW
>we expect (naturally) warming trends and fluctuations
If we go back to millions of year ago climate, where mankind was not existing yet, i strongly doubt the ability for earth to sustain life for 8 billion people. This is pretty much like navigating in uncharted waters.
>That is precisely where GW theory predicts (substantial) warming of the troposphere
I was under the impression of the opposite. because I kindly admit I am not competent enough, I prefer to keep with global figures.
>Well, obviously, warming of the troposphere causes surface cooling!
What is not clear to me is where I am mistaken or misleading enough to let you believe I have some stakes in the GW industry.
I put some links supporting my views and I try to remain factual. I do not wish to discuss people but more to discuss ideas.
>"sky is falling gloom and doom" scenario that we see here so often.
I never said supported catastrophic scenarii à la "the day after" or such. But I believe we are going to face difficult times. I will be glad to be mistaken.
I picked the TLT which is the Lower troposphere temperature we were talking about. Naturally the closer we go to the stratosphere, the colder the temperature trend because of ozone depletion :sick: .
if the stratospheric temps could increase again, this would be a great piece of news.
I heard yesterday that Nancy Pelosi will not let a vote on offshore drilling come to a vote because she is "going to save the planet!". I guess saving people's bank accounts is not on her agenda.
My only question, will the taxpayers have to pay for her superhero costume? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Of course, they failed to predict something that did not happen. Unless you are telling me the Nasa site i just put a link for has a pro GW agenda.
I think it is quite obvious that most of the government agencies are pro man made GW. Without MM GW or CC there would be no interest in further funding their research. I think this whole latest surge in posting was started by tidester posting an article by a NASA scientist that quit and took a job in a University because he was told what he could and could not say by the Clinton administration about GW.
I find it most interesting that so many people cannot see that the whole of GW theory is motivated by PURE GREED. With just a smattering of scientific evidence thrown in to make it look legitimate to the untrained masses.
Why would anyone think that the GW theorists were anymore or less motivated by greed than the deniers that work for the oil companies. Is there something pure or honest about government sponsored studies? If there is anything pure and honest about any World Government, I missed it.
Why do you believe one scientist over another? I have the most faith in John Coleman our local weather man. He has the credentials in the Fact that he started the very prestigious "Weather Channel". It was hijacked and taken over by whacked out GW people and no longer is considered worth watching. John Coleman has written a lot about climate change. And believes MM CC is motivated by greed. You know why I believe him over other scientists? He is right about the weather here in San Diego more often than any of the other meteorologists.
When you find a scientist that is NOT funded by an entity with ulterior motives you let me know.
I had a dream. The people of the 8th District in CA finally got smart and voted Pelosi out of office. Sadly it was just a dream. Nancy Pelosi will go down in History as being the Speaker of the House with the LOWEST confidence rating in the history of the United States of America. Only 8% of the people think this was a good Congress. I think they must all reside in the 8th District of CA.
The Republicans made some real good ground allowing the gallery to get involved in the process after the Democrats bailed out. It may backfire on her this November.
Another case of Follow the Money. GW and Greed are synonymous.
03 August 2008 By Stephen Price The Virgin boss’s much trumpeted pledge of €1.9bn to tackle global warming is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
In September 2006, Virgin boss Richard Branson pledged €1.9 billion towards tackling global warming. For the next ten years, he announced, the profits from his aviation and rail businesses would go towards combating the biggest, most complex problem that mankind has ever faced.
The promise earned Branson headlines around the world. Media outlets carried photos of him, Bill Clinton and Al Gore at a Clinton Global Initiative press conference in New York. Adults, Branson solemnly told the assembled media, had a duty to pass a ‘‘pristine’’ planet on to the next generation. Politicians and campaigners were effusive in their praise for his imagination and generosity.
However, a look at the not-very-small print revealed that this amazing gesture would not be a matter of taking the profits from Branson’s polluting industries and using them to protect vast tracts of the Amazon.
In fact, the money would go to a new division of the Virgin conglomerate, called Virgin Fuel. Branson was simply gearing himself up to make more money. But as always, the PR spin was that he’d be doing the rest of us a favour in the process.
Branson has built an empire on this perception. (read more)
Since Virgin Fuel was set up in 2006, the tide has very much turned against bio-fuels with the realisation that far too much agricultural land could be eaten up by fuel crops. Palm oil, one of the major biofuels, is contributing to global warming as virgin (no pun intended) rainforests in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia are decimated to make way for palm plantations.
Still, in February of this year Branson was on the tarmac toying with a coconut for the inevitable photocall when one of his 747s flew - empty- from London to Amsterdam on a 20 per cent bio-fuel mixture. Two years on from his ‘‘profits’’ gesture, slightly wiser green campaigners dismissed the flight as a stunt.
But onwards and upwards. While Branson has done little to save the planet and a hell of a lot to pollute it, he can arrange for you to look down upon it. This week he unveiled an aircraft for flying tourists into space. Virgin Galactic (yes, space can be branded too) has built a four-engine, twin-fuselage jet that will carrya spaceship with six passengers up to 50,000 feet to release it for sub-orbital flight.
Spraying huge amounts of jet fuel into the atmosphere, purely to allow rich people to look down on an overheating planet, is about as stupid and hypocritical as it gets. Still, I’m sure that the earth from space is a beautiful sight – enjoy it while it lasts.
Southern California Hot Spot Hits 812 Degrees, Baffles Experts Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The ground is so hot in one part of Southern California it can melt the shoes right off your feet.
An unexplained "thermal anomaly" caused a patch of land in Ventura County to reach a temperature of over 800 degrees on Friday, baffling experts who have been monitoring the area for weeks.
The anomaly was discovered after the land got so hot, it started a brush fire and burned three acres last month. Firefighters were brought to the scene after reports of a blaze, but by the time they arrived only smoldering dirt and brush remained.
Firefighters took no chances with the smoking ground, clearing brush near the fumes and cutting a fire line around the area to prevent a blaze from igniting.
"We are a little perplexed at this point, to tell you the truth," the Ventura County Star quoted geologist David Panaro as saying. "This is not your usual geological detective story."
The area has recorded high temperatures at least five times since 1987, Allen King, a retired geologist with the U.S. Forest Service told the newspaper.
Officials who are familiar with the patch of land, which is near the large Sespe Oil Field, have come up with a few theories as to why the ground soared to 812 degrees fahrenheit on August 1.
One theory is that natural hydrocarbons, such as oil or gas, are burning deep in the earth and seeping out through cracks in the area, causing the surface to rapidly heat and generate smoke.
According to the Star, Allen King, a former geologist with the U.S. Forest Service recently stuck a thermometer into the ground and got a reading of 550 degrees — so hot that it melted the glue holding the sole of his boots together.
"After that we were more cautious about standing in one place for too long," he said.
It is funny that even when we have access to so many technological measuring devices ( including gas sniffers) which can tell you the composition of the gasses ,that we still use a simple thermometer and the soles of our feet as measuring devices. Reminds me of that Hollywood movie that Steve Martin was in where he was a poor hick farmer boy where he learns about BS. Looks like..., smells like..., tastes like...feels like ... Sure glad we didn't step on it !!?
Weirdest thing I have seen was an operating oil rig in a CA city's MacDonald's parking lot !!! (right next to the refuse enclosure) I had fries with the Mac Morning breakfast. :shades:
Sounds to me like it may be a great spot for producing geo-thermal energy. The problem is like much of CA. It is Off limits to any progress. Then again it may just start spewing out lava and make a new mountain range. They need to send Al Gore up there in his bare feet to study the cause of the heat.
Despite "oil" being a fungible and WORLD WIDE commodity, etc., etc., yada yada... it makes all the sense in the world to meet our oil needs domestically, even as we forget that we (USA) have more energy than almost all the known oil fields in the world !!!!
Sure enough sounds like oil and/or gas down there. Of course it might just be a "sink" for all that nasty CO2 your cars are producing. I vote we christen this new localised GW phenomenon a "Gore Hole".
As for the USA's untapped domestic energy reserves; I sometimes think - in my more cynical moments - that you guys are just using up everyone else's reserves before tapping your own. Smart move, or...................
IF the US dollar continues its decline and the oil shieks, world banks etc decide to mark the price of a barrel of oil to a so called "higher value" currency, (i.e., Euro) THEN all that would be needed (at that future time) to reverse the flow of the balance of trade would be to tap into the "real wealth" of American lands and start up the (Lawrence Welk -bubble machine) the oil products export routine, paid for THEN in "higher value" currency, i.e., by that time, aka Euro's. Till then, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi annually, annually, biannually crisis' will be de rigor !
While I love boating and I don't have a problem with anyone buying and using a houseboat. The fact that the guy who built Al's houseboat claims it will use on a 1-2 gallons of bio-diesel/hr is laughable. Al is such a tool. Actually he has my respect. Blabbing the GW B.S. telling us all to change our ways while that jackass fly's around in his Gulf Stream, drives around with a fleet of vehicles, uses more electricity from the grid in his homes in month than most of us use in a year, then buys a 100' houseboat. Man is he really living green. You bet green as in $$$. And the greenies just eat his BS.
Maybe he'll have room for all them when the oceans rise on B.S. One.
I love the part where they let it be known that he will have a hard time finding any biodiesel to fill his 500 gallon tank on his 100 foot $1,000,000 yacht. And what do suppose the Jet Skis use for fuel?
There is no question that the alarmism and doomsday scenarios spread by Al Gore have been very, very beneficial to him personally and professionally.
But the question persists as to whether he actually buys into what he is selling. His own behavior clearly indicates that he doesn’t believe we are at a “tipping point” of worldwide environmental destruction. While he preaches that the rest of us must dramatically change our lifestyles and lower our standards of living to “save the planet” he lives by another set of rules himself.
It happens in the air, where he jets about in private planes that consume massive amounts of energy to spread his message of “conservation.”
His hypocrisy is revealed on land, where he travels in fleets of limos and SUVs to deliver speeches about the dire consequences of ignoring “man-made global warming” — and leaves the cars running throughout his entire speech in order to ensure that they will be nice and cool when he exits the building and returns to his gas-guzzling vehicles.
Just one of the "Do as I say, Not as I do" elitist trying to tell the rest of US how to live.
It ain't bio-diesel or ethanol. Also, claiming a 100 ft houseboat, even diesel powered, will burn only 1-2 gallons of fuel/hr at cruising speed is pure BS.
I thought hypocrisy was a pre-requisite for a life in politics. Our own dear Prime Minister - Gordon Brown - says he understands the concerns and frustrations of motorists faced with the highest fuel cost in Europe, (i.e. us Brits). These prices are largely due to the inordinately high levels of Duty and Tax...........we pay Tax on the Duty.............imposed by his government.
This from a guy who has never owned a car, does not have a Driving Licence and never has had one. He's never, ever, bought a litre of fuel. Hypocrisy.
Much as I dislike Gore, at least he's out in the world making money, (albeit on a totally false premise), unlike one G Brown who is a full-time politico or Leach as we think of them.
Much as I dislike Gore, at least he's out in the world making money, (albeit on a totally false premise), unlike one G Brown who is a full-time politico or Leach as we think of them.
We have plenty of G Browns in our country as well. Our last president never had a real job. Always a politician. He and his wife have made over $122 million in the last 7 years. Of course Gore made $100 million in that same time since leaving office. Then you have our latest politico that screams how bad America is while he and his wife made $4 million last year.
I thought your last Prime Minister was OK. Though I am surprised you have not had a revolution over the horrible taxes you pay.
Some of the Carbon crap they are proposing in the UK is totally out in LEFT field. Good luck, you are going to need it to survive some of the issues facing the UK.
Rant all you like. It is good getting a perspective from across the pond. At least till it rises and we are all under water...
Comments
Welcome to the dark side Jip. Even though I was not impressed with Bush in 2000 I just saw so much phony behavior from Gore that I couldn't vote for him. When he reinvented himself a few years later that same phony baloney was so clear that I looked at global warming myself rather than trust him. It was then that I realized what a scam it is.
So thank you Al. you opened my eyes.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
This debate will rage on until another scare tactic is found. We will be using fossil fuel in our vehicles long after we are all dead and gone. At least 75 more years. When we run out we quit driving and the earth will cool back down. The water will recede and the lost cities of New York and Miami can be reclaimed. If anyone wants them.
Those Wascally Bush guvmint folks !!! Changing the definition of "homeless" to make the numbers look better !!
Caught in the act !!!
There is a rather large asterisk on the new data, however, the result of an ongoing effort to more narrowly define who is actually considered homeless. This is the third annual national HUD count, and in previous years, some cities had been counting families who were living two families to an apartment, for example, or those living in RVs, as homeless. This year, they weren't. This count, say the report's authors, was the most successful so far in tallying only those who were actually in shelters or on the streets — the official HUD definition of a homeless person.
This has advocates like Michael Stoops, the acting executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, saying that the rosy numbers are being produced in part for political effect in an election year. "It's kind of premature to say that there's less homeless people now because of all the great things that HUD and the Bush Administration are doing," he says. "Our grassroots networks around the country haven't seen this kind of difference."
I pegged him as a crackpot when I read parts of his "Earth in the Balance" book. For those that do not believe he is whacked out on drugs just read that book and you will be convinced. There are hundreds of copies on Amazon for a penny each plus postage. It was a waste of trees to print it.
Longer than that I hope.
If I and people of similar ilk have our way ( conservers ) then we will start consuming FAR LESS fossil fuel and it can thus last longer.
More solar. More wind. More nuclear. More biodiesel. Less Coal. All that equals having diesel engines around a lot longer, which is the only fuel I care about seeing still around 150 years from now. Maybe a few CNG engines too. Regular unleaded can be the first to go if you ask my opinion.
Of course taking people off the streets does contribute more to the GHG. So I can understand your wanting more homeless people.
OUCH !! Not really. Did not hurt because those are not my feelings. People being homeless does not give me any joy.
The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth?
Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-[non-permissible content removed] who deny the Holocaust.
Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.
This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.
From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
Take a look at this picture from the Hadley Center: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/upper_air_temp- s.gif
The last few years look pretty flat to me.
You need to understand some basics here. Satellite measurements are not direct temperature measurements. A lot of digital magic has to go into extracting temperature from a few channels of IR data. In addition to the inherent inaccuracy of the data itself, that extraction process produces quite large error bars (which, conveniently, are not shown in most of the available graphs). Extrapolations of a few hundredths of a degree to a few tenths of a degree per decade for tropospheric heating rates are pretty much meaningless when the error bars are much larger than that.
this would not be enough to say there is no GW
The point was that the data does not support GW theory. Again, the burden of proof is on those putting forth such theories. They have to explain why the theory does not comport with reality.
Cherry-picking a few isolated examples to counter a mass of studies won't do the trick.
Excuse me, but it is the proponents who do the cherry picking. You asked for data. I provided it. Whatever difficulties you are having accessing the internet does not constitute cherry picking on my part. And you are also playing the "consensus game here" with notions of "mass of studies." The mass of historical data (over millions of years) shows absolutely no variation today from natural variability. When you ignore all of that data then you (and all those authors too!) are cherry picking.
Are you still calling Global warming a "myth" ?
Don't twist my words. Debate by "marginalization" isn't particularly convincing. Global warming theory is deeply flawed and has precious little scientific basis to support it. I've pointed out some of its weaknesses and shortcomings. You choose to ignore it. Fine. That's your prerogative.
Apart from maybe having some coal or oil stocks buried somewhere in a mutual fund, my main interest here is to refute the "sky is falling gloom and doom" scenario that we see here so often.
Conservation and doing what you can to prevent waste is a good thing, but committing vast resources in support of nothing more than a theory does not seem like a wise choice to me.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
you wrote:
" You need to understand some basics here. Satellite measurements are not direct temperature measurements. A lot of digital magic has to go into extracting temperature from a few channels of IR data. In addition to the inherent inaccuracy of the data itself, that extraction process produces quite large error bars (which, conveniently, are not shown in most of the available graphs). Extrapolations of a few hundredths of a degree to a few tenths of a degree per decade for tropospheric heating rates are pretty much meaningless when the error bars are much larger than that. "
A poor business major and lacking your scientific expertise I decided to fax in your graphs to the Mt. Sinai medical database.
Unfortunately they interpreted only the first graph but were able to conclude:
1) The patient is in Defib
2) The Sinus rhythym is seriously scary.
3) Recommended 35 cc epinephrine stat !
4) Paddles, code blue.
Thankfully Dr. House, rejecting the cardio-vascular data was able to conclude that it was natural (normal) variability and after commenting on Cutty's thong conluded that the Earth might last a few more years.
Whew! That is a relief. But don't we need a second opinion here - so we can at least get a consensus on this? :shades:
A RICH Arab sent his Lamborghini on a 6,500-mile round trip to Britain for a service.
The £190,000 supercar was put on a scheduled flight from Qatar to Heathrow – then flown BACK after the oil check.
Money was no object as the flight would have cost the owner – thought to be a Sheikh – around £20,000.
The move sparked fury from green campaigners.
An airport worker said: “This car doesn’t have a carbon footprint – more of a crater.”
The overall cost of sending the Lamborghini to London for the oil change would have cost more than £23,000.
His black-and-gold supercar costs £3,552 to service at an approved dealer – on top of the £20,000 to freight from Qatar to Britain.
The Murciélago LP640 – driven by Batman in movie The Dark Knight – arrived from the Middle Eastern country on Friday.
It cleared customs and was trucked to specialist mechanics in London for the service.
On Monday it was flown back 3,250 miles to the oil-rich state where it was collected by the owner.
A cargo handler at Heathrow blasted the car’s environmental damage.
He said: “It would have been far more efficient to fly mechanics out there.”
Nice Car
Please note that this graph represent the measures of the tropical (Lat +20 to -20) part of the troposphere, whereas global temperatures means Lat +80 -80 roughly.
I followed the links mentioned as a reference on the chart you kindly provided.
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends
There is a measured global trend of 0.171 K per decade, in line with GW assessment.
>Extrapolations of a few hundredths of a degree to a few tenths of a degree per decade for tropospheric heating rates are pretty much meaningless when the error bars are much larger than that.
I am not sure if the error bar is much larger than that as you say,
Uncertainty is the reason for which many measures have been done by different research teams and the results compiled to get a general temperature trend which, unfortunately, is an increasing one.
>The point was that the data does not support GW theory.
Well even following your quoted sources it does after all.
>Again, the burden of proof is on those putting forth such theories
I could say that if, against the general trend, someone is putting forth the theory that there is no GW, the burden of proof is his/hers.
In fact I don't view it like this. This is not a trial where there is an accused, innocent until proven guilty. I rather view this as a debate where each party is invited to bring supporting evidence in equal terms.
>Excuse me, but it is the proponents who do the cherry picking
Why would I need to? There is so much literature about this and the latest research (the one I provided link above was updated in june 08) tend to show more consistency towards some GW.
>You asked for data. I provided it.
Thank you. I hope you believe I read it carefully (except the book, but will see when I am back to EU). You are not saying I did not provide data are you ?
>the mass of historical data (over millions of years) shows absolutely no variation today from natural variability
If we exclude the last 50/100 years, I agree with you.
>Don't twist my words.
Your post #3187 : "The American Physical Society no longer buys the global warming myth".
I don't have the feeling the article mentioned GW as a myth.
>Debate by "marginalization" isn't particularly convincing
It is true and such is not my intention. If did give you such an impression, I apologise
>I've pointed out some of its weaknesses and shortcomings. You choose to ignore it
Unless something has slipped, I pretty much responded to all.
That's silly. You could say that except only the GW crowd is pushing a theory. Pointing out deficiencies and shortcomings in a theory does not itself constitute a theory. Surely, you understand that.
Well even following your quoted sources it does after all.
Well, no it doesn't. First, as I pointed out, the error bars are too large to be meaningful and second, even ignoring that, GW theory predicts greater warming than "observed". It was interesting that before corrections were made to the satellite data, the GW crowd went into utter panic scrambling to reconcile stratospheric cooling with global warming theory. They came up with all kinds of explanations to support the notion that GW theory is consistent with stratospheric cooling. Now that corrections have been made they insist that GW theory is consistent with stratospheric warming. Trying to have it both ways is a bit disingenuous wouldn't you say?
This is not a trial where there is an accused, innocent until proven guilty. I rather view this as a debate where each party is invited to bring supporting evidence in equal terms.
But things are not equal. Science does not work that way. If you bring forth a new theory then it has to be consistent with data and the precepts of science. That's the burden and it's not just a show of hands. GW proponents routinely and casually dismiss data that does not comport with their world view. That is bad science and bad science should not be the basis of public policy.
Unless something has slipped, I pretty much responded to all.
Well, no, you haven't. Of the many issues I have mentioned, I'll briefly review three of them that are central to the issue:
First, the long term historical record (millions of years) clearly shows that global warming precedes increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and CO2 concentrations fall only after the Earth has cooled. The data indicates that GW causes higher levels of CO2 and not the other way around. GW theory attempts to reverse causality in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
(Technically, there is one exception. The Earth's oceans were once covered ENTIRELY by ice more than a mile thick and it was only after heat from the Earth's core released huge amounts of CO2 [FAR greater than levels today] which eventually seeped into the atmosphere and allowed for the planet to eventually warm up and melt the ice.)
Second, to show any connection between mankind and GW you must demonstrate clearly that global climate today differs in some significant way from the natural variability over the entire history of Earth's climate. It simply does not. This particular interglacial period is not remarkable in any way except to the politically motivated. In brief, the Laws of Nature are not known to have undergone any revision since the Big Bang.
Finally, none of the GW models predicted the last decade of flat or falling "global temperatures." The models are deeply flawed and have no reliable predictive capacity.
I'll also add to this the fact that CO2 is a minor "greenhouse gas" yet it is placed far above the most significant and effective GH gas, water. It's like driving a 500 hp race car and being concerned that your rear view mirror may be affecting performance while neglecting to properly tune your engine.
Why would I need to? There is so much literature about this and the latest research (the one I provided link above was updated in june 08) tend to show more consistency towards some GW.
See above. Also, you're playing the "consensus card" again. Bad form.
If we exclude the last 50/100 years, I agree with you.
We will disagree on that. 50 to 100 years is but a blip on the time scale of global climate change. Considering that we have just come out of (some say we're still in) an ice age, we expect (naturally) warming trends and fluctuations. There is nothing unusual about that.
Your post #3187 : "The American Physical Society no longer buys the global warming myth".
Sorry, that came with the article I referenced.
And finally,
Please note that this graph represent the measures of the tropical (Lat +20 to -20) part of the troposphere, whereas global temperatures means Lat +80 -80 roughly.
That is precisely where GW theory predicts (substantial) warming of the troposphere. And it's another place where GW proponents try to have it both ways. They believe the troposphere is warming but surface temperatures aren't as high as the models predict. The solution? Well, obviously, warming of the troposphere causes surface cooling!
That person is me and that one thing is that BOTH SIDES HAVE PLENTY OF GOOD DATA TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT.
That's why GW and the effects of man on it needs to be studied further.
And it also means that we should err on the side of caution and reduce our carbon footprint where possible.
However the article fails to mention that there has been no increase in the ocean temperatures. Therefore the change to the fish sexes is not temperature related! But, and let me quote "It could be because of chemical pollution or it could be because of climate change. We don't know," cautions Piferrer. "But the field data matches our predictions."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827881,00.html?cnn=yes
So in other words researchers can go find something that is changing in the environment - which Darwinism teaches us is always occurring,; and then you make a prediction in your GW theory - and tada! you've got a change that matches your theory! Oh this type of science is wonderfully simple!
Using that higher trend tells me that the temperature will raise 1.7 degrees over the next 100 years. How does that relate to REAL temperatures in fahrenheit? Is that anywhere near what the GW Cult says it will be in 100 years?
You just posted a perfect example of cherry-picking data. What is the trend 3-lines below that. I see -0.336 !
Also on that link, look at the colors of the globes above and you'll see that for every area slightly warmer there are as many areas with temperature decreases.
Loved the comment :
" And Jenny Evans, of pressure group Plane Stupid, said: “This horrifies me. It is another example of how rich people exploit and pollute the planet because of their money, " Uh Jenny, because they can? Anyway, whats $47,000 for an oil change anyway .Surely one wouldn't expect him to get down beneath the Lam in his nice pressed white robes with his fram filter and big bottle of synthetic and risk getting a stain. We have made them very rich and recently rich to the extremes. Let the silliness continue. On a separate topic, hopefully no more death threats ( barked into the phone? ) against the ex queen of mean's small dog terrible.
1 ANNUALLY RENEWABLE - Bamboo is the fastest growing, most versatile woody plant in the world. It can grow up to a whole foot a day!
2 REVERSES GLOBAL WARMING - Incredible and true, bamboo consumes carbon dioxide FOUR times faster than any other plant! Bamboo plantations are large factories for photosynthesis which reduces greenhouse gases. Bamboo plants absorb about 5 times the amount of carbon dioxide (a primary greenhouse gas) and produces about 35% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees.
3 PLENTIFUL: There are over 1500 species of bamboo in the world.
4 PROVIDES SAFE HOUSING - Over 1 billion people in the world live in bamboo houses. In most cases, bamboo buildings have proven to be earthquake proof.
5 HARDY: Bamboo was the first plant life to return after the atomic bombings in Japan.
6 NUTRITION FOR HUMANS AND ANIMALS - Bamboo contains Germanium which is known to reverse the aging process in cells.
7 DID YOU KNOW.. Thomas Edison used bamboo filaments in his first light bulbs, and one of those bulbs is STILL burning today at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.
http://bamboopower.com/
There are some strange people in the GW religion. Nice enough guy as PHDs go.
Does this help the cause to have sheiks flying their cars to Europe for service?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Another is we vilify the SO CALLED oil rich countries, when we have/own/ have rights to EXPONENTIALLY greater reserves than even the most "filthy rich" oil rich countries!!!
It gets back to whether you believe in excess of any kind. That PHD with his bamboo covered Van. He could have covered a Fit and wasted less bamboo. One persons idea of excess is another's idea of personal need. Maybe the rich Arab did not trust his fellow Arabs to service his $300,000 car. Maybe he was flying his 100 Wives to go shopping in London and just brought the car along to be serviced. What ever happened a lot of people benefited financially from his display of extravagance. At least he is spending some of that money we keep sending over. Better than buying rocket launchers.
LAWMAKERS SQUABBLE OVER LEGISLATION, PUTTING PROJECTS 'ON HOLD'
By Frank Davies
Mercury News Washington Bureau
Article Launched: 08/01/2008 01:34:33 AM PDT
link title
So what do you think will happen IF President Obama joined the par TAY?
8. Makes a darn nice deterrent to evil doers when soaked in brine water and vigorously applied to the rear end. We could use some of that when we catch a politician with his hand in the cookie jar.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Of course, I do. But globally rejecting GW and saying is not happening at all (or attributing to natural causes) is another theory in itself, isn't it ? Never mind if we disagree, I agree to support what I say with facts.
>First, as I pointed out, the error bars are too large to be meaningful.
Well, the data seemed meaningful when you first posted the link (from a "serious and reputable" source-post 3433) showing that lower troposphere temps were remaining pretty constant.
Now that the corrected data is showing a warming trend, the uncertainty suddenly becomes so great that it is not meaningful any more?
>Trying to have it both ways is a bit disingenuous wouldn't you say?
I fully agree. Looks like I have just seen it somewhere...
Anyway, I am OK to keep with ground temperatures. These are the ones which impact us the most.
Do we agree at least that there is a current GW trend ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
>GW proponents routinely and casually dismiss data that does not comport with their world view.
Frankly, I rather see it the other way around. I see many skeptics clinging on whatever remaining fact that could support their view, trying to exaggerate its impact on the debate.
I agree that it is bad science and that it should not be the basis of public policy.
Its good to see we have the same thinking patterns even though our views differ.
>First, the long term historical record (millions of years) clearly shows that global warming precedes increased CO2 concentrations.
I am not sure if it isn't the other way around, at least for the last 300.000 years.
extract from the Vostok ice core :
Interestingly, at least during certain deglaciation periods, the trace gas increase precedes the onset of most melting of the northern ice sheets by several thousand years.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html
Even if the opposite was true, the correlation is still compelling. That the GW was initiated by another phenomenon is possible. However, once CO2 is increasing, the temperatures increase is sustained.
Together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, these (C02 and CH4) greenhouse gases have amplified the initial orbital forcing, and they account for about half of the glacial-interglacial climate changes (same source)
>GW theory attempts to reverse causality in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That's a bold statement. I am rather overwhelmed by the lack of evidence for this view, which I certainly respect because it is yours
> Earth's core released huge amounts of CO2 [FAR greater than levels today]
Must have been more than 400000 years ago because CO2 level never peaked above 300 ppm as revealed by ice core extracts, except for the last 40 years of course.
>you must demonstrate clearly that global climate today differs in some significant way from the natural variability over the entire history of Earth's climate
You know that it is perfectly impossible, while demonstrating the opposite is impossible too. I understand why you prefer to keep the burden of the proof for me.
I propose to stick with some data of the industrial era, where we have extensive documentation and records and a better understanding about the factors influencing climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Basically, the main sources of radiation forcing are identified and can be quantified today.
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/claussenmartin/publications/bauer_al_10- 00_grl_03.pdf
>none of the GW models predicted the last decade of flat or falling "global temperatures
Of course, they failed to predict something that did not happen. Unless you are telling me the Nasa site i just put a link for has a pro GW agenda.
>CO2 is a minor "greenhouse gas"
in comparison to CH4 for instance, yes it is. But its concentration is much higher,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm
So it is the first man-made contributor, followed by CH4
It is true that the contribution of increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to GW deserves further studies. There are conflicting views on whether the water vapor will act as a temp booster
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
or if after all will act as a brake.
>you're playing the "consensus card" again
As much as you do when you say: ".... in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary"
If I really wanted to play consensus , I would post this link suggesting that quite a few scientific bodies have endorsed the GW as a man-made phenomenon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
There is maybe a 10 to 1 ratio of scientists defending GW
>we expect (naturally) warming trends and fluctuations
If we go back to millions of year ago climate, where mankind was not existing yet, i strongly doubt the ability for earth to sustain life for 8 billion people. This is pretty much like navigating in uncharted waters.
>That is precisely where GW theory predicts (substantial) warming of the troposphere
I was under the impression of the opposite. because I kindly admit I am not competent enough, I prefer to keep with global figures.
>Well, obviously, warming of the troposphere causes surface cooling!
Of course, this is ridiculous.
What is not clear to me is where I am mistaken or misleading enough to let you believe I have some stakes in the GW industry.
I put some links supporting my views and I try to remain factual. I do not wish to discuss people but more to discuss ideas.
>"sky is falling gloom and doom" scenario that we see here so often.
I never said supported catastrophic scenarii à la "the day after" or such. But I believe we are going to face difficult times. I will be glad to be mistaken.
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_weighting_functions
I picked the TLT which is the Lower troposphere temperature we were talking about.
Naturally the closer we go to the stratosphere, the colder the temperature trend because of ozone depletion :sick: .
if the stratospheric temps could increase again, this would be a great piece of news.
My only question, will the taxpayers have to pay for her superhero costume? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I think it is quite obvious that most of the government agencies are pro man made GW. Without MM GW or CC there would be no interest in further funding their research. I think this whole latest surge in posting was started by tidester posting an article by a NASA scientist that quit and took a job in a University because he was told what he could and could not say by the Clinton administration about GW.
I find it most interesting that so many people cannot see that the whole of GW theory is motivated by PURE GREED. With just a smattering of scientific evidence thrown in to make it look legitimate to the untrained masses.
Why would anyone think that the GW theorists were anymore or less motivated by greed than the deniers that work for the oil companies. Is there something pure or honest about government sponsored studies? If there is anything pure and honest about any World Government, I missed it.
Why do you believe one scientist over another? I have the most faith in John Coleman our local weather man. He has the credentials in the Fact that he started the very prestigious "Weather Channel". It was hijacked and taken over by whacked out GW people and no longer is considered worth watching. John Coleman has written a lot about climate change. And believes MM CC is motivated by greed. You know why I believe him over other scientists? He is right about the weather here in San Diego more often than any of the other meteorologists.
When you find a scientist that is NOT funded by an entity with ulterior motives you let me know.
The Republicans made some real good ground allowing the gallery to get involved in the process after the Democrats bailed out. It may backfire on her this November.
03 August 2008 By Stephen Price
The Virgin boss’s much trumpeted pledge of €1.9bn to tackle global warming is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
In September 2006, Virgin boss Richard Branson pledged €1.9 billion towards tackling global warming. For the next ten years, he announced, the profits from his aviation and rail businesses would go towards combating the biggest, most complex problem that mankind has ever faced.
The promise earned Branson headlines around the world. Media outlets carried photos of him, Bill Clinton and Al Gore at a Clinton Global Initiative press conference in New York. Adults, Branson solemnly told the assembled media, had a duty to pass a ‘‘pristine’’ planet on to the next generation. Politicians and campaigners were effusive in their praise for his imagination and generosity.
However, a look at the not-very-small print revealed that this amazing gesture would not be a matter of taking the profits from Branson’s polluting industries and using them to protect vast tracts of the Amazon.
In fact, the money would go to a new division of the Virgin conglomerate, called Virgin Fuel. Branson was simply gearing himself up to make more money. But as always, the PR spin was that he’d be doing the rest of us a favour in the process.
Branson has built an empire on this perception. (read more)
Since Virgin Fuel was set up in 2006, the tide has very much turned against bio-fuels with the realisation that far too much agricultural land could be eaten up by fuel crops. Palm oil, one of the major biofuels, is contributing to global warming as virgin (no pun intended) rainforests in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia are decimated to make way for palm plantations.
Still, in February of this year Branson was on the tarmac toying with a coconut for the inevitable photocall when one of his 747s flew - empty- from London to Amsterdam on a 20 per cent bio-fuel mixture. Two years on from his ‘‘profits’’ gesture, slightly wiser green campaigners dismissed the flight as a stunt.
But onwards and upwards. While Branson has done little to save the planet and a hell of a lot to pollute it, he can arrange for you to look down upon it. This week he unveiled an aircraft for flying tourists into space. Virgin Galactic (yes, space can be branded too) has built a four-engine, twin-fuselage jet that will carrya spaceship with six passengers up to 50,000 feet to release it for sub-orbital flight.
Spraying huge amounts of jet fuel into the atmosphere, purely to allow rich people to look down on an overheating planet, is about as stupid and hypocritical as it gets. Still, I’m sure that the earth from space is a beautiful sight – enjoy it while it lasts.
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=AGENDA-qqqs=agenda-qqqid=34805- - -qqqx=1.asp
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The ground is so hot in one part of Southern California it can melt the shoes right off your feet.
An unexplained "thermal anomaly" caused a patch of land in Ventura County to reach a temperature of over 800 degrees on Friday, baffling experts who have been monitoring the area for weeks.
The anomaly was discovered after the land got so hot, it started a brush fire and burned three acres last month. Firefighters were brought to the scene after reports of a blaze, but by the time they arrived only smoldering dirt and brush remained.
Firefighters took no chances with the smoking ground, clearing brush near the fumes and cutting a fire line around the area to prevent a blaze from igniting.
"We are a little perplexed at this point, to tell you the truth," the Ventura County Star quoted geologist David Panaro as saying. "This is not your usual geological detective story."
The area has recorded high temperatures at least five times since 1987, Allen King, a retired geologist with the U.S. Forest Service told the newspaper.
Officials who are familiar with the patch of land, which is near the large Sespe Oil Field, have come up with a few theories as to why the ground soared to 812 degrees fahrenheit on August 1.
One theory is that natural hydrocarbons, such as oil or gas, are burning deep in the earth and seeping out through cracks in the area, causing the surface to rapidly heat and generate smoke.
According to the Star, Allen King, a former geologist with the U.S. Forest Service recently stuck a thermometer into the ground and got a reading of 550 degrees — so hot that it melted the glue holding the sole of his boots together.
"After that we were more cautious about standing in one place for too long," he said.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/aug/06/a-burning-question-scientists-- puzzle-over-source/
Don't just stand there with your shoes melting. Start drilling!
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Weirdest thing I have seen was an operating oil rig in a CA city's MacDonald's parking lot !!! (right next to the refuse enclosure) I had fries with the Mac Morning breakfast. :shades:
Despite "oil" being a fungible and WORLD WIDE commodity, etc., etc., yada yada... it makes all the sense in the world to meet our oil needs domestically, even as we forget that we (USA) have more energy than almost all the known oil fields in the world !!!!
As for the USA's untapped domestic energy reserves; I sometimes think - in my more cynical moments - that you guys are just using up everyone else's reserves before tapping your own. Smart move, or...................
IF the US dollar continues its decline and the oil shieks, world banks etc decide to mark the price of a barrel of oil to a so called "higher value" currency, (i.e., Euro) THEN all that would be needed (at that future time) to reverse the flow of the balance of trade would be to tap into the "real wealth" of American lands and start up the (Lawrence Welk -bubble machine) the oil products export routine, paid for THEN in "higher value" currency, i.e., by that time, aka Euro's. Till then, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi annually, annually, biannually crisis' will be de rigor !
There is truly NO shortage of energy!!!!
While I love boating and I don't have a problem with anyone buying and using a houseboat. The fact that the guy who built Al's houseboat claims it will use on a 1-2 gallons of bio-diesel/hr is laughable. Al is such a tool. Actually he has my respect. Blabbing the GW B.S. telling us all to change our ways while that jackass fly's around in his Gulf Stream, drives around with a fleet of vehicles, uses more electricity from the grid in his homes in month than most of us use in a year, then buys a 100' houseboat. Man is he really living green. You bet green as in $$$. And the greenies just eat his BS.
Maybe he'll have room for all them when the oceans rise on B.S. One.
There is no question that the alarmism and doomsday scenarios spread by Al Gore have been very, very beneficial to him personally and professionally.
But the question persists as to whether he actually buys into what he is selling. His own behavior clearly indicates that he doesn’t believe we are at a “tipping point” of worldwide environmental destruction. While he preaches that the rest of us must dramatically change our lifestyles and lower our standards of living to “save the planet” he lives by another set of rules himself.
It happens in the air, where he jets about in private planes that consume massive amounts of energy to spread his message of “conservation.”
His hypocrisy is revealed on land, where he travels in fleets of limos and SUVs to deliver speeches about the dire consequences of ignoring “man-made global warming” — and leaves the cars running throughout his entire speech in order to ensure that they will be nice and cool when he exits the building and returns to his gas-guzzling vehicles.
Just one of the "Do as I say, Not as I do" elitist trying to tell the rest of US how to live.
It ain't bio-diesel or ethanol. Also, claiming a 100 ft houseboat, even diesel powered, will burn only 1-2 gallons of fuel/hr at cruising speed is pure BS.
This from a guy who has never owned a car, does not have a Driving Licence and never has had one. He's never, ever, bought a litre of fuel. Hypocrisy.
Much as I dislike Gore, at least he's out in the world making money, (albeit on a totally false premise), unlike one G Brown who is a full-time politico or Leach as we think of them.
O.K. rant over. Sorry.
We have plenty of G Browns in our country as well. Our last president never had a real job. Always a politician. He and his wife have made over $122 million in the last 7 years. Of course Gore made $100 million in that same time since leaving office. Then you have our latest politico that screams how bad America is while he and his wife made $4 million last year.
I thought your last Prime Minister was OK. Though I am surprised you have not had a revolution over the horrible taxes you pay.
Some of the Carbon crap they are proposing in the UK is totally out in LEFT field. Good luck, you are going to need it to survive some of the issues facing the UK.
Rant all you like. It is good getting a perspective from across the pond. At least till it rises and we are all under water...
According to some historychannel.com programs, Atlantis is underwater due to some "misuse" of their societal powers.
Makes one want to move to Wyoming/Utah etc to be right in the smack dab middle of energy over abundance !!! :shades: