Video: Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

Environment • Views: 4,637

This is a clear and well-designed presentation on the current state of the scientific debate on climate change, giving equal time to skeptics’ ideas. Some of the popular politically driven distortions are dealt with; for example, in the third video he takes Penn and Teller to task for spreading the myth that climate scientists previously believed the Earth was entering an Ice Age.

(There are four videos in the playlist below, intended to be watched in sequence.)

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

654 comments
1 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:13:01pm

Hmm..
Didnt scientific American or Life magazine (or some very poplualr mag) have a whole spread 30 years ago about the coming ice age?...I would have to look that up again.

2 lawhawk  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:15:02pm

re: #1 danrudy

Newsweek.

3 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:15:37pm

AGW thread! Yummy.

4 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:17:25pm

He may have taken Penn and Teller to task, but I remember the mainstream media showing the videos of the glaciers that were ADVANCING rapidly and the fears of crop failure and freezing conditions. Now someone will probably tell me that is really not what I saw or what they said. That is why I don't believe the global warming alarmists.

5 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:19:39pm

re: #2 lawhawk

Newsweek.

Thank you...And there were many other mags I believe reporting on the Global cooling bandwagon who were quoting the leading scientists of the day.

SO were Penn and Teller perpetuating a myth?
Love their "Bullsh#t" show

6 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:19:43pm

What you saw was media alarmism, not science based prediction. This has been shown in LGF threads recently.

7 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:20:47pm

As I've said many times, it's not the science I am skeptical of, it's the political conclusions. Such as:

“Resolved” in L’Aquila was nothing less than a blueprint for a new world society.

Based, of course, on reductions in CO2 as the global imperative by which all else is to be measured. Including a global per capita carbon budget to be determined and enforced by some central authority.

Eco-fascism: the totalitarianism of the future.

8 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:21:08pm

Magazines and TV shows have very little relationship to any kind of science. There may have been MSM stories, but it's a myth that any significant number of reputable scientists believed we were entering an Ice Age.

9 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:22:59pm

The Myth of 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
From the abstract:

A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.
10 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:24:24pm

re: #8 Charles

Magazines and TV shows have very little relationship to any kind of science. There may have been MSM stories, but it's a myth that any significant number of reputable scientists believed we were entering an Ice Age.

True, but it must be noted that MSM stories play a much larger part in any public debate than any science-on-point does. I know that's sick, but its true.

11 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:24:30pm

re: #8 Charles

Magazines and TV shows have very little relationship to any kind of science. There may have been MSM stories, but it's a myth that any significant number of reputable scientists believed we were entering an Ice Age.

Here's more on how Newsweek and the MSM got the story wrong in the 70's.

Newsweek.

12 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:24:33pm

re: #7 Cato the Elder

As I've said many times, it's not the science I am skeptical of, it's the political conclusions. Such as:


Based, of course, on reductions in CO2 as the global imperative by which all else is to be measured. Including a global per capita carbon budget to be determined and enforced by some central authority.

Eco-fascism: the totalitarianism of the future.

As long as Americans foot the bill, the world doesn't really care.

13 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:24:51pm

re: #8 Charles

Magazines and TV shows have very little relationship to any kind of science. There may have been MSM stories, but it's a myth that any significant number of reputable scientists believed we were entering an Ice Age.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.


Am just quoting the Newsweek article linked in #2 above. I don't pretend to know if these guys were "mainstream" back then but the presented credentials by Newsweek seem to suggest they were mainstream (or at least as mainstream as those being quoted today)

14 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:25:42pm

re: #13 danrudy

Am just quoting the Newsweek article linked in #2 above. I don't pretend to know if these guys were "mainstream" back then but the presented credentials by Newsweek seem to suggest they were mainstream (or at least as mainstream as those being quoted today)

Now you know.

15 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:25:57pm

re: #12 Cannadian Club Akbar

As long as Americans foot the bill, the world doesn't really care.

I dunno. Wait till Euros get their annual "carbon budgets" and find that they're 5% of what they currently consume in a month.

16 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:26:11pm

re: #8 Charles

Isn't the exact same statement true about global warming now? The same magazines and the same MSM news programs are to some extent pushing the global warming beliefs. What is the difference?

17 Gus  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:26:56pm

re: #1 danrudy

Hmm..
Didnt scientific American or Life magazine (or some very poplualr mag) have a whole spread 30 years ago about the coming ice age?...I would have to look that up again.

FWIW:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

And:

1975 Newsweek article

While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine.[22] Titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."')

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

18 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:27:21pm

Uh - I suggest watching the videos before bringing up long-debunked points that he deals with very thoroughly...

19 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:27:26pm

re: #16 retief_99

Isn't the exact same statement true about global warming now? The same magazines and the same MSM news programs are to some extent pushing the global warming beliefs. What is the difference?

Some of those are going well overboard for a nice panic-inducing screaming headline. They prefer the controversy. They do a disservice to the science.

20 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:28:23pm

re: #8 Charles

Magazines and TV shows have very little relationship to any kind of science. There may have been MSM stories, but it's a myth that any significant number of reputable scientists believed we were entering an Ice Age.

You know what is funny? MSNBC web site is borderline cred...But their science links are first rate..I think Boyles is first rate straight up...Great science writer..

21 Last Mohican  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:28:37pm
"This video is about science, and the debate between climate scientists."

Sounds like a bunch of flagrant Scientism to me!

Did you know there's such a term as "Scientism"? I discovered it on the ol' Number Two blog recently. Apparently, it's a derogatory term that you apply to someone who believes in science. For example, "You Darwinists' minds are corrupted by Scientism!"

22 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:30:40pm

re: #16 retief_99

Isn't the exact same statement true about global warming now? The same magazines and the same MSM news programs are to some extent pushing the global warming beliefs. What is the difference?

The difference now is that they are reporting the real science, not journalistic speculation. NASA, NOAA, the EPA, and with very few exceptions, the worlds climate scientists are in agreement about climate change.

23 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:32:23pm

I'm interested in knowing whether anyone here things the fantasized solution of a global per capita carbon budget can be implemented without fascism.

24 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:33:23pm

re: #23 Cato the Elder

I'm interested in knowing whether anyone here things the fantasized solution of a global per capita carbon budget can be implemented without fascism.

That sounds like an interesting academic exercise, but nothing realistic or desirable as a policy

25 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:34:11pm

re: #24 Coracle

That sounds like an interesting academic exercise, but nothing realistic or desirable as a policy

It will be proposed as part of the Copenhagen negotiations.

26 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:34:12pm

re: #23 Cato the Elder

I'm interested in knowing whether anyone here things the fantasized solution of a global per capita carbon budget can be implemented without fascism.

PETA has a solution..You aren't going to like it...
*wink*

27 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:35:00pm

re: #26 HoosierHoops

PETA has a solution..You aren't going to like it...
*wink*

I'm pretty sure even the animals wouldn't like it. Knowing PETA.

28 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:35:09pm

re: #25 Cato the Elder

It will be proposed as part of the Copenhagen negotiations.

It will lose, or Copenhagen will lose any chance at credibility.

29 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:35:35pm

re: #22 avanti

The difference now is that they are reporting the real science, not journalistic speculation. NASA, NOAA, the EPA, and with very few exceptions, the worlds climate scientists are in agreement about climate change.


with very few exceptions?

30 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:36:38pm

re: #27 Cato the Elder

I'm pretty sure even the animals wouldn't like it. Knowing PETA.

You know that whole Congress critters thing?
PETA is dead serious...

31 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:37:15pm

re: #30 HoosierHoops

You know that whole Congress critters thing?
PETA is dead serious...

What are you referring to?

32 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:37:44pm

re: #30 HoosierHoops

You know that whole Congress critters thing?
PETA is dead serious...

You mean that they need to be protected as an endangered species?

33 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:37:59pm

I don't have time to watch all the videos.

Please let me know if they address how the last decade's lack of warming fits in with the 'hockey stick' graph.

34 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:38:37pm

Why would anyone deny either warming or cooling? There's ample evidence to show these phenomena have happened on a cyclic basis.

I DO have a problem with the concept of a specific species having a material, worldwide effect in the case of warming. To me, it posits arrogance on a stupefying scale.
More practically, adapting to the particular and surviving is more logical, imho.

35 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:38:44pm

re: #32 Cato the Elder

You mean that they need to be protected as an endangered species?

Well, the Dems will be an endangered species come next fall.

36 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:38:46pm

re: #33 Van Helsing

I don't have time to watch all the videos.

Please let me know if they address how the last decade's lack of warming fits in with the 'hockey stick' graph.

It doesn't, because the last decades "lack of warming" isn't.

37 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:39:02pm

re: #31 Dark_Falcon

What are you referring to?

Just playing with Cato the Elder...
Hope you are well tonight

38 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:39:50pm

re: #22 avanti

The difference now is that they are reporting the real science, not journalistic speculation. NASA, NOAA, the EPA, and with very few exceptions, the worlds climate scientists are in agreement about climate change.

You're kidding us, right? The TIME article re: Global COOLING circa 1874 cited SCIENTISTS, not JOURNALISTS

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

[Link: www.time.com...]

39 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:41:12pm

re: #38 sattv4u2

You're kidding us, right? The TIME article re: Global COOLING circa 1874 1974 cited SCIENTISTS, not JOURNALISTS

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

[Link: www.time.com...]

1974 ,,, not 1874 ,,, PIMF

40 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:41:44pm

re: #38 sattv4u2

Time is not a science journal, and was part of the media frenzy genned up without science support.

41 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:42:29pm

From the piece I am currently translating (a serious proposal):

The wealthy North may not continue as usual, the threshold states must abandon the old industrial paths immediately, the rest of the world may not even set out upon them.

Can you say "no more development for you"?

42 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:43:38pm

re: #37 HoosierHoops

Just playing with Cato the Elder...
Hope you are well tonight

I am indeed well. Today is my day off.

43 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:43:56pm

"No juice for you!"

44 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:44:27pm

re: #40 Coracle

Time is not a science journal, and was part of the media frenzy genned up without science support.

I see ,,, so because it's not a SCIENCE JOURNAL we can discount the work of the SCIENTISTS they cite?

Guess I can toss the any article written aside for any news about HEALTH CARE issues unless it's a MEDICAL JOURNAL, even if the authors are doctors

45 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:44:29pm

re: #41 Cato the Elder

From the piece I am currently translating (a serious proposal):

Can you say "no more development for you"?

Yes, I can say that.. provided I use my Soup Nazi voice when I do it. :)

46 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:44:45pm

re: #40 Coracle

Time is not a science journal, and was part of the media frenzy genned up without science support.

Good thing there's no media frenzy this time around.

47 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:45:10pm

re: #42 Dark_Falcon

Heh.

Retirement means it's ALWAYS a day off.

48 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:45:30pm

Partial repost:

The deal with AGW on a political front is that while the left is proposing stuff that will not work like cap and trade, and the problem grows, and the right refuses to see that there even is a problem and takes itself completely out of sane discussion.

AGW is not an abstruse discussion about academic issues. It is very much the most important challenge facing our civilization today. It will, it really will, drastically affect the life and well being of all of our children.

It is more important than any other issue because the consequence to civilization for ignoring it, is the collapse of civilization. Yet, while we as a society, piddle and twiddle over it, very little substantive gets done.

So the reason I write here so much about it is in the hopes that more people get real about it. The moonbats do not need to understand that there is a problem. They need to be told to come up with better solutions. The people on the right who actually know something about economics, are thinking more about short term profits then they are about long term consequences and thus feel it is better to ignore the situation all together.

A much better situation would be massive, well thought out, scientifically based agitation for real solutions, like switching to nuclear, supplementing with solar and wind, switching to electric vehicles and not buying stuff from China and India until they get more green.

However, few on the right talk about that. Many would rather pretend that this is a liberal conspiracy and ignore it. Too many even see it as a clever act of defiance to even consider doing basic things like getting better light bulbs.

49 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:45:34pm

re: #41 Cato the Elder

From the piece I am currently translating (a serious proposal):

Can you say "no more development for you"?

Yeah. That'll work. I can see handing/offering/cajoling the developing world a new path, assuming we can create one. But just saying "no" sounds like a declaration of industrial war against the developing world.

50 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:46:01pm

re: #46 Van Helsing

Good thing there's no media frenzy this time around.

Nope...No MSM Hysteria this time around.

/

51 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:46:10pm

Can I just drink my bottled water delivered to my local store by a diesel truck?

52 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:47:22pm

re: #43 Cato the Elder

"No juice for you!"

You try to stop me from juice in the morning we are going round and round in the Kitchen with really big knives..
/I'm a juicer Cato!

53 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:47:55pm

re: #44 sattv4u2

I see ,,, so because it's not a SCIENCE JOURNAL we can discount the work of the SCIENTISTS they cite?

When the media takes the work of scientists and misinterprets it, the media needs to be discounted.

From New Scientist

When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage. That is where US Senator James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to support his argument in a Senate floor speech in 2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: "The Cooling World" (Gwynne 1975).

Or possibly, as Andrew Revkin of the New York Times suggests, "the tyranny of the news peg". News reporters have to hang their stories on a recent events, and in the 1970s the cold weather was a convenient peg.

Numerous studies have since shown that the cooling trend was the result of fine aerosol pollution, which reflected solar radiation back out into space (also known as "global dimming"). Clean air policies in the 90s in Europe, the US and the former Soviet Union resolved the problem - although it is again rearing its ugly head in China, India and other emerging economies.

Seeral links in the quoted text.

54 Danny  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:48:10pm

Saw Al Gore and almost stopped the vid. Glad I kept watching.

55 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:48:34pm

re: #50 Greengolem64

Nope...No MSM Hysteria this time around.

/

Media frenzy does a disservice to the science.

56 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:50:43pm

re: #22 avanti

I believe that there is enough evidence of faulty science and outright deception to be suspicious of what is being put forth by the global warming proponents. The famous hockey stick graph was proved mathematically faulty and admitted so by the scientists who devised it. The satellite monitoring the arctic ice pack has been malfunctioning for about four years providing readings that underestimated the ice pack by about 15%. Many of the thermometers that are read to provide data to climate researchers were found to be in non surveyed positions, within 20 feet of air conditioner exhausts, on the roofs of metal buildings, all these things contribute to the errors that cannot be removed from the predictions. The solar impact is completely ignored. I keep track of solar activity daily as it impacts my hobby. The current solar minimum where the sun is at it's quietest, has left solar scientists admitting they don't have a clue as to what is happening or what will happen next. Normally the solar minimum last on the average of 485 days, this solar minimum is currently 696 days in length, and shows no sign of beginning the climb in activity to solar maximum. This directly relates to energy output of the sun which although disregarded by most global warming proponents is the single most powerful influence on our climate. A few dozen scientists at the UN are driving a lot of the global warming hype, but recently a group of about 16000 scientists sent a letter to the UN telling them more research is needed before taking drastic steps to change the climate. Are all of those scientists kooks and crackpots? I just flat do not trust or believe the global warming hype.

57 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:50:53pm

re: #53 Coracle

When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change,

I see. So 30 years later, in retrospect, the 1970's was a "COOLING SCARE", ye today the "science is setteled" that it IS warming

See you in 30 years!

58 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:50:59pm

re: #55 Coracle

Tell it to Al Gore.

59 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:51:11pm

I have to wonder, in light of the current hysteria, what would be the solution if the purported problem were GLOBAL COOLING?

60 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:51:22pm

Good Evening Lizards. I hope everyone had a great weekend and are rejuvenated for the coming week.

61 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:51:38pm

re: #59 irongrampa

I have to wonder, in light of the current hysteria, what would be the solution if the purported problem were GLOBAL COOLING?

gov;t issued long undies for all

62 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:51:54pm

re: #53 Coracle

So we should re-increase aerosol pollution to combat anthropogenic global warming!

/Finally, a plan with some chance of international success!

/

63 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:51:59pm

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

We don't need new technology to combat AGW. What we need is a device that will stop political fools from acting like fools.

/mostly kidding

64 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:00pm

re: #59 irongrampa

I have to wonder, in light of the current hysteria, what would be the solution if the purported problem were GLOBAL COOLING?

Tax Americans.

65 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:03pm

re: #59 irongrampa

Exactly the same. Massive Government controls.
Probably just a coincidence.

66 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:21pm

re: #57 sattv4u2

When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change,

I see. So 30 years later, in retrospect, the 1970's was a "COOLING SCARE", ye today the "science is setteled" that it IS warming

See you in 30 years!

If that's how long it will take you to listen. Fine.

67 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:24pm

re: #53 Coracle

Wasn't Holdren quoted in some Time and Newsweek articles, too? I'm pretty sure I remember reading some Malthusian stuff from Holdren and Ehrlich in those publications.

And they were full of crap then, and I have no reason to think they're not full of crap now.

Damn shame Holdren is Obama's choice for science czar.

68 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:26pm

re: #59 irongrampa

I have to wonder, in light of the current hysteria, what would be the solution if the purported problem were GLOBAL COOLING?

More frequent meetings of the gasbags at the UN.

69 yochanan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:46pm

re: #8 Charles

but that is were the vast majority of people get there info

70 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:46pm

re: #57 sattv4u2

When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change,

I see. So 30 years later, in retrospect, the 1970's was a "COOLING SCARE", ye today the "science is setteled" that it IS warming

See you in 30 years!

No, we will all be dead!

/

71 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:52:53pm

re: #58 Lincolntf

Tell it to Al Gore.

You go ahead. He doesn't speak for me.

72 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:53:26pm

re: #49 Coracle

Yeah. That'll work. I can see handing/offering/cajoling the developing world a new path, assuming we can create one. But just saying "no" sounds like a declaration of industrial war against the developing world.

Which is what I see looming on the horizon.

In addition to an internal war against the industrialized world itself.

73 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:53:40pm

re: #59 irongrampa

I have to wonder, in light of the current hysteria, what would be the solution if the purported problem were GLOBAL COOLING?

Blame it on Bush and tax the 'rich'.

74 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:53:46pm

re: #56 retief_99

I believe that there is enough evidence of faulty science and outright deception to be suspicious of what is being put forth by the global warming proponents. The famous hockey stick graph was proved mathematically faulty and admitted so by the scientists who devised it. The satellite monitoring the arctic ice pack has been malfunctioning for about four years providing readings that underestimated the ice pack by about 15%. Many of the thermometers that are read to provide data to climate researchers were found to be in non surveyed positions, within 20 feet of air conditioner exhausts, on the roofs of metal buildings, all these things contribute to the errors that cannot be removed from the predictions. The solar impact is completely ignored. I keep track of solar activity daily as it impacts my hobby. The current solar minimum where the sun is at it's quietest, has left solar scientists admitting they don't have a clue as to what is happening or what will happen next. Normally the solar minimum last on the average of 485 days, this solar minimum is currently 696 days in length, and shows no sign of beginning the climb in activity to solar maximum. This directly relates to energy output of the sun which although disregarded by most global warming proponents is the single most powerful influence on our climate. A few dozen scientists at the UN are driving a lot of the global warming hype, but recently a group of about 16000 scientists sent a letter to the UN telling them more research is needed before taking drastic steps to change the climate. Are all of those scientists kooks and crackpots? I just flat do not trust or believe the global warming hype.

All dealt with here in LGF in older threads. Recycled Manure.

75 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:54:33pm

re: #62 OldLineTexan

So we should re-increase aerosol pollution to combat anthropogenic global warming!

/Finally, a plan with some chance of international success!

/

It has been proposed. I'd rather not.

76 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:55:13pm

re: #75 Coracle

It has been proposed. I'd rather not.

You saw the sarc tag, right?

I enjoyed the reflective particle kooks, I really did.

77 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:55:29pm

re: #66 Coracle

If that's how long it will take you to listen. Fine.

I did listen. Al Gore has told us the science is settled! Thats the end of it, ALL HAIL THE GORACLE

78 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:55:33pm

re: #74 Coracle

And, I will keep repeating it.

79 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:55:44pm

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

Partial repost:

The deal with AGW on a political front is that while the left is proposing stuff that will not work like cap and trade, and the problem grows, and the right refuses to see that there even is a problem and takes itself completely out of sane discussion.

AGW is not an abstruse discussion about academic issues. It is very much the most important challenge facing our civilization today. It will, it really will, drastically affect the life and well being of all of our children.

It is more important than any other issue because the consequence to civilization for ignoring it, is the collapse of civilization. Yet, while we as a society, piddle and twiddle over it, very little substantive gets done.

So the reason I write here so much about it is in the hopes that more people get real about it. The moonbats do not need to understand that there is a problem. They need to be told to come up with better solutions. The people on the right who actually know something about economics, are thinking more about short term profits then they are about long term consequences and thus feel it is better to ignore the situation all together.

A much better situation would be massive, well thought out, scientifically based agitation for real solutions, like switching to nuclear, supplementing with solar and wind, switching to electric vehicles and not buying stuff from China and India until they get more green.

However, few on the right talk about that. Many would rather pretend that this is a liberal conspiracy and ignore it. Too many even see it as a clever act of defiance to even consider doing basic things like getting better light bulbs.

Ludwigvan...I hate to admit this but I DO agree with your second to last paragraph. Have NO problem with any of these concepts and we should absolutely be using Nuclear power...but recognize who is blocking the reinstitution of it's use.

My real problem is with the notion that this is AGW at all...GW or GCC yes.

Nice videos, but nothing new...a nice re-hash of arguments from both sides... he uses a lot of anecdotal examples...like the post 9/11 'cloud' discussion...people need to agree that the 'discussions' based on our insignificant data samples (30-40 years of satellite data, maybe 200 years of measurement data, etc..) are NOT going to prove or disprove AGW...as are the models.

So, lets get with Nuclear and some other alternative stuff...because it makes good sense...and stop trying to blame the Human race for natural phenomenon...

80 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:55:56pm

Didn't some scientist suggest we pollute the atmosphere to deflect the suns rays?

81 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:56:53pm

re: #77 sattv4u2

I did listen. Al Gore has told us the science is settled! Thats the end of it, ALL HAIL THE GORACLE

You don't have to listen to Gore. People here can read 1000+plus pages of health care legislation to pick it apart, but won't read a couple dozen 10 page papers that describe the science of AGW because they don't like one of the spokesmen?

82 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:57:12pm

re: #80 Cannadian Club Akbar

Didn't some scientist suggest we pollute the atmosphere to deflect the suns rays?

Michael Moore, but his suggestion was that we do it with a combination of his and cow flatulance!

83 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:57:15pm

re: #78 retief_99

And, I will keep repeating it.

Won't keep it from being manure, though.

84 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:57:57pm

re: #82 sattv4u2

Michael Moore, but his suggestion was that we do it with a combination of his and cow flatulance!

Yer stoopid. He ate the cows.
/

85 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:58:35pm

re: #81 Coracle

You don't have to listen to Gore. People here can read 1000+plus pages of health care legislation to pick it apart, but won't read a couple dozen 10 page papers that describe the science of AGW because they don't like one of the spokesmen?

And of course there are NO scientific papers that claim the opposite, right?

86 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:58:36pm

re: #29 danrudy

with very few exceptions?

Yes, a very tiny percentage of climate scientists are skeptics.

87 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:59:32pm

re: #85 sattv4u2

And of course there are NO scientific papers that claim the opposite, right?

Very few. But of course those are the right ones.
/

88 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 4:59:32pm

re: #78 retief_99

re: #83 Coracle

Stop it you two. I've had enough squabbling for one day. Dial down the insult levels.

89 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:00:28pm

Whatever happened to the ozone hole?
Ozone hole
That volcano created quite the blip.
I know, it's beside the point but I just got curious.

It was all the media rage back in the '80s.

90 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:00:35pm

OK, so again, some serious points.

It warms faster at the poles. This has been predicted. It is happening. That 7 degree stuff from IPCC is a global average, the poles will go if things do not change. Greenland is going as we speak and the Canadian and Siberian Tundra are not just going but dumping tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they melt.

If the poles go there will be flooding of most of the major coastal cities in the world.

Growing patterns will change. There will not be enough food.

There will also be a large number of people without clean water. This is reality.

Let me give you some links for things we are seeing now that match prediction:

[Link: www.agu.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.nature.com...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Now let me give you some links for what the predictions are:

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: www.pnas.org...]

91 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:00:59pm

re: #81 Coracle

But Al Gore was the priime driver of misinformation regarding the climate. You and I might know that he was just a convemient high-profile figurehead that the GW-activists recruited to spread their message, but not everybody does. Many still consider his film to be "Science" which is why it's shown in thousands of public schools around the country.

92 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:01:12pm

So we didn't actually read and hear what we read and heard thirty years ago?

I am so relieved.

93 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:01:27pm

re: #88 Dark_Falcon

I wasn't aware I was insulting anyone. I haven't called any names or said anything demaeaning about anyone, I just disagree.

94 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:01:46pm

re: #33 Van Helsing

I don't have time to watch all the videos.

Please let me know if they address how the last decade's lack of warming fits in with the 'hockey stick' graph.

There is not a real lack of warming, many years in this decade are among the top ten hottest of the century, It's true, not every year gets hotter, but the trend continues up.

95 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:02:01pm

re: #91 Lincolntf

But Al Gore was the priime driver of misinformation regarding the climate. You and I might know that he was just a convemient high-profile figurehead that the GW-activists recruited to spread their message, but not everybody does. Many still consider his film to be "Science" which is why it's shown in thousands of public schools around the country.

Dismiss the man, then, not the Science he was overzealous about.

96 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:02:28pm

re: #91 Lincolntf

But Al Gore was the priime driver of misinformation regarding the climate. You and I might know that he was just a convemient high-profile figurehead that (who stands to profit hugely from AGW) the GW-activists recruited to spread their message, but not everybody does. Many still consider his film to be "Science" which is why it's shown in thousands of public schools around the country.

It's important to follow the money.

97 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:02:40pm

re: #93 retief_99

That is the ancient Greek spelling.

98 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:03:49pm

Much of the skepticism has to do with degrees (no pun in tended) of change. The real problem, it seems, has to do with understanding the mechanism. The creator of the videos is the proponent of a particular theory concerning triggers -- and one that is not without it's strengths -- but as I understand it, the trigger problem is not very well understood. An alternative describes it in terms of albedo (reflectivity); higher water levels (darker earth) mean greater absorption of radiation, lower water levels (lighter earth) mean greater reflectivity and less absorption.

Regardless, the climate changes and does so for a multiplicity of reasons, the mechanics of which are understood but only to a point. And the degree of change according to the "consensus" view is not catastrophic by any stretch of the imagination.

99 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:04:48pm

re: #90 ludwigvanquixote

OK, so again, some serious points.

It warms faster at the poles. This has been predicted. It is happening. That 7 degree stuff from IPCC is a global average, the poles will go if things do not change. Greenland is going as we speak and the Canadian and Siberian Tundra are not just going but dumping tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they melt.

If the poles go there will be flooding of most of the major coastal cities in the world.

Growing patterns will change. There will not be enough food.

There will also be a large number of people without clean water. This is reality.

Let me give you some links for things we are seeing now that match prediction:

[Link: www.agu.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.nature.com...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Now let me give you some links for what the predictions are:

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: [Link: www.pnas.org......]]

When do you and your buddies predict this will happen. You can make it within the nearest 1000 years.

100 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:06:24pm

re: #99 Erik The Red

When do you and your buddies predict this will happen. You can make it within the nearest 1000 years.

Why don't you do some reading and make your own conclusion? Don't trust any expertise but your own if you wish. It's all there for you to look at.

101 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:07:06pm

re: #88 Dark_Falcon

re: #83 Coracle

Stop it you two. I've had enough squabbling for one day. Dial down the insult levels.

Where did I "insult" anyone?

102 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:07:07pm

re: #71 Coracle

You go ahead. He doesn't speak for me.

Well you know Coracle, some really do think that we are all in the employ of the vast Gorean conspiracy... I wonder if they would think that if they saw how giant academic paychecks really are.

In fact, I'd like to address that directly.

There is no real money to be made in science. Because of that you can automatically conclude that scientists are not in it for the money.

At the top end of the pay check scale, a Nobel Laureate might make about 120k that he or she supplements from consulting. That is about 1/10 of the salary of an NCAA1 basketball coach.

That is also the top top end after many years of making very little money.

A post Doc pays in the 40's and an assistant professorship in physics, at a top school pays around 70.

So all of you who are going on about following the money are full of crap.

103 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:07:22pm

re: #98 Lucius Septimius

Great post.

And again, adapting to the particular looks to be the practical solution, metaphorically speaking.

104 Pianobuff  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:07:31pm

re: #90 ludwigvanquixote

OK, so again, some serious points.

It warms faster at the poles. This has been predicted. It is happening. That 7 degree stuff from IPCC is a global average, the poles will go if things do not change. Greenland is going as we speak and the Canadian and Siberian Tundra are not just going but dumping tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they melt.

If the poles go there will be flooding of most of the major coastal cities in the world.

Growing patterns will change. There will not be enough food.

There will also be a large number of people without clean water. This is reality.

Let me give you some links for things we are seeing now that match prediction:

[Link: www.agu.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.nature.com...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Now let me give you some links for what the predictions are:

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: www.pnas.org...]

Last link done be broken.

105 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:08:29pm

re: #90 ludwigvanquixote

OK, so again, some serious points.

It warms faster at the poles. This has been predicted. It is happening. That 7 degree stuff from IPCC is a global average, the poles will go if things do not change. Greenland is going as we speak and the Canadian and Siberian Tundra are not just going but dumping tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they melt.

If the poles go there will be flooding of most of the major coastal cities in the world.

Growing patterns will change. There will not be enough food.

There will also be a large number of people without clean water. This is reality.

Let me give you some links for things we are seeing now that match prediction:

[Link: www.agu.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.nature.com...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Now let me give you some links for what the predictions are:

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: www.pnas.org...]

Ensuring abundant, affordable energy will go a long way to minimizing those outcomes.

That's guaranteed, unlike some of the 'solutions' to address AGW.
The good thing is energy will work even if it is just normal climate change.

106 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:09:26pm

re: #105 Van Helsing

Ensuring abundant, affordable energy will go a long way to minimizing those outcomes.

That's guaranteed, unlike some of the 'solutions' to address AGW.
The good thing is energy will work even if it is just normal climate change.

That would be a smart move no matter what.
Solar+wind+bio+nuke.

107 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:09:42pm

re: #101 sattv4u2

Where did I "insult" anyone?

Your didn't but Coracle called Retief's arguments "manure" and I thought that insulting. I wanted to calm things down before Charles started deleting comments.

108 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:09:50pm

re: #99 Erik The Red

When do you and your buddies predict this will happen. You can make it within the nearest 1000 years.

In 100-150 years there will be a greater than 1 meter rise in ocean level. If you look at the links from Princeton, you can look at the graphs and see when things are predicted for yourself. If Princeton is insufficient I can get links from MIT, ANL and UCSD as well.

Please read them, but the information is there.

109 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:10:15pm

re: #104 Pianobuff

Last link done be broken.

crap - will go and fix.

110 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:10:18pm

re: #102 ludwigvanquixote

Well you know Coracle, some really do think that we are all in the employ of the vast Gorean conspiracy... I wonder if they would think that if they saw how giant academic paychecks really are.

More relevant to see what the distribution of research grants is between AGW supporters and those who do not support the 'consensus'.

111 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:10:28pm

re: #100 Coracle

Why don't you do some reading and make your own conclusion? Don't trust any expertise but your own if you wish. It's all there for you to look at.

I am not a scientist. ludwigvanquixote professes to be one. And never lets us forget it. I want to know what his time frame for End of Days is.

112 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:11:33pm

re: #102 ludwigvanquixote

Well you know Coracle, some really do think that we are all in the employ of the vast Gorean conspiracy... I wonder if they would think that if they saw how giant academic paychecks really are.

In fact, I'd like to address that directly.

There is no real money to be made in science. Because of that you can automatically conclude that scientists are not in it for the money.

At the top end of the pay check scale, a Nobel Laureate might make about 120k that he or she supplements from consulting. That is about 1/10 of the salary of an NCAA1 basketball coach.

That is also the top top end after many years of making very little money.

A post Doc pays in the 40's and an assistant professorship in physics, at a top school pays around 70.

So all of you who are going on about following the money are full of crap.

True enough...but watch the Carbon Credit traders...I have a friend working at GS who is a senior partner and there is a LOT of money to be made with carbon trading...LOTS OF MONEY...for what? Carbon Credits?!?! Nothing like making money off of an intangible like Carbon Credits...I'm waiting to get in on the ground floor...not worried about the water rising though... :)

113 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:11:36pm

re: #107 Dark_Falcon

Your didn't but Coracle called Retief's arguments "manure" and I thought that insulting. I wanted to calm things down before Charles started deleting comments.

I appreciate that. Thought there for a moment my Sicilian came out and I didn't realize it

114 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:11:48pm

re: #106 Coracle

That would be a smart move no matter what.
Solar+wind+bio+nuke.

Agreed. The key is getting the politics enough out of the way to allow for realistic energy needs to be met. Nuclear power is essential to meeting our energy needs.

115 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:13:01pm

re: #111 Erik The Red

I am not a scientist. ludwigvanquixote professes to be one. And never lets us forget it. I want to know what his time frame for End of Days is.

You don't need to be a scientist to read relevant articles. Some of the details may not be as understandable, but Science and Nature articles in particular are geared to the non-specialist.

116 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:13:03pm

I have a question about the video after watching much of it.

who produced this ?
I really do not wish to take as fact anything the gentleman says (although he presents it nicely with a cool accent), unless I know who he is and what his credentials are.
All I know is this ...

I've been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology, but while working for a science magazine and several science programs I had to tackle a number of different fields, from quantum physics to microbiology.

While his scientific background may be fine it appears he is a member of the media and thus might be prone to have a certain "tilt".

While he may be a very fine impartial scientist dissecting the facts to get to the truth he might also me the equivalent of Michael Moore on health care with an agenda (although that is probably impossible).

Anyone know anything else?

117 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:13:21pm

re: #111 Erik The Red

I am not a scientist. ludwigvanquixote professes to be one. And never lets us forget it. I want to know what his time frame for End of Days is.

That is a bit hyperbolic, Erik. AGW will not cause humans to go extinct, but it might kill a lot of us and make life worse for the survivors.

118 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:13:30pm

Oh, yeah, this will work. A centrally planned per capita global emissions budget:

Its core idea: in the future, all states will be given a national per capita emissions budget that combines historical responsibility, the current productivity of the state in question and global precaution for the survival of humanity.

And unicorns.

119 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:13:49pm

re: #103 irongrampa


And again, adapting to the particular looks to be the practical solution, metaphorically speaking.

Well that's really the issue. Addressing the issue at a cosmic level is going to be problematic and draw (due) skepticism. Such approaches tend towards moralizing rather than genuine problem-solving. But there are issues worth considering, some of which have already been raised.

We should look to alternative energy sources because, over all, it's a good idea. And nothing should be off the table. But we have to make sure that we don't drive out the "good" in favor of "the better" when the better is not immediately practicable.

As to food, there are ways of increasing food supply and those need to be explored. Malthusian nightmares have proven wrong over and over again. And, in any event, where there are problems with food supply in the world it's usually politics, not absolute shortages, that are causing famines.

120 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:14:50pm

re: #112 Greengolem64

True enough...but watch the Carbon Credit traders...I have a friend working at GS who is a senior partner and there is a LOT of money to be made with carbon trading...LOTS OF MONEY...for what? Carbon Credits?!?! Nothing like making money off of an intangible like Carbon Credits...I'm waiting to get in on the ground floor...not worried about the water rising though... :)

Carbon credits are like Credit Default Swaps for the mathematically challenged.

121 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:15:02pm

Will this work? And if it does, who will bitch. I don't know so I ask.
[Link: lasers.llnl.gov...]

122 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:15:53pm

re: #118 Cato the Elder


And unicorns.

Whatcha got against unicorns? Next thing you'll tell me you didn't say "I believe in faeries" when Mary Martin said Tinkerbell was dying.

123 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:16:11pm

re: #121 Cannadian Club Akbar

Will this work? And if it does, who will bitch. I don't know so I ask.
[Link: lasers.llnl.gov...]

Dunno. Practical fusion has been 10 years away for 40-50 years.

124 transient  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:16:53pm

I don't have time at the moment to watch the video or read the thread, but fully intend to watch later. Consider this a drive-by post.

Thanks Charles for bringing this up, I would really welcome an informed discussion of climate change. At the moment I have not read enough on the subject, and I've been negligent because I really do want more information. At the moment I am reading Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded, which probably won't have a lot of supporters here but I think it's worth reading even if you don't believe in global warming, just for a more comprehensive perspective.

125 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:18:16pm

"Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”"

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

From the Science and Public Policy Institute: [pdf warning]

The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. [news article]

126 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:18:42pm

re: #123 Coracle

Dunno. Practical fusion has been 10 years away for 40-50 years.

NIF will be the first laser in which the energy released from the fusion fuel will exceed the laser energy used to produce the fusion reaction. Unlocking the stored energy of atomic nuclei will produce ten to 100 times the amount of energy required to initiate the self-sustaining fusion burn. Creating inertial confinement fusion and energy gain in the NIF target chamber will be a significant step toward making fusion energy viable in commercial power plants (see Inertial Fusion Energy). LLNL scientists also are exploring other approaches to developing ICF as a commercially viable energy source (see Fast Ignition).

127 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:19:32pm

re: #118 Cato the Elder

I've been trying to work on my cynical nature, but I do think a little skepticism and cynicism is called for re. the solutions we are being offered.

128 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:20:32pm

re: #117 Dark_Falcon

That is a bit hyperbolic, Erik. AGW will not cause humans to go extinct, but it might kill a lot of us and make life worse for the survivors.

Or better...who's to say? Seriously...it's all conjecture at this point. Conjecture and modeling.

I rather like Ludwigvan's suggestions on alternative energy sources...and THIS IS where we should be taking the discussion. That it is good for the planet is a side effect, but it is also good for US...regardless of the climate argument.

We need to get serious about getting off the OIL energy source and start with alternatives. My son is doing a science fair project this year on bio-diesel from algae...I'm looking forward to it. We may see the day where each individual home is capable of producing their own energy from such sources...talk about a truly distributed energy grid...

129 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:21:09pm

re: #119 Lucius Septimius

Alternate energy sources--wind, solar.etc-can only be adjuncts to say, nuclear-which I feel IS the way to go. As far as oil, utilizing our own resources is such a nobrainer that I've never been able to understand the opposition to it. Pity the opponents don't seem to realize all the uses of oil BESIDES powering vehicles. Like they have blinders on.

130 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:21:29pm

re: #125 pink freud

"Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”"


Probably bought by Exxon. Lindzen

/kidding

131 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:21:50pm

re: #110 Van Helsing

More relevant to see what the distribution of research grants is between AGW supporters and those who do not support the 'consensus'.

I think you will find that during the Bush years, when the consensus was formed, the Bush administration tried very hard to quash the science and that there was a huge amount of money put out by big oil to fund skeptics.

I think you will also find that there is a world wide set of data and analysis to contend with.

You seem to be convinced that some fix is in. However, that is utterly wrong. The issue was hotly debated through the late eighties and early nineties. By 2000 it was pretty clear that there was a major issue and that man was causing it. This is how science works. The evidence just kept coming in, and the technology to analyze it and model it just kept getting better.

By today in late 2009, the consensus has formed very very solidly.

132 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:22:36pm

re: #125 pink freud

"Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”"

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

From the Science and Public Policy Institute: [pdf warning]

The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. [news article]

Uh, oh. This guy is doomed.

133 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:22:45pm

re: #130 Van Helsing

No lightweight is he. ;-)

134 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:22:47pm

re: #111 Erik The Red

I am not a scientist. ludwigvanquixote professes to be one. And never lets us forget it. I want to know what his time frame for End of Days is.

Do see my 108

136 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:23:36pm

re: #129 irongrampa

Alternate energy sources--wind, solar.etc-can only be adjuncts to say, nuclear-which I feel IS the way to go. As far as oil, utilizing our own resources is such a nobrainer that I've never been able to understand the opposition to it. Pity the opponents don't seem to realize all the uses of oil BESIDES powering vehicles. Like they have blinders on.

Or they are just ignorant politicians as to how many industrial processes use oil as the feedstock.

137 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:23:59pm

re: #125 pink freud

MIT...does he qualify as a respectable scientist?

138 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:24:10pm

re: #117 Dark_Falcon

That is a bit hyperbolic, Erik. AGW will not cause humans to go extinct, but it might kill a lot of us and make life worse for the survivors.

Again DF I would like to know the time frame. ludwigvanquixote has claimed 100 to 150 years. Is that if nothing is done? What about if we decide to finally use nuclear to its full potential? What if we find another viable and affordable energy source? I do not deny that climate change is happening. My scepticism comes in with the cause and the rate of change/damage taking place. And why the USA must lead the challenge. India and China must come to the party.

139 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:25:13pm

re: #138 Erik The Red

That Erik is where all the models fall apart, they are asuming they know what will be done in the future.

140 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:25:34pm

re: #129 irongrampa

Alternate energy sources--wind, solar.etc-can only be adjuncts to say, nuclear-which I feel IS the way to go. As far as oil, utilizing our own resources is such a nobrainer that I've never been able to understand the opposition to it. Pity the opponents don't seem to realize all the uses of oil BESIDES powering vehicles. Like they have blinders on.

I'll disagree there. We currently have the tech to make Wind and Solar combined well over 50% of our power needs. I think we need nukes, but they don't have to be the dominant power source. Which is good, because wind and solar tech and hardware is also exportable, while nuclear is not.

141 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:25:36pm

re: #137 danrudy

MIT...does he qualify as a respectable scientist?

Hmm ...i dunno danrudy ...his vita looks awful impressive to little ole me. ;-)

My bet is MIT will probably hang on to him.

142 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:25:58pm

Richard Lindzen.

Doesn't seem like a hack at first glance. The idea of a "global iris effect" is intriguing.

143 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:26:23pm

re: #44 sattv4u2

I see ,,, so because it's not a SCIENCE JOURNAL we can discount the work of the SCIENTISTS they cite?

Guess I can toss the any article written aside for any news about HEALTH CARE issues unless it's a MEDICAL JOURNAL, even if the authors are doctors

I think the issue is whether such magazine articles accurately reflect the science.

They don't always.

144 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:26:41pm

re: #139 Bagua


Can someone predict next weeks weather or this years Hurricane season accurately first before we start predicting 100 years into the future?

145 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:26:46pm

re: #131 ludwigvanquixote

I think you will find that during the Bush years, when the consensus was formed, the Bush administration tried very hard to quash the science and that there was a huge amount of money put out by big oil to fund skeptics.


I'm not trying for snark but the only repression I recall hearing about was from Hansen and that was because he was not authorized to speak for NASA.

As to consensus, I recall that from Aristotle to Galileo the 'consensus' was that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects.

146 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:27:13pm

re: #144 danrudy

Can someone predict next weeks weather or this years Hurricane season accurately first before we start predicting 100 years into the future?

Weather is not climate.

147 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:27:32pm

re: #102 ludwigvanquixote

How much money can a scientist or university get from government grants if they are promoting the study of one of the administrations pet projects? There are hundreds of millions of grant money to study global warming. If the scientists say there is no danger from global warming the money will dry up.

148 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:27:53pm

re: #140 Coracle

I'll disagree there. We currently have the tech to make Wind and Solar combined well over 50% of our power needs. I think we need nukes, but they don't have to be the dominant power source. Which is good, because wind and solar tech and hardware is also exportable, while nuclear is not.

Wind farms kill birds. Enviros will sue.
Solar panels kill something and enviros will sue.
Now what?

149 capitalist piglet  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:28:36pm

re: #137 danrudy

MIT...does he qualify as a respectable scientist?

Not anymore. ; )

150 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:28:57pm

re: #149 capitalist piglet

Not anymore. ; )

Bingo!

151 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:29:12pm

re: #135 Coracle

Monkton, the journalist, who pretended to be a scientist... HE is coming up? He is as much a crank as Plimer. I don't know how you stay so patient.

How about this, for those who feel the need to idolize cranks as brave men of science who are somehow persecuted by the group think of the legitimate community?

Suppose, 10,000 medical doctors told you that smoking was bad for you. Suppose you found someone who claimed to be a great physician, and who told you that you could smoke ten packs a day... sure he is funded by the tobacco institute, has been debunked again and again, but he is telling you what you want to hear right?

This is the case of Plimer and Monkton.

Look at the actual peer reviewed papers. There is no doubt about what is going on. There is solid evidence from multiple lines of research that points to the same conclusions.

152 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:29:15pm

re: #136 Van Helsing

Or they are just ignorant politicians as to how many industrial processes use oil as the feedstock.

Excellent point...OIL is in everything...including the keyboards we are all typing on. Everyone gets hung up on OIL for fuel...well here is a link that gives a list of all the different ways that OIL (petroleum) is used in our daily life...NOW, imagine what life would be like without OIL.

[Link: www.ioga.com...]

153 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:29:17pm

re: #147 retief_99

How much money can a scientist or university get from government grants if they are promoting the study of one of the administrations pet projects? There are hundreds of millions of grant money to study global warming. If the scientists say there is no danger from global warming the money will dry up.

That is not how funding is disbursed. Certainly not government research money.

154 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:29:19pm

re: #146 Coracle

Weather is not climate.

True, but many "climate" predictions have been off as well, the MET being a clear example.

155 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:29:44pm

re: #140 Coracle

I'll agree, if you can show me how either wind or solar can deal with increased generation needs--i.e. usage surge. Or calm days, or dark days. I have no problem with their use as adjuncts, but not as primary sources, unless on an individual scale.

156 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:30:08pm

re: #146 Coracle

Weather is not climate.

Really? The last I heard when the hurricanes were bearing down on us in Florida was that this was all do to Global warming and climate change...not naturally occurring phenomena.
In fact...I pretty much recall the Goreacal saying that the increased incidence of Hurricanes was a direct result of climate change. So I just assumed there was a relationship

157 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:30:48pm

re: #148 Cannadian Club Akbar

Wind farms kill birds. Enviros will sue.
Solar panels kill something and enviros will sue.
Now what?

Newer turbines and other wind power designs are more bird safe, and other measures can be taken to avoid migration paths.
If there are specific concerns with solar sites, then they will be dealt with and negotiated just like a nuke or coal or hydro plant is today.

158 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:30:49pm

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

I think the issue is whether such magazine articles accurately reflect the science.

They don't always.

Mo, they don't "always", But to discount a report, one that cites scientists BY NAME and their projects BY NAME just because it was not in a "Science Journal" but instead a news magazine is specious

159 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:31:20pm

On alternative energy -- my sense has been that the real path to energy independence lies in not seeking some kind of "industrial" solution to the problem. It's not about fueling the old grid in different ways; it needs to be about assessing individual energy needs and applying a complex of technologies to providing individual households with what they need.

The future of energy (and hence of dealing with "climate change") is along the lines of the internet, not the mainframe. 1000 chickens produce more tractive force 1 ox that weighs as much as 1000 chickens.

160 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:31:41pm

re: #156 danrudy

Really? The last I heard when the hurricanes were bearing down on us in Florida was that this was all do to Global warming and climate change...not naturally occurring phenomena.
In fact...I pretty much recall the Goreacal saying that the increased incidence of Hurricanes was a direct result of climate change. So I just assumed there was a relationship

Weather is only Climate when it proves AGW, the rest of the time it's weather.

161 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:31:49pm

re: #140 Coracle

I'll disagree there. We currently have the tech to make Wind and Solar combined well over 50% of our power needs. I think we need nukes, but they don't have to be the dominant power source. Which is good, because wind and solar tech and hardware is also exportable, while nuclear is not.

Two things:

When I see words like wind and solar capitalized, I involuntarily react as I would to Aspects of Religious Dogma.

We may currently have the tech, but that does not mean it could be implemented any faster than nuclear power or any other alternative. In fact, given that my city recently denied a zoning variance for a homeowner who wanted to install a wind turbine on her rowhouse rooftop, I'd say the ramp-up period to achieving the 50% mark would have to be measured in decades.

162 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:31:52pm

re: #148 Cannadian Club Akbar

Wind farms kill birds. Enviros will sue.
Solar panels kill something and enviros will sue.
Now what?

Both of those objections have been raised and will continue to grind through the courts to the detriment of us all.

As to getting 50% of our power from wind and solar - fuhgeddaboutit.
See how that's working for England.
Trouble in paradise

163 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:32:01pm

re: #157 Coracle

Newer turbines and other wind power designs are more bird safe, and other measures can be taken to avoid migration paths.
If there are specific concerns with solar sites, then they will be dealt with and negotiated just like a nuke or coal or hydro plant is today.

When was the last nuke plant built?

164 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:32:38pm

re: #153 Coracle

That is not how funding is disbursed. Certainly not government research money.

Link?

165 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:33:00pm

re: #142 Cato the Elder

Richard Lindzen.

Doesn't seem like a hack at first glance. The idea of a "global iris effect" is intriguing.

Maybe not, but he's paid $2500/day by the oil companies to speak, and once did some work for OPEC.

Oil.

166 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:33:01pm

re: #155 irongrampa

I'll agree, if you can show me how either wind or solar can deal with increased generation needs--i.e. usage surge. Or calm days, or dark days. I have no problem with their use as adjuncts, but not as primary sources, unless on an individual scale.

Yeah. We have battery tech for that. Right now its cludgy, though large scale sodium batteries may be an answer. One thing I think Nuke is particularly strong for is for those surges in need and to absorb baseline if the more variable sources can't take it all. It's a matter of capacity and distribution, all of which are lickable problems.

167 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:33:28pm

re: #163 Cannadian Club Akbar

When was the last nuke plant ALLOWED TO BE built?

ftfy,, the energy companies would like to build more, but the enviro/ NIMBY's have blocked them

168 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:33:29pm

re: #148 Cannadian Club Akbar

Wind farms kill birds. Enviros will sue.
Solar panels kill something and enviros will sue.
Now what?

Tortise, they get under the panels, get lost, freeze to death in the shade, lizards too.

169 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:33:51pm

re: #156 danrudy

Really? The last I heard when the hurricanes were bearing down on us in Florida was that this was all do to Global warming and climate change...not naturally occurring phenomena.

Then you heard some real misinformed crap.

170 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:34:06pm

re: #163 Cannadian Club Akbar

When was the last nuke plant built?

That would be Palo Verde, right outside my home of Phoenix AZ.
Last and largest, fueled in 1979 IIRC.

171 brookly red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:34:14pm

re: #163 Cannadian Club Akbar

When was the last nuke plant built?

they are being built as we speak, just not here.

172 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:34:19pm

An article about following the money.

[Link: www.newsweek.com...]

173 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:34:38pm

re: #160 Bagua

Weather is only Climate when it proves AGW, the rest of the time it's weather.

Weather is not climate.

174 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:34:39pm

re: #165 avanti

Maybe not, but he's paid $2500/day by the oil companies to speak, and once did some work for OPEC.

Oil.

Don't give me that selective quote BS, Avanti, you and I have been around the block too many times for that. Read the full section at the end of the Wiki article and then come back and apologize.

And he once did work for OPEC? Ooh, disqualified.

175 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:35:21pm

re: #151 ludwigvanquixote


Suppose, 10,000 medical doctors told you that smoking was bad for you. Suppose you found someone who claimed to be a great physician, and who told you that you could smoke ten packs a day... sure he is funded by the tobacco institute, has been debunked again and again, but he is telling you what you want to hear right?

Do you never tire of the ridiculous straw man arguments and appeals to authority?

176 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:35:33pm

re: #171 brookly red

they are being built as we speak, just not here.

Excellent point.
The French get 70% of their power from nukes.

177 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:35:40pm

re: #156 danrudy

Really? The last I heard when the hurricanes were bearing down on us in Florida was that this was all do to Global warming and climate change...not naturally occurring phenomena.
In fact...I pretty much recall the Goreacal saying that the increased incidence of Hurricanes was a direct result of climate change. So I just assumed there was a relationship

Shhh...

I'm in FL too and since 2006 we've been in a reall DOWN cycle...but don't tell anyone. I'd hate for that news to get out. Well...we did have one tropical storm last year that dumped some good rain on the east coast.

8-)

178 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:35:41pm

re: #173 Coracle

Weather is not climate.

I beg to differ, my statement is correct.

179 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:36:05pm

re: #161 Cato the Elder

Two things:

When I see words like wind and solar capitalized, I involuntarily react as I would to Aspects of Religious Dogma.

We may currently have the tech, but that does not mean it could be implemented any faster than nuclear power or any other alternative. In fact, given that my city recently denied a zoning variance for a homeowner who wanted to install a wind turbine on her rowhouse rooftop, I'd say the ramp-up period to achieving the 50% mark would have to be measured in decades.

Decades is right. by 2050, we could be 100% on wind+solar+nuke including storage, new backbone and grid. Not cheap. But worth it IMO. I'd pay my share.

180 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:37:38pm

re: #165 avanti

People who make a living are evil.
Unless they're pushing pseudo-science into our school systems under the guise of "Environmentalism", in which case they are the best thing since Wee-Wee himself.

181 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:38:06pm

re: #179 Coracle

Decades is right. by 2050, we could be 100% on wind+solar+nuke including storage, new backbone and grid. Not cheap. But worth it IMO. I'd pay my share.

I'm must ask then, why is that not how the bill that passed in the House addressing the problem? If these sources started coming on line as 2050 approaches would that not satisfy the requirement for a reduction in CO2 emissions?

182 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:38:41pm

re: #174 Cato the Elder

Don't give me that selective quote BS, Avanti, you and I have been around the block too many times for that. Read the full section at the end of the Wiki article and then come back and apologize.

And he once did work for OPEC? Ooh, disqualified.

And, of course, if he were working for Earth First, that would not trouble anyone, right?

183 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:38:45pm

re: #175 Bagua

Do you never tire of the ridiculous straw man arguments and appeals to authority?

Bagua, permit me to say this clearly.

The entire legitimate scientific community is convinced of this from many many multiple lines of evidence and reasoning.

Assuming that your favorite crank du jour is somehow the equivalent of that is stupid.

It is not a straw man argument, because big oil, certain conservative think tanks and the coal lobby are playing the exact same game that the tobacco companies did with the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.

This is a fact. Again, a pretty good article.

[Link: www.newsweek.com...]

It is now that I really will call you a fool for denying this or refusing to see this.

184 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:38:49pm

re: #177 Greengolem64

Shhh...

I'm in FL too and since 2006 we've been in a reall DOWN cycle...but don't tell anyone. I'd hate for that news to get out. Well...we did have one tropical storm last year that dumped some good rain on the east coast.

8-)

I am in Florida as well. Thank God Bill hit up North. Keeps Geraldo out of the state.:)

185 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:38:50pm

re: #179 Coracle

Decades is right. by 2050, we could be 100% on wind+solar+nuke including storage, new backbone and grid. Not cheap. But worth it IMO. I'd pay my share.

And that is what is wrong with the current doomsday scenarios, we could be doing things very differently in 10 to 50 years. However, destroying our economy in panic is likely to slow down the advances that would otherwise occur

186 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:38:53pm

re: #164 pink freud

Link?

NSF Grants
NASA Grants

187 Kaymad  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:39:02pm

I must take this video to task because I remember specifically my weekly reader in 5th or 6th grade talking about a pending Ice Age and I thought it was kind of cool to think about. We were all going to live in greenhouses or something. Maybe it wasn't the scientific community per say that talked about it, like Al Gore isn't a scientist, but SOMEONE was talking about a pending Ice age and preaching it to school children. I also read a novel about humanity having to live underground because of an Ice Age. I hate it when people try to rewrite history. Maybe it didn't reach the hysterical level that the current climate preaching crowd has, but it was definitely talked about.

188 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:39:42pm

re: #185 Bagua

And that is what is wrong with the current doomsday scenarios, we could be doing things very differently in 10 to 50 years. However, destroying our economy in panic is likely to slow down the advances that would otherwise occur

But we are not because of people like you who wish to argue that we need to do anything.

189 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:40:11pm

re: #187 Kaymad

You read a novel? Well, then, case closed.

190 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:40:11pm

re: #170 Van Helsing

That would be Palo Verde, right outside my home of Phoenix AZ.
Last and largest, fueled in 1979 IIRC.

Actually, DOE lists River Bend in Louisiana as the last built...but it was listed as starting in 1979...so it may be a close second for yours in AZ...

I still remember the Seabrook plant construction. Grew up 6 miles from the plant (maybe THAT's where I got my GreenGolem64 moniker from) and remember the demonstrations...they never DID get the second reactor on due to all of the delays...to this day it sits there a rusting hulk of a containment dome...

191 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:40:23pm
192 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:40:30pm

re: #183 ludwigvanquixote

I'm not disputing what you said, I merely wonder if you tire of such examples.

However, the comparison to smoking is gratuitous.

193 Kaymad  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:41:01pm

re: #189 Cato the Elder

Hey, read my whole post. Or is that to hard?

194 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:41:28pm

re: #184 Cannadian Club Akbar

I am in Florida as well. Thank God Bill hit up North. Keeps Geraldo out of the state.:)

One of these days he is going to get clipped doing a live shot...him or that Weather Channel guy... ;)

I'm just south of the Cape...

GG

195 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:42:19pm

re: #181 Van Helsing

I'm must ask then, why is that not how the bill that passed in the House addressing the problem? If these sources started coming on line as 2050 approaches would that not satisfy the requirement for a reduction in CO2 emissions?

Because no one, right or left, has the spine to push it. Left is too busy screaming doom. Right is too busy denying there's anything wrong at all. This could be a huge consrvative win on the security+energy+economics+environment front, but too many are too busy fighting the ghost of Al Gore to notice.

196 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:42:32pm

re: #194 Greengolem64

Coral? Or the East coast?

197 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:42:33pm

re: #174 Cato the Elder

Don't give me that selective quote BS, Avanti, you and I have been around the block too many times for that. Read the full section at the end of the Wiki article and then come back and apologize.

And he once did work for OPEC? Ooh, disqualified.

I just quoted from the link I found, I know nothing about the Wiki article. The link said

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration."

No, I did not fact check the link, and would appreciate any corrections.

198 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:43:00pm

re: #188 ludwigvanquixote

But we are not because of people like you who wish to argue that we need to do anything.

Nonsense, I've never argued that we do not need to do anything.

199 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:43:12pm

re: #155 irongrampa

I'll agree, if you can show me how either wind or solar can deal with increased generation needs--i.e. usage surge. Or calm days, or dark days. I have no problem with their use as adjuncts, but not as primary sources, unless on an individual scale.

Solar and wind are not ever going to be primary sources. Well, wind possibly but unlikely. They make excellent supplements to the grid. The limitation to solar for home and mall and factory use is battery storage. The overall limitation in general, is an issue of watts/meter. There is no way to make solar work for a large apartment flat for instance, but any situation where you have a lot of roof compared to the number of people using the building is a very good place to cut draw from the grid by as much as 30% or more depending on the place and the draws.

200 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:44:12pm

re: #196 Cannadian Club Akbar

Coral? Or the East coast?

East coast... :) Forgot there was coral...hehehe...Just south of Cape Canaveral. Hope the sky is clear for the launch this week...1:30 ish in the morning...should be a good launch.

GG

201 capitalist piglet  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:44:56pm

re: #191 buzzsawmonkey

Climate change is mountin'
Hear polar bears scream
Forcing climate stasis
Is an insane dream

--"The Sound of Moonbat"

That's the one Mother Abyss sings, right?

202 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:45:30pm

re: #187 Kaymad

When I was in college in the early 80s my climatology class focused on Ice Ages -- man-made global warming (the term used at that time) was discussed, and it was seen as having an impact, but the models we were shown showed two things: man-made global warming would cause increases in the short term (up to 150 years, iirc) but these changes were within the range of observed cycles over the past 7,000 years; the long term (next 20,000 years) was down. On that model, the 20K was to the depth of the next glaciation; glaciation could begin on that model within the next 5K.

In any event, the course presented "global cooling" as one scenario, but the instructor privileged it.

Of course, none of us will be here to see it, just as neither of us were around to witness the dramatic spurt of global warming that occurred in the fourth century BC.

203 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:45:32pm

re: #158 sattv4u2

Mo, they don't "always", But to discount a report, one that cites scientists BY NAME and their projects BY NAME just because it was not in a "Science Journal" but instead a news magazine is specious

No, it isn't, if it's clear from other sources that they didn't report the work of those scientists correctly, or that their work was not generally well-thought of. That's why it's being discounted, not because it wasn't in a scientific journal.

204 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:45:54pm

re: #200 Greengolem64

East coast... :) Forgot there was coral...hehehe...Just south of Cape Canaveral. Hope the sky is clear for the launch this week...1:30 ish in the morning...should be a good launch.

GG

Me, south of Tampa. Got pics of the shuttle taking off at night. Just a fireball. But taken in my back yard...

205 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:47:52pm

re: #204 Cannadian Club Akbar

Me, south of Tampa. Got pics of the shuttle taking off at night. Just a fireball. But taken in my back yard...

Good lord think of the carbon footprint.

206 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:48:14pm

re: #174 Cato the Elder

Don't give me that selective quote BS, Avanti, you and I have been around the block too many times for that. Read the full section at the end of the Wiki article and then come back and apologize.

And he once did work for OPEC? Ooh, disqualified.

Cato, honestly, at best Lindzen is one of those few hold outs who has yet to be convinced, and at worst he really does get a lot of money from people with a vested interest in the boost his reputation gives to their politics and financial aims. It is even in the Newsweek article I posted.

Here is a very reputable rebuttal of much of what he has said.

[Link: www.climatesciencewatch.org...]

207 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:48:50pm

re: #186 Coracle

Sorry, insufficient. When it comes to gvmt grants I have first-hand knowledge that they are disbursed based to a great degree on the criteria mentioned in #153: (How much money can a scientist or university get from government grants if they are promoting the study of one of the administrations pet projects? There are hundreds of millions of grant money to study global warming. If the scientists say there is no danger from global warming the money will dry up.)

Your tossing a couple of links into the discussion about 'how to find funding' supports your statement in #153 exactly how?

"That is not how funding is disbursed. Certainly not government research money".

Maybe you should consult with a professional grant writer.

208 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:48:55pm

re: #204 Cannadian Club Akbar

Me, south of Tampa. Got pics of the shuttle taking off at night. Just a fireball. But taken in my back yard...

I am going out to watch the launch. This is the last scheduled night launch.

209 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:49:01pm

re: #204 Cannadian Club Akbar

Me, south of Tampa. Got pics of the shuttle taking off at night. Just a fireball. But taken in my back yard...

It IS fun to watch...I'm about 30miles due south...and a clear sky to the north right down to the horizon...so the view is spectacular from my pool deck. Doesn't get any better except the two times I went up to the causeway (6 miles away)...hoooweee!

210 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:49:19pm

re: #205 Bagua

Good lord think of the carbon footprint.

It's OK. I let my truck idle in the driveway to make up the difference:)

211 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:10pm

re: #192 Bagua

I'm not disputing what you said, I merely wonder if you tire of such examples.

However, the comparison to smoking is gratuitous.

Smoking is relevant. If you recall, the tobacco companies had scientists on their payroll that would testify that nicotine was not additive, or that smoking did not cause cancer.

212 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:13pm

re: #208 Erik The Red

I am going out to watch the launch. This is the last scheduled night launch.

Are you east or west? or in the middle? :)

213 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:22pm

re: #207 pink freud

Sorry, insufficient. When it comes to gvmt grants I have first-hand knowledge that they are disbursed based to a great degree on the criteria mentioned in #153: (How much money can a scientist or university get from government grants if they are promoting the study of one of the administrations pet projects? There are hundreds of millions of grant money to study global warming. If the scientists say there is no danger from global warming the money will dry up.)

Your tossing a couple of links into the discussion about 'how to find funding' supports your statement in #153 exactly how?

"That is not how funding is disbursed. Certainly not government research money".

Maybe you should consult with a professional grant writer.

So you think that therefore it is all cooked data? What do you make of the direct satellite observations of Green;and melting faster and faster in ways which confirm the models?

214 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:30pm
215 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:33pm

re: #210 Cannadian Club Akbar

It's OK. I let my truck idle in the driveway to make up the difference:)

YOU KILLED KENNY GAIA! YOU BASTARD!

/

216 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:43pm

re: #208 Erik The Red

re: #209 Greengolem64

I hate you both.
///

217 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:50:51pm

re: #207 pink freud

Sorry, insufficient. When it comes to gvmt grants I have first-hand knowledge that they are disbursed based to a great degree on the criteria mentioned in #153: (How much money can a scientist or university get from government grants if they are promoting the study of one of the administrations pet projects? There are hundreds of millions of grant money to study global warming. If the scientists say there is no danger from global warming the money will dry up.)

Your tossing a couple of links into the discussion about 'how to find funding' supports your statement in #153 exactly how?

"That is not how funding is disbursed. Certainly not government research money".

Maybe you should consult with a professional grant writer.

I can consult myself, then. I both write and review grants, as part of what I do. My experience is diametrically opposed to yours.

218 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:51:10pm

re: #213 ludwigvanquixote

So you think that therefore it is all cooked data? What do you make of the direct satellite observations of Green;and melting faster and faster in ways which confirm the models?

Don't twist my words, LVQ.

219 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:51:14pm

re: #214 buzzsawmonkey

I try not to think of Al Gore at all.

220 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:51:45pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

No, it isn't, if it's clear from other sources that they didn't report the work of those scientists correctly, or that their work was not generally well-thought of. That's why it's being discounted, not because it wasn't in a scientific journal.


My post(s) was in resonse to [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Time is not a science journal, and was part of the media frenzy genned up without science support.

221 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:51:57pm

re: #217 Coracle

I can consult myself, then. I both write and review grants, as part of what I do. My experience is diametrically opposed to yours.

There was never any doubt.

222 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:52:15pm

Confession.

If you told me that giving up air conditioning in the summer would save the world, would I do it? Not that everyone else had to give it up, too, or that I had to give up anything other than a/c, or that I had to go cold in the winter. Just give up cool air in the humid dog days of summer. To save the world.

I would not.

Nor would you.

The world cannot be "saved" except by totalitarianism, a cure that is worse than the disease. If there is a disease.

223 Greengolem64  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:52:29pm

re: #216 Cannadian Club Akbar

re: #209 Greengolem64

I hate you both.
///

I'll fire up my Nikon D-200 if the weather is good...and if the pix are good I'll post up a link for ya!

Nice to know there are some lizards enjoying the good life down here in FL!

224 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:52:29pm

re: #207 pink freud

Also, why do you think that government grants - particularly when the last administration hated AGW, would be less reliable than private grants from oil companies in this regard? There is just a disconnect in your logic.

225 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:52:31pm

re: #214 buzzsawmonkey

Carbon footprint is what you get when you accidentally step in the barbecue.

226 Kaymad  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:52:38pm

re: #202 Lucius Septimius

Well, that's fine and glad you had those discussions on your level.

I'm not sure why there has to be denial of what I was taught to an extent, at least briefly while I was in elementary school. That makes me question even more the people who preach global warming now and become angry when one is skeptical of it. I'm being told I wasn't taught about a possible coming ice age when I most certainly was.

227 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:52:53pm

re: #212 Greengolem64

Are you east or west? or in the middle? :)

Middle. About 50 minutes drive.

228 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:53:09pm

re: #207 pink freud

My wife (and several close family friends) are in Academia. The "projected result" of their proposals is by far the most important part of grant applications. People don't have to like that, or even know it, but it's the truth.

229 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:53:32pm

re: #211 avanti

Smoking is relevant. If you recall, the tobacco companies had scientists on their payroll that would testify that nicotine was not additive, or that smoking did not cause cancer.

Such a correlation does not prove anything in and of itself. The media has also been wrong about a great many things, does that prove they are wrong about AGW

230 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:53:42pm

re: #224 ludwigvanquixote

Also, why do you think that government grants - particularly when the last administration hated AGW, would be less reliable than private grants from oil companies in this regard? There is just a disconnect in your logic.

You're leaping all over the board, LVQ. I neither said or implied such.

231 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:54:07pm
232 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:54:15pm

re: #207 pink freud

Sorry, insufficient. When it comes to gvmt grants I have first-hand knowledge that they are disbursed based to a great degree on the criteria mentioned in #153: (How much money can a scientist or university get from government grants if they are promoting the study of one of the administrations pet projects? There are hundreds of millions of grant money to study global warming. If the scientists say there is no danger from global warming the money will dry up.)

Your tossing a couple of links into the discussion about 'how to find funding' supports your statement in #153 exactly how?

"That is not how funding is disbursed. Certainly not government research money".

Maybe you should consult with a professional grant writer.

Take it from someone in the biz, this is just not the way it is. IN the nineties there were tons of groups that set out to disprove AGW. Their data turned out to convince them otherwise.

233 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:54:19pm

re: #228 Lincolntf

My wife (and several close family friends) are in Academia. The "projected result" of their proposals is by far the most important part of grant applications. People don't have to like that, or even know it, but it's the truth.

I suspect that is very true.

234 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:55:21pm

re: #220 sattv4u2

My post(s) was in resonse to [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Time is not a science journal, and was part of the media frenzy genned up without science support.

Yes, I get that. Look at the second part of the sentence, and read the preceding information.

235 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:55:31pm

re: #226 Kaymad

There is indeed something facile about that aspect of the argument. Ice age scenarios were presented in more venues than Time, Newsweek, and George Will. That's the kind of rhetoric that makes me suspicious of just how even-handed the video was.

236 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:55:51pm

re: #231 buzzsawmonkey

Or tarry too long at one of those hot-coal walks that were all the rage a decade or two ago.

Now it's all cry-walks.

Youtube Video
237 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:56:18pm

re: #228 Lincolntf

My wife (and several close family friends) are in Academia. The "projected result" of their proposals is by far the most important part of grant applications. People don't have to like that, or even know it, but it's the truth.

By projected result, do you mean the product of research, or do you mean a specific conclusion of the research? If the former, that makes sense. If the latter, that is corrupt. No committee I have ever known or been on awards funding based on an expected conclusion.

238 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:56:18pm

re: #222 Cato the Elder

Someone loan me their UPDINGS. Rules state I can only give one!

239 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:56:29pm

re: #232 ludwigvanquixote

Take it from someone in the biz, this is just not the way it is. IN the nineties there were tons of groups that set out to disprove AGW. Their data turned out to convince them otherwise.

In which biz? The radical propagandist field of science?

You are employed to prove the theory of AGW, your beliefs may be colouring your viewpoints.

240 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:56:33pm

re: #223 Greengolem64

re: #227 Erik The Red

To Florida!!

Youtube Video
241 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:56:39pm

re: #231 buzzsawmonkey

Or tarry too long at one of those hot-coal walks that were all the rage a decade or two ago.

And woe to the man who leaves carbon footprints on the hall rug.

242 avanti  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:57:10pm

re: #229 Bagua

Such a correlation does not prove anything in and of itself. The media has also been wrong about a great many things, does that prove they are wrong about AGW

I agree, it's not proof, just there is money to be made if you can testify in support of big companies interests.

243 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:57:52pm

re: #238 sattv4u2

Someone loan me their UPDINGS. Rules state I can only give one!

I've already violated my Cato-upding rule twice. Sorry, ;-)

Good on ya, Cato.

244 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:57:56pm

Hot coal walks --just another WTF moment in life.

245 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:58:16pm

re: #234 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, I get that. Look at the second part of the sentence, and read the preceding information.

Yes ,, and read my follows. It WAS part of the media frenzy ,, IN RETROSPECT ,, 30 years later we NOW KNOW that

But to argue there is no hysteria (frenzy, as it were) NOW is to be just as blind as those in the 70's!

246 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:58:25pm

re: #242 avanti

I agree, it's not proof, just there is money to be made if you can testify in support of big companies interests.

Yes agreed

247 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:59:10pm

re: #245 sattv4u2

Yes ,, and read my follows. It WAS part of the media frenzy ,, IN RETROSPECT ,, 30 years later we NOW KNOW that

But to argue there is no hysteria (frenzy, as it were) NOW is to be just as blind as those in the 70's!

So perhaps the lesson to be drawn is not to get too excited about pop science?

248 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 5:59:53pm

re: #246 Bagua

Yes agreed

Heh. Who owns the money?

/whose likeness is on this coin?

249 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:00:05pm

re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist

So perhaps the lesson to be drawn is not to get too excited about pop science?

Yep -- remember what a bust "New Coke" was, despite all the science that went into making it.

250 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:00:26pm

According to the "budgetary" approach to achieving the two-degree Celsius limit to global warming,

For both [the USA and Australia at current rates of carbon emissions per capita] the budget will not last for another 6 years, and even with linear reduction starting in 2010 they would theoretically have to achieve zero emissions within 11 years.

Mmkay.

251 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:00:37pm

re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist

So perhaps the lesson to be drawn is not to get too excited about pop science?

Heh. Too true.

252 capitalist piglet  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:00:51pm

re: #243 pink freud

I've already violated my Cato-upding rule twice. Sorry, ;-)

Good on ya, Cato.

I did it too. I feel dirty. : )

253 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:00:52pm
Youtube Video

/we now return you to your regular argument, already in progress

254 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:01:03pm

re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist

So perhaps the lesson to be drawn is not to get too excited about pop science?

Not sure what you mean by "pop" science, but if it means taking the initial wave of 'research" as gospel and then ignoring anything over time that contradicts it, yes, I would concur not to get too excited about "pop science"

255 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:01:09pm

re: #249 Lucius Septimius

Yep -- remember what a bust "New Coke" was, despite all the science that went into making it.

It tasted weird.

256 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:02:58pm

re: #255 SanFranciscoZionist

It tasted weird.

Less filling!

Oh ,, wait ,,, thats something totally different

257 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:02:59pm

re: #253 Killian Bundy

Hey, the "cry walk " vid was from a really funny show

/

258 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:03:07pm

One of life's underrated moments is a Dr Pepper float, with vanilla ice cream.

Good times.

259 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:03:26pm

re: #249 Lucius Septimius

Yep -- remember what a bust "New Coke" was, despite all the science that went into making it.

Sorry. If they made New Coke and everyone tried it, then brought back Old Coke and eveyone bought it, that is a marketing wet dream. The got us.

260 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:03:52pm

re: #258 irongrampa

One of life's underrated moments is a Dr Pepper float, with vanilla ice cream.

Good times.

From the A&W, of course. :)

261 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:00pm
262 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:04pm

We must do something about this immediately!

Youtube Video
263 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:15pm

re: #250 Cato the Elder

According to the "budgetary" approach to achieving the two-degree Celsius limit to global warming,

For both [the USA and Australia at current rates of carbon emissions per capita] the budget will not last for another 6 years, and even with linear reduction starting in 2010 they would theoretically have to achieve zero emissions within 11 years.

Mmkay.

I'm not seeing that happening, are you?

264 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:27pm

re: #260 pink freud

Been there too, I see.

265 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:34pm

re: #259 Cannadian Club Akbar

The = they, PIMF.

266 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:37pm

re: #261 buzzsawmonkey

A fine hall rug, with no footprints
A clean hall rug needs no dirt rinse
Make sure that you do not leave a carbon trace there
It would be very difficult to erase there
A fine hall rug, with no soiling
Will not require your mate toiling
Make sure you pause upon the rug but an instant
Else you will get a rant
That is my carbon stance

--with apologies to "A Fine Romance"

Man, you're quick.

267 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:04:55pm

re: #259 Cannadian Club Akbar

Sorry. If they made New Coke and everyone tried it, then brought back Old Coke and eveyone bought it, that is a marketing wet dream. The got us.

And Old Coke still isn't Old Coke. You have to buy that from Mexico or wait for Passover.

268 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:05:40pm

re: #242 avanti

I agree, it's not proof, just there is money to be made if you can testify in support of big companies interests.


Unlike all the researchers for Earth First and the Natural Resources Defense Council who work for free.

269 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:05:44pm

re: #267 OldLineTexan

And Old Coke still isn't Old Coke. You have to buy that from Mexico or wait for Passover.

I drink Royal Crown Cola.

270 Tarkus289  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:05:46pm

re: #267 OldLineTexan

Throwback Pepsi, pure sugar, limited time... Yum!

271 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:06:14pm

re: #263 Van Helsing

I'm not seeing that happening, are you?

My personal emissions are only getting worse as the food budget tightens to all pinto beans, all the time.

/

272 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:06:32pm

re: #269 Cannadian Club Akbar

I drink Royal Crown Cola.

RC is the drink of true cola connoisseurs.

273 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:06:44pm

re: #269 Cannadian Club Akbar

I drink Royal Crown Cola.

With a Moon Pie?

274 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:07:02pm

re: #268 Jim in Virginia

Unlike all the researchers for Earth First and the Natural Resources Defense Council who work for free.

Bias is A-Ok when it is for a "good" cause.

275 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:07:07pm
276 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:07:11pm

re: #273 OldLineTexan

Beat me to it.

277 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:07:50pm

re: #264 irongrampa

Been there too, I see.

I haven, yessiree. Crickets chirping, the smell of exhaust, the sky a tint of pink from the dying sunset. Yes ...I have. Fond memories. :-)

278 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:07:50pm

re: #21 Last Mohican

Sounds like a bunch of flagrant Scientism to me!

Did you know there's such a term as "Scientism"? I discovered it on the ol' Number Two blog recently. Apparently, it's a derogatory term that you apply to someone who believes in science. For example, "You Darwinists' minds are corrupted by Scientism!"

Aha! The rise of "ism"...to wit,

a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

Notice that "ism," by definition, has nothing to do with facts or empirical evidence.

The coining of the term "scientism," then, is an example of the psychological phenomenon known as "projection."

Look it up. Along with "empirical." {G}

279 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:08:07pm

re: #270 Tarkus289

Throwback Pepsi, pure sugar, limited time... Yum!

Nothing personal, but I have never been able to abide Pepsi.

280 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:08:20pm

re: #237 Coracle

It's the latter. And it is utterly corrupt. And it's going on in every state school in the country, not to mention half the private ones.
Cost of doing business is that you gotta deliver the goods or you don't get the cash.
If some wannabe-Soros is funding your particular study, you damn well better come back with a result he likes or there will be no more money for your school. Pretty simple.

281 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:09:01pm

re: #239 Bagua

In which biz? The radical propagandist field of science?

You are employed to prove the theory of AGW, your beliefs may be colouring your viewpoints.

OK, now that is about the worst insult that you can ever give a scientist. I am employed to figure out what is true.

You want to say that I give fudged facts or that I only say propaganda for my own gain, then I say fuck ou and fuck the horse you rode in on. To hell with you.

282 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:09:33pm

re: #277 pink freud

Some times I really think that those WERE simpler, purer times, if you understand what I mean.

283 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:09:54pm

re: #272 Lucius Septimius

RC is the drink of true cola connoisseurs.

Not to mention, Diet Rite!

Rite? I mean, right?

284 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:10:20pm

re: #282 irongrampa

Some times I really think that those WERE simpler, purer times, if you understand what I mean.

Pepperidge Fahms remembahs!

/

285 Tarkus289  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:10:20pm

re: #279 OldLineTexan

None taken, I do not make it, I just consume.

286 kilroy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:10:31pm

Take a look at [Link: www.spaceweather.com...] and make some decisions for yourselves.There's a significant problem with our main source of energy;the sun.Maybe a big pile of coal outback would be a good thing; a really big pile.

287 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:10:41pm

re: #280 Lincolntf

It's the latter. And it is utterly corrupt. And it's going on in every state school in the country, not to mention half the private ones.
Cost of doing business is that you gotta deliver the goods or you don't get the cash.

That's not how the NSF or NASA work. That's what I know. That's all I can say.

I'm off to the movies.

288 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:11:29pm

re: #280 Lincolntf

It's the latter. And it is utterly corrupt. And it's going on in every state school in the country, not to mention half the private ones.
Cost of doing business is that you gotta deliver the goods or you don't get the cash.
If some wannabe-Soros is funding your particular study, you damn well better come back with a result he likes or there will be no more money for your school. Pretty simple.

Link, please.

289 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:11:33pm

re: #263 Van Helsing

I'm not seeing that happening, are you?

Well, what they're proposing is that the industrialized world compensate by forcing the developing world not to develop.

Somehow seems a bit unfair, wouldn't you say?

290 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:11:41pm

Your scientists suck!

No, YOUR scientists suck!

/meanwhile, China and India couldn't give a rat's ass about AGW so I guess we're going to test the theories and find out who's right through real world experimentation

291 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:11:59pm

re: #281 ludwigvanquixote

OK, now that is about the worst insult that you can ever give a scientist. I am employed to figure out what is true.

You want to say that I give fudged facts or that I only say propaganda for my own gain, then I say fuck ou and fuck the horse you rode in on. To hell with you.

I believe you have told us on a prior thread that you work for an advocacy group. No need to be vulger, it doesn't support your case.

292 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:12:19pm
293 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:12:25pm

re: #280 Lincolntf

It's the latter. And it is utterly corrupt. And it's going on in every state school in the country, not to mention half the private ones.
Cost of doing business is that you gotta deliver the goods or you don't get the cash.
If some wannabe-Soros is funding your particular study, you damn well better come back with a result he likes or there will be no more money for your school. Pretty simple.

Now according to Coracle, Linclin, you can pop right over to those links she supplied in post 186 and see for yourself that's just NOT the way it is!

/ / /

294 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:12:43pm

re: #290 Killian Bundy

Wasn't that a line in "The Right Stuff" -- "Our German[scientists] are better than their Germans."

295 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:12:53pm

re: #282 irongrampa

Some times I really think that those WERE simpler, purer times, if you understand what I mean.

They absolutely were.

296 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:12:54pm

re: #291 Bagua

I believe you have told us on a prior thread that you work for an advocacy group. No need to be vulger, it doesn't support your case.

NO I do not. nor did I ever say that. Now you are lying about me to cover your position. Fuck you again.

297 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:13:17pm

re: #290 Killian Bundy

Your scientists suck!

No, YOUR scientists suck!

/meanwhile, China and India couldn't give a rat's ass about AGW so I guess we're going to test the theories and find out who's right through real world experimentation

In other words,

"Diversion. Diversion..." Repeat as necessary.

298 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:13:17pm

re: #291 Bagua
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing it and blaming it on you...

299 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:13:53pm

re: #292 buzzsawmonkey

Does that mean we'll be mining this thread for puns?

300 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:29pm

re: #296 ludwigvanquixote

NO I do not. nor did I ever say that. Now you are lying about me to cover your position. Fuck you again.

Perhaps I am wrong, you did hint to that effect.

301 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:36pm

OK, when a thread gets to the point that people start quoting Kipling's horrible "If", it's time for a drink.

302 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:40pm

re: #299 irongrampa

Does that mean we'll be mining this thread for puns?

Let's hope our efforts are not in vein.

303 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:40pm

re: #298 Jim in Virginia

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing it and blaming it on you...

Jim I hope that you don't mean that I work for an advocacy group.

304 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:53pm

re: #294 Lucius Septimius

Wasn't that a line in "The Right Stuff" -- "Our German[scientists] are better than their Germans."

I met one of ours, once. Nice guy.

305 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:57pm

re: #300 Bagua

Perhaps I am wrong, you did hint to that effect.

NO not ever.

306 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:14:57pm

the great VDH puts the hitler/Obama/Bush hypocrisy into clear perspective:

[Link: www.victorhanson.com...]

307 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:15:07pm
308 Gretchen  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:15:14pm

I don't remember exactly what the news being foisted on school children was in the early 70's but I clearly remember being terrified of two phenomenon that were supposed to happen in my lifetime. The first was abolishment of the American weights and measure system and the replacement with metrics, which for some reason freaked me out. The second was the coming of an Ice Age. I clearly remember some children's' school publication with a story about the impending DOOM of a frozen North America and reading the Time magazine story at home. I remember discussing this once I was in college long before the Global Warming theories surfaced and friends had the same fears.

309 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:15:22pm

re: #301 Cato the Elder

OK, when a thread gets to the point that people start quoting Kipling's horrible "If", it's time for a drink.

Are you thereby suggesting there is NOT a time for a drink?

310 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:15:41pm

re: #287 Coracle

That's not how the NSF or NASA work. That's what I know. That's all I can say.

I'm off to the movies.

What are you going to see? And have fun.

311 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:16:46pm

re: #305 ludwigvanquixote

NO not ever.

You listed a few groups with the wink, wink statement that "I may work for one of them" I took your hint as being sincere.

312 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:17:19pm

re: #303 ludwigvanquixote
I think you need to take a deep breath. You've blown up on two threads tonight.
None of my business, just my observation.

313 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:17:49pm
314 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:17:54pm

re: #310 ludwigvanquixote

What are you going to see? And have fun.

Earth in the Balance

or the much more popular

Harry Potter and the Balance of the Earth

/mangled Futurama ref

315 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:18:18pm

re: #295 pink freud

They absolutely were.

Simpler, purer times, indeed...if one was (a) white, and (b) had some amount of money.

Point taken.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." --Oscar Wilde

But Wilde was a homosexual, and everybody knows you can't trust what they say.

/

316 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:19:07pm

re: #312 Jim in Virginia

I think you need to take a deep breath. You've blown up on two threads tonight.
None of my business, just my observation.

My point stands, I very much suspect the ideas and conclusions of some-one so prone to emotional outbursts. It suggests that the persons beliefs are being challenged.

317 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:19:07pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

Well, what they're proposing is that the industrialized world compensate by forcing the developing world not to develop.

Somehow seems a bit unfair, wouldn't you say?

Yes. Yes it does. I'm not enamored with their apparent desire to turn the US into a third-world dung heap.
I also think it is incredibly short-sighted to try to cut back the economy of the country that has the best chance of dealing with any of the issues related to climate that may arise.

In fact, in my darker moments I think it's just a bunch of EU pissants trying to put the hurt on that upstart young pup of a country and put us in our proper (in their eyes) place.

318 VioletTiger  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:19:47pm

re: #214 buzzsawmonkey

Whenever I hear "carbon footprint" I think of Al Gore as Robinson Crusoe.


And I think of my cat tramping in the fireplace ashes and trecking all over my carpet...

319 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:20:07pm

re: #313 buzzsawmonkey

You prefer the Chateau?

I prefer the châtelaine.

320 grandma  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:20:44pm

For all the hoopla….media, scientific, and political, I’ve yet to hear that either global warming, global cooling, or climate change is a bad thing. If it is bad, for whom and for what is it bad, and why is it bad? (So that becomes my rhetorical question to which I know the answer: (We’ve been told that it is bad for life as we in our short lifetimes know it, and that humankind could be responsible, so we must believe it). However, the planet has been doing its cyclical changes for billions of years. The planet has endured about 4.5 billion years, and is still here. Life will come and it will go. Think dinosaurs.

From about the 16th to the 19th century the planet experienced the Little Ice Age. George Washington suffered the effects of that at Valley Forge. Charles Dickens observed and wrote about it. Is it possible that humankind of those times with their CO2 emissions was responsible for that?

The Almighty created all this. The Almighty apparently allowed planet Earth to take care of itself, and it has so far, and that must be good. After all we’re still here with more to come after us. There may be devastation, catastrophe, elimination of species, rising waters, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. but until the Almighty decides to eliminate planet Earth, there’s little to be done, except tax the dirt out of us and accept that we are no match for either the Almighty or the planet. So just enjoy the beauty of that which the Almighty created and stop looking at all which someone else considers to be bad.

321 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:20:59pm

re: #315 ShanghaiEd

Simpler, purer times, indeed...if one was (a) white, and (b) had some amount of money.

Point taken.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." --Oscar Wilde

But Wilde was a homosexual, and everybody knows you can't trust what they say.

/

Stuff it, Ed.

Don't attach the race card to my comment, save it for your own.

322 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:21:10pm

re: #315 ShanghaiEd

Gee, Ed, who's been gay-bashing on this thread?

323 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:21:36pm

re: #288 ShanghaiEd

To what?

324 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:21:40pm
325 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:21:42pm

re: #308 Gretchen

I don't remember exactly what the news being foisted on school children was in the early 70's but I clearly remember being terrified of two phenomenon that were supposed to happen in my lifetime. The first was abolishment of the American weights and measure system and the replacement with metrics, which for some reason freaked me out. The second was the coming of an Ice Age. I clearly remember some children's' school publication with a story about the impending DOOM of a frozen North America and reading the Time magazine story at home. I remember discussing this once I was in college long before the Global Warming theories surfaced and friends had the same fears.

I recall the impending metrics.

I don't recall the impending Ice Age.

I do recall that we were all piously terrified of nuclear war, and the resulting nuclear winter.

(I was an Eighties kid).

326 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:22:29pm

re: #319 Cato the Elder

I prefer the châtelaine.

"Chatelaine"...one of the most beautiful words, IMO, in any language. Also the title of a beautiful pop song of a few decades ago, recorded by Linda Ronstadt on one of her tribute albums to the Big Band era...

327 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:22:36pm

re: #301 Cato the Elder
Q: What, you don't like Kipling?
A: I don't know, I've never kippled.

328 Tarkus289  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:22:38pm

In 1975, I was told the metric system would replace our system in 10 years.
I said it would not happen, I was right.

re: #320 grandma

We are but a flea on this great planet's ass.

329 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:22:58pm

re: #325 SanFranciscoZionist

I recall the impending metrics.

I don't recall the impending Ice Age.

I do recall that we were all piously terrified of nuclear war, and the resulting nuclear winter.

(I was an Eighties kid).

There you have it, the Ice Age scare was in the '70's. We still had MAD, but we didn't hide under our desks any longer. ;)

330 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:23:31pm

re: #316 Bagua

My point stands, I very much suspect the ideas and conclusions of some-one so prone to emotional outbursts. It suggests that the persons beliefs are being challenged.


AGW is the new religion. Doubters are dangerous heretics.

331 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:24:01pm

re: #330 Jim in Virginia

AGW is the new religion. Doubters are dangerous heretics.

Yep

332 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:24:17pm

re: #315 ShanghaiEd

Simpler, purer times, indeed...if one was (a) white, and (b) had some amount of money.

Point taken.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." --Oscar Wilde

But Wilde was a homosexual, and everybody knows you can't trust what they say.

/


Not really. I knew of lot of POOR BLACKS back in the 60's / 70's that today would agree that it was a purer simpler time then!

333 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:24:42pm

re: #324 buzzsawmonkey

What's the d'iff?

Um...one is a building. The other the pretty, slim, small-breasted, 24-year-old, bored, witty, smart, feisty, long-legged wife of the absent owner of that building.

You choose.

334 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:25:16pm

re: #311 Bagua

You listed a few groups with the wink, wink statement that "I may work for one of them" I took your hint as being sincere.

Yes research groups asshole.

335 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:25:38pm

re: #329 OldLineTexan

There you have it, the Ice Age scare was in the '70's. We still had MAD, but we didn't hide under our desks any longer. ;)

Duck, and cover.Duck and cover

336 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:25:51pm
337 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:25:56pm

re: #332 sattv4u2

Simpler, purer times, indeed...if one was (a) white, and (b) had some amount of money.

Point taken.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." --Oscar Wilde

But Wilde was a homosexual, and everybody knows you can't trust what they say.

/

Not really. I knew of lot of POOR BLACKS back in the 60's / 70's that today would agree that it was a purer simpler time then!

And I know a great number of middle-class black folks TODAY that would agree it was a purer simpler time then.

338 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:26:01pm

re: #325 SanFranciscoZionist

I recall the impending metrics.

I don't recall the impending Ice Age.

I do recall that we were all piously terrified of nuclear war, and the resulting nuclear winter.

(I was an Eighties kid).

I remember TIME mag asking if Interferon was the cure for cancer.

339 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:26:03pm

re: #293 pink freud

Having had to watch my dearest sit through the application/vetting/rejection/approval process dozens of times, I don't give a whit who believes me. They're simply ignorant of the process.
In fact, I'm sure there are other Profs who come here. Open question to all of them: How does the grant process work where you teach?

340 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:26:08pm

re: #8 Charles

Magazines and TV shows have very little relationship to any kind of science. There may have been MSM stories, but it's a myth that any significant number of reputable scientists believed we were entering an Ice Age.

Charles:

With he assumption that you are correct, why did Time and Newsweek run with the story except to sell more magazines? The winters of 1977-78 and 1993-94 were pretty severe here on the "Right Coast" - 93-94 - having about 16 noticeable snowstorms - and - marking exactly the time that 4wd SUV's replaced sedans and "sporty" cars on the average buyer's "want" list. I was in the retail auto sales business at the time and remember the change. Worked for a Dodge Dealer at the time and having nothing but the essentially antique RamCharger hurt. Luckily, I transitioned into fleet sales
at the time. The SUV's sold around then are today's CLUNKERS.
For what it is worth, my belief is that "Climate" is much more effected by the Sun than anything man HAS DONE or COULD DO. Bottom line, be sensible, use as little energy as necessary to be comfortable, in you Home, (example CFL or Florescent Bulbs and Microwave rather than conventional stove when possible), in your Transportation, (example Public Transit, Bicycle, or Fuel Efficient Automobile, as applicable, unless you NEED more).
To sum it up - Buy what you NEED and leave the REST. Remember, you come into and leave this world with Nothing. Everything beyond that is in its way a Gift, whether "earned" or not. I have more or less lived my life this way since the late 1970's - with a few lapses - such as Turbocharged (4 Cyl) cars, High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems, and Semi-Pro Cameras which have added some well appreciated spice to my normal gruel. My watch is Timex - The Ironman Digital also worn by former President Clinton and Osama bin Laden, truthfully with my Cell Phone, I barely wear a watch anymore - sorry Switzerland. My vehicle is a Ford Focus ZX-3 bought on the "D" Plan back in '02 - Not A Clunker - so the Government tells me - were it, I might have bought an '09 Focus or Civic Coupe. That's OK by me - my Gateway 400 SD laptop of similar vintage still works well, at least as well as a new Netbook. It is still up and running in my personal office as a second termnal, XP Windows Only - not enough HDD to dual boot Linux - with its old Epson Perfection 1260 scanner and a $60 B+W Brother 2140 Laser Printer - more or less equal to a White House setup in January, 20009
I know I am rambling - and take the old advice - Something Old - ('Pute & Scanner) - Something New - (Brother 2140 Printer) - Something "Borrowed" (Cambridge Sound/Creative Speakers) and Something "Blue" (the Linksys switch it runs through) That is all and QUITE enough.

-S-

341 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:26:14pm

re: #325 SanFranciscoZionist

I recall the impending metrics.

I don't recall the impending Ice Age.

I do recall that we were all piously terrified of nuclear war, and the resulting nuclear winter.

(I was an Eighties kid).

The TIME article and all the associated "hoopla" was 1974. The TIEMarticle is the one most refrenced because as one of THE magazines of the time (no pun intented) it's the easiest to remember and pull up on the net

342 capitalist piglet  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:27:09pm

re: #321 pink freud

Stuff it, Ed.

Don't attach the race card to my comment, save it for your own.

And here I thought you guys really were talking about going to the A&W for a float.

I always miss the metaphors.

343 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:28:11pm

re: #321 pink freud

Stuff it, Ed.

Don't attach the race card to my comment, save it for your own.

You say the Fifties were "purer," and don't see a subtext there? As in, racial purity websites? OK, then. I will pursue this no further. We're on entirely different wavelengths. Deal, pink?

344 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:28:18pm

re: #334 ludwigvanquixote

Yes research groups asshole.

Back to your name calling again? When ever someone disagrees with you you always resort to the name calling. Very classy.

345 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:28:20pm

re: #334 ludwigvanquixote

Yes research groups asshole.

I don't see how you advance your position with all the vulgar insults. None of the scientists I work with do so, is it different in your "research group"

346 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:28:22pm

re: #334 ludwigvanquixote

Yes research groups asshole.

You work for asshole research groups?

(btw ,, drop the name calling. Someone mis-remembering what any poster wrote out of the thousands of post here is no need for it)

347 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:28:33pm

re: #342 capitalist piglet

And here I thought you guys really were talking about going to the A&W for a float.

I always miss the metaphors.

Can it be a float with a chilidog?

348 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:29:10pm

re: #337 reine.de.tout

Hey reine. How was your weekend?

349 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:29:30pm

re: #347 Cannadian Club Akbar

Or a slider?

350 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:29:54pm

re: #344 Erik The Red

Back to your name calling again? When ever someone disagrees with you you always resort to the name calling. Very classy.

Right but being accused of cooking my books because I was a political advocate doesn't count. Fuck you too.

351 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:30:43pm
352 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:31:36pm

re: #346 sattv4u2

You work for asshole research groups?

(btw ,, drop the name calling. Someone mis-remembering what any poster wrote out of the thousands of post here is no need for it)

In all seriousness, I believe Ludwig works for groups that "research" from the point of view that AGW is fact, the research may in fact be valid, but the underlying beliefs could easily cause unforced errors, it certainly leads to a great deal of emoting.

353 quickjustice  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:31:44pm

re: #208 Erik The Red

I saw the shuttle carrying Hubbell blast off back in the early 1990s. That was a morning launch, and I was driving down the interstate in Tampa as the orange flames erupted off to the east. It was awesome.

354 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:31:52pm

re: #350 ludwigvanquixote
Are you violating the Iron Fist rule?

355 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:32:22pm

Mayhap I'll withdraw my comment about purer times, since it seems to be fucking racist.

356 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:32:43pm
357 capitalist piglet  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:32:48pm

re: #347 Cannadian Club Akbar

Can it be a float with a chilidog?

What's that supposed to mean?

///

; )

358 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:38pm

re: #343 ShanghaiEd

You say the Fifties were "purer," and don't see a subtext there? As in, racial purity websites? OK, then. I will pursue this no further. We're on entirely different wavelengths. Deal, pink?

You need to work on your comprehension skills. Show me where I said 'the Fifties'?

WTF are you talking about? Maybe it's time to crawl out of that cave in your head you live in and take folks at face value. Fuck you and your "racial purity" crap.

359 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:38pm

re: #322 OldLineTexan

Gee, Ed, who's been gay-bashing on this thread?

OLT: This thread? OK.

I guess I have a long memory. In my experience, people who are racist tend to be homophobic as well. Painting with too broad a brush? I guess I have a long memory.

360 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:42pm

re: #355 irongrampa

Mayhap I'll withdraw my comment about purer times, since it seems to be fucking racist.

There has been a lot of sex on this thread.

361 VioletTiger  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:46pm

re: #354 Jim in Virginia

Are you violating the Iron Fist rule?

Most likely The Golden Rule.

362 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:54pm

re: #354 Jim in Virginia

Are you violating the Iron Fist rule?

poster child!!

hey ,, I made a funny!! get it ??? POSTER!!!

//

363 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:56pm

re: #356 taxfreekiller


He'll be blamed in memoriam, tfk.

364 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:33:57pm

re: #350 ludwigvanquixote

Right but being accused of cooking my books because I was a political advocate doesn't count. Fuck you too.

The charge is not that you are "cooking" your books, rather, that you are an activist. I think that is quite clear from reading your posts.

365 Teh Flowah  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:34:13pm

re: #96 Van Helsing

It's important to follow the money.

Yeah, if someone stands to make money from it, better not listen to them, they are probably lying.

Like those doctors in the private health care system, along with insurance companies and so on and so on. They all stand to make more money from the private system. No longer will I trust a doctor about issues regarding my health. I think I'll go with my gut feeling instead.

Idiot.

366 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:34:21pm

re: #357 capitalist piglet

What's that supposed to mean?

///

; )

I never saw it that way. Thanks for the sarc tags!!

367 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:34:47pm

An over-readiness to infer references to "racial purity" is reminiscent of the old joke about the psychiatric patient viewing Rohrschach blots who sees something highly sexual in each of them--and, when admonished by the psychiatrist, says, "Whaddaya mean, Doc? You're the one showing me all those dirty pictures!"

Preach it, brutha.

368 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:35:06pm

re: #348 Erik The Red

Hey reine. How was your weekend?

Erik you here?
Great weekend.
Spent the day today at my brother's house, in his backyard pool.
Unfortunately - we had an unexpected "cool" front last night - temps in the upper 60's - pool was just a tad cooler than I like, BUT the picnic lunch was wonderfully comfortable! All in all, a very nice weekend.

I hope you are spending yours with your family? And getting to make up for some lost time . . .

369 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:35:07pm

re: #358 pink freud

You need to work on your comprehension skills. Show me where I said 'the Fifties'?

WTF are you talking about? Maybe it's time to crawl out of that cave in your head you live in and take folks at face value. Fuck you and your "racial purity" crap.

OK, the deal is off. {G}

370 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:35:16pm

re: #350 ludwigvanquixote

Right but being accused of cooking my books because I was a political advocate doesn't count. Fuck you too.

OK. Whatever. GAZE. And I would suggest other Lizards do the same. Getting way to hot and ugly here lately. A hand few of "newer" poster are really stirring shit here.

371 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:35:50pm

re: #354 Jim in Virginia

Are you violating the Iron Fist rule?

That didn't expire along with him?

/

372 quickjustice  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:37:19pm

re: #315 ShanghaiEd

re: #355 irongrampa

The human brain tends to erase bad memories over time, leaving only good memories. I'm guilty of that myself.

That said, Ed seems to be demonstrating some racial grievance, class envy, and heterophobia. Care to elaborate, Ed?

373 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:37:35pm
374 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:37:54pm

re: #372 quickjustice

re: #355 irongrampa

The human brain tends to erase bad memories over time, leaving only good memories. I'm guilty of that myself.

That said, Ed seems to be demonstrating some racial grievance, class envy, and heterophobia. Care to elaborate, Ed?


(( I hope he doesn't!!))

375 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:38:24pm

re: #359 ShanghaiEd

OLT: This thread? OK.

I guess I have a long memory. In my experience, people who are racist tend to be homophobic as well. Painting with too broad a brush? I guess I have a long memory.

That's rather lame, IMO. But hey, whatever. I was about to get riled on the last thread and gave it up before I went over to the Dark Side. You go ahead and think the worst of everything anyone says; I won't attempt to slow your progress to the edge of the cliff.

376 capitalist piglet  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:38:26pm

re: #359 ShanghaiEd

OLT: This thread? OK.

I guess I have a long memory. In my experience, people who are racist tend to be homophobic as well. Painting with too broad a brush? I guess I have a long memory.

Good. That should make it easy to find the links, to make your case against whatever Lizard it is you're inferring is a homophobic racist.

I haven't seen that stuff on LGF, and I think it would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Whatcha got?

377 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:39:43pm

re: #368 reine.de.tout

Erik you here?
Great weekend.
Spent the day today at my brother's house, in his backyard pool.
Unfortunately - we had an unexpected "cool" front last night - temps in the upper 60's - pool was just a tad cooler than I like, BUT the picnic lunch was wonderfully comfortable! All in all, a very nice weekend.

I hope you are spending yours with your family? And getting to make up for some lost time . . .

I did and have been spending all my time with them. :) I will get back to reality tomorrow. I start looking for a business to buy.

378 Mich-again  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:40:21pm

I think lots of correction factors will tend to balance things out. All the smog and pollution in the air are blocking some of the sun's rays so we might just need more CO2 in the air to hold in the heat that does make it through. And since we have destroyed so much of the world's forests, the trees that are still here will thrive from the extra CO2. And as the glaciers melt the lower saline levels will cause disruptions to the ocean currents and parts of the Northern hemisphere will actually get colder as a result. So yes without a doubt there is more CO2 in the air than there would have been if there were no human activity. But I'm not convinced that's all bad.

379 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:40:59pm

re: #377 Erik The Red

What kinda business, if I may ask?

380 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:41:16pm
381 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:41:22pm

re: #378 Mich-again

I think lots of correction factors will tend to balance things out. All the smog and pollution in the air are blocking some of the sun's rays so we might just need more CO2 in the air to hold in the heat that does make it through. And since we have destroyed so much of the world's forests, the trees that are still here will thrive from the extra CO2. And as the glaciers melt the lower saline levels will cause disruptions to the ocean currents and parts of the Northern hemisphere will actually get colder as a result. So yes without a doubt there is more CO2 in the air than there would have been if there were no human activity. But I'm not convinced that's all bad.

Well, except that there are all sorts of positive feedbacks that will overwhelm any of that.

382 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:41:27pm

re: #370 Erik The Red

I've "gazed" a large handful of the recent arrivals (I'm relatively new myself) for just that reason. God only knows why they came here full of bitterness and profanity, but they did. I've got a formula shaping up where I ignore them for three or four days and then mock them when I'm bored. It doesn't even matter what the topic is, their talking points show up iin discussions ranging from Acorn to Zimbabwe.

383 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:42:51pm

re: #372 quickjustice

re: #355 irongrampa
That said, Ed seems to be demonstrating some racial grievance, class envy, and heterophobia. Care to elaborate, Ed?

You want him to share his feelings?

384 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:42:57pm

re: #376 capitalist piglet

Good. That should make it easy to find the links, to make your case against whatever Lizard it is you're inferring is a homophobic racist.
I haven't seen that stuff on LGF, and I think it would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Whatcha got?


I never really liked Michael Jackson!

//

385 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:43:45pm

re: #378 Mich-again

Surely increased atmospheric CO2 is part of the amazing state of agriculture in today's world, never before have humans been this successful.

386 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:45:30pm

re: #378 Mich-again

re: #385 Bagua

Surely increased atmospheric CO2 is part of the amazing state of agriculture in today's world, never before have humans been this successful.

BIG BROCCOLI IS KILLING US

387 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:45:41pm

re: #377 Erik The Red

I did and have been spending all my time with them. :) I will get back to reality tomorrow. I start looking for a business to buy.

Wife and two daughters have been gone for five days, back tomorrow. I don't think I could last a month or two without them.

388 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:45:46pm
389 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:45:55pm

re: #382 Lincolntf

How about in threads about how Soros and the oil companies are funding secret ACORN meetings with Nirthers and Truthers to plan strategy for Nor Laup in Zimbabwe?

390 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:45:59pm

re: #383 Jim in Virginia

You want him to share his feelings?

I already held a cry walk!

391 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:46:24pm

re: #384 sattv4u2

That makes you a BAD person.

392 VioletTiger  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:46:32pm

Did you hear about the poor people who got sweep away in Acadia this afternoon?
I was just there last week and it was as calm as can be, but I can see how it could get rough in a storm.

393 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:46:58pm

re: #391 Jim in Virginia

That makes you a BAD person.


Oh, BEAT IT, will ya?

394 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:07pm

re: #379 irongrampa

What kinda business, if I may ask?

I had gas stations and liquor stores in S. Africa. I am looking to getting into gas again(if I can find the right site). Otherwise I am open to almost anything. As long as it makes money and I get a good ROI I don't mind.

395 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:09pm

re: #386 sattv4u2

re: #385 Bagua

BIG BROCCOLI IS KILLING US

Yes, humans and food are killing the planet.

396 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:18pm
397 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:30pm

re: #388 buzzsawmonkey

I regularly think in prefabricated units.

398 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:31pm

re: #372 quickjustice

re: #355 irongrampa

The human brain tends to erase bad memories over time, leaving only good memories. I'm guilty of that myself.

That said, Ed seems to be demonstrating some racial grievance, class envy, and heterophobia. Care to elaborate, Ed?

irongrampa: "Seems to be" is a very weak case. I'm white, middle class (thanks to my ancestors joining the United Mine Workers of America), and hetero as hell, age permitting. What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Care to "elaborate" on your charges?

399 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:45pm

Current per capita CO2 emissions in the US are estimated at 19 tons per year. Target by 2050 to "save the planet" would be 1 to 1.5 tons per capita per year worldwide. You figure it out.

400 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:47:56pm
401 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:48:20pm

re: #388 buzzsawmonkey

Don't know where the word was used in this thread (if it was), but I concur 100%.

Sadly, cynical manipulation of the language like that is no longer recognized by most.

402 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:48:21pm

re: #394 Erik The Red

I had gas stations and liquor stores in S. Africa. I am looking to getting into gas again(if I can find the right site). Otherwise I am open to almost anything. As long as it makes money and I get a good ROI I don't mind.

Bush's Baked Beans,, Delicious and gassy!

403 Mich-again  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:49:27pm

re: #385 Bagua

Surely increased atmospheric CO2 is part of the amazing state of agriculture in today's world, never before have humans been this successful.

If tougher anti-pollution laws were enforced in China and India the resulting clean air could magnify the effects of global warming. Pollution might just be concealing the full effect of all the extra CO2.

404 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:49:37pm
405 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:49:59pm

re: #392 VioletTiger

Did you hear about the poor people who got sweep away in Acadia this afternoon?
I was just there last week and it was as calm as can be, but I can see how it could get rough in a storm.

Were they in the water?
Against warnings?
This is terrible, of course.
People should pay attention to warnings.

406 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:50:12pm

re: #398 ShanghaiEd

"...and hetero as hell, age permitting."

Do you expect to eventually grow into your gayness?

407 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:50:30pm

re: #394 Erik The Red

I had gas stations and liquor stores in S. Africa. I am looking to getting into gas again(if I can find the right site). Otherwise I am open to almost anything. As long as it makes money and I get a good ROI I don't mind.


This is Florida, think restaurants. 50% return on a 5 year loan.
[Link: hg-commercial.com...]
See ya'll.

408 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:51:09pm
409 solomonpanting  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:51:29pm

re: #315 ShanghaiEd

Wow! I haven't seen a stretch like that since:
-Driving Interstate 5 to Canada
-Joan Rivers's facial enhancements
-Lifting a cheese pizza from the box

410 pink freud  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:51:42pm

re: #392 VioletTiger

Did you hear about the poor people who got sweep away in Acadia this afternoon?
I was just there last week and it was as calm as can be, but I can see how it could get rough in a storm.

Where is this, VT?

411 VioletTiger  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:51:44pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

Were they in the water?
Against warnings?
This is terrible, of course.
People should pay attention to warnings.


They were standing on the rocks watching the waves. Some people just got bounced around, broken bones and such, but others were swept away. Just awful.

412 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:51:51pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

Were they in the water?
Against warnings?
This is terrible, of course.
People should pay attention to warnings.

There's apparently a shoreside road with "scenic overlooks" that is closed (usually) when they become "scenic underwater" due to wave activity.

413 Ben G. Hazi  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:51:55pm

re: #350 ludwigvanquixote

Right but being accused of cooking my books because I was a political advocate doesn't count. Fuck you too.

A wee bit touchy tonight, aren't we?

///

414 VioletTiger  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:52:09pm

re: #410 pink freud

Where is this, VT?

Acadia National Park in Maine.

415 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:52:12pm

Still trying to decide between the château and the châtelaine, Buzz?

416 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:52:39pm

re: #408 buzzsawmonkey

There is no higher calling than the lone madman proven right.

417 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:52:43pm
418 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:53:11pm
419 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:53:15pm

re: #408 buzzsawmonkey

I fully expect to end my life clothed in a scraggly beard and burlap sack, ranting on street corners about the corruption of the language.

It looks good on you now; why change?

/

420 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:53:33pm

re: #407 Cannadian Club Akbar

421 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:53:36pm

re: #388 buzzsawmonkey

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses the concocted word "homophobia" to refer to anti-homosexual prejudice has already proclaimed himself, at the outset, to be a tool of propagandists who thinks in prefabricated units.

"Concocted"? Homophobia has been in the Oxford English Dictionary since the 1950s.

What words, in particular, have YOU invented, as opposed to borrowing from previous long usage?

422 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:53:49pm

re: #378 Mich-again

I think lots of correction factors will tend to balance things out. All the smog and pollution in the air are blocking some of the sun's rays so we might just need more CO2 in the air to hold in the heat that does make it through. And since we have destroyed so much of the world's forests, the trees that are still here will thrive from the extra CO2. And as the glaciers melt the lower saline levels will cause disruptions to the ocean currents and parts of the Northern hemisphere will actually get colder as a result. So yes without a doubt there is more CO2 in the air than there would have been if there were no human activity. But I'm not convinced that's all bad.


You can make a good case that there are more trees in the United States now than there were in 1900. In large parts of the East and South, land that was farmed 50 or 100 years ago is now forested. In places like the suburbs of Houston and Dallas, the natural ground cover (Bald ass praire) has been replaced with substantially forested suburbs.

423 quickjustice  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:53:56pm

re: #398 ShanghaiEd

You jumped gramps's innocuous remark about the 1950s being a "purer" time with snark about it being fine for rich white men. You then added a gratuitous comment implying oppression of homosexuals or homophobia. And you thought it unnecessary to elaborate?

424 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:54:10pm

re: #420 Erik The Red

Where did my reply go???

425 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:54:15pm
426 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:56:14pm

re: #411 VioletTiger

They were standing on the rocks watching the waves. Some people just got bounced around, broken bones and such, but others were swept away. Just awful.

Oh, that's awful, just awful.
Sorry to hear it - I no longer watch TV news, and haven't had time to catch up from other sources.

427 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:57:26pm
428 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:58:32pm

re: #418 buzzsawmonkey

No, I've moved on to other chit-chât.

Then I call both!

429 Lincolntf  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:58:47pm

re: #427 buzzsawmonkey

The inability to recognize neologisms is a sure sign of a narrow mind.
He's a total munt.

430 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 6:59:32pm

re: #332 sattv4u2

Simpler, purer times, indeed...if one was (a) white, and (b) had some amount of money.

Point taken.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." --Oscar Wilde

But Wilde was a homosexual, and everybody knows you can't trust what they say.

/

Not really. I knew of lot of POOR BLACKS back in the 60's / 70's that today would agree that it was a purer simpler time then!

satt: Wait...you can read, today, the minds of people you knew 40 years ago? "Today, WOULD agree"? I give up. I have nowhere NEAR that supernatural power. Bedtime, for me.

431 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:00:41pm
432 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:01:07pm

re: #426 reine.de.tout

Oh, that's awful, just awful.
Sorry to hear it - I no longer watch TV news, and haven't had time to catch up from other sources.

I blame those asshole TV news putzes who always go down to the shoreline in hurricanes and get themselves shown being buffeted around by the winds while saying "don't go down to the shoreline whatever you do".

433 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:02:38pm

"Homophobia" was a word that was around in the early twentieth century, but it was used to mean "fear or hatred of men/humankind." It was, in other words, a more intense form of misanthropy.

It was only in the early 70s in the context of the conflict within the psychological community that it took on the meaning of "hatred of homosexuals."

434 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:04:53pm

re: #433 Lucius Septimius

"Homophobia" was a word that was around in the early twentieth century, but it was used to mean "fear or hatred of men/humankind." It was, in other words, a more intense form of misanthropy.

It was only in the early 70s in the context of the conflict within the psychological community that it took on the meaning of "hatred of homosexuals."

The actual word, if language were logical, would have to be homosexophobia.

435 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:06:44pm

re: #431 buzzsawmonkey

'Nite, all.

Night buzz :)))

436 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:07:08pm

re: #435 Erik The Red


Night.

437 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:07:36pm

Ciao -- I gotta get up early in the AM.

438 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:07:46pm

re: #431 buzzsawmonkey

Nite, sir. Pleasure to have you here.

439 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:07:56pm

re: #436 Bagua

Night.

I am still here for a bit. I was saying night to buzz:)

440 quickjustice  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:08:31pm

re: #432 Cato the Elder

Dan Rather invented the "travel to the hurricane to build some fake drama into my reporting" genre.

441 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:09:11pm

re: #437 Lucius Septimius

Goodnight--pleasure talking with you.

442 Bagua  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:09:41pm

re: #439 Erik The Red

I am still here for a bit. I was saying night to buzz:)

As usual I get it wrong. ;-)

/must be the tobacco

443 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:10:00pm

re: #440 quickjustice

Dan Rather invented the "travel to the hurricane to build some fake drama into my reporting" genre.

damned hurricanes cant trust them to blow garbage away when you need it

444 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:10:28pm

re: #442 Bagua

As usual I get it wrong. ;-)

/must be the tobacco

My screw ups are a lack of now.

445 irongrampa  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:12:16pm

Time for the old folk. I'm informed there's grandkids to torment tomorrow so rest is indicated.

Good night, good people.

446 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:13:25pm

Every video I have seen on climate change, those linked here as well as An Inconvenient Truth and The Global Warming Swindle are about on a par with Time and Newsweek articles.
But why should video journalism be any truer to the facts than print journalism? In this case, is it even-handedness or sleight of hand?

447 harpsicon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:26:47pm

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

Partial repost:

The deal with AGW on a political front is that while the left is proposing stuff that will not work like cap and trade, and the problem grows, and the right refuses to see that there even is a problem and takes itself completely out of sane discussion.

AGW is not an abstruse discussion about academic issues. It is very much the most important challenge facing our civilization today. It will, it really will, drastically affect the life and well being of all of our children.

It is more important than any other issue because the consequence to civilization for ignoring it, is the collapse of civilization. Yet, while we as a society, piddle and twiddle over it, very little substantive gets done.

So the reason I write here so much about it is in the hopes that more people get real about it. The moonbats do not need to understand that there is a problem. They need to be told to come up with better solutions. The people on the right who actually know something about economics, are thinking more about short term profits then they are about long term consequences and thus feel it is better to ignore the situation all together.

A much better situation would be massive, well thought out, scientifically based agitation for real solutions, like switching to nuclear, supplementing with solar and wind, switching to electric vehicles and not buying stuff from China and India until they get more green.

However, few on the right talk about that. Many would rather pretend that this is a liberal conspiracy and ignore it. Too many even see it as a clever act of defiance to even consider doing basic things like getting better light bulbs.

The problem is that "liberals" appear to want to take advantage of it to do really useless but quite awful things that will basically end democracy as we know it (see Cato's postings about Copenhagen).

The right isn't so much about debunking AGW as combatting the strident idiocy and accompanying policy initiatives from the left which are the present danger.

Most on the right are in favor of nuclear, and sensible solutions to most problems. Those on the left seem to favor emotional responses of a grandiose nature, which they can use for political advantage.

Those of us who would like to consider things thoughtfully are, like Bjorn Lonborg, effectively assassinated in public forums by climate crazies.

Who are very sure of themselves.

448 Enkidu90046  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 7:46:56pm

I watched all four videos on the playlist, but it seemed as thought there must be more to the series since it cut off mid sentence on the fourth video. Does anyone have a link to the rest of the videos?

449 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 8:23:30pm

re: #214 buzzsawmonkey

Whenever I hear "carbon footprint" I think of Al Gore as Robinson Crusoe.

buzzsawmonkey -

Obviously, you like I have "mellowed" with age. As a younger man, with my hard learned lessons/opinions, I might have reached for my revolver upon hearing "Carbon Footprint" mouthed by a FRAUD like former VP Gore, the Guy I Voted For in 2000. That is all.

-S-

450 james_everest  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 8:39:58pm

1. It is not a debate when one side chooses both the arguments and the answers.
2. Skeptics don't have a monopoly on BS.
3. It was skeptics who exposed the Gore BS.
3. Stop attacking the non-scientist messengers, attack the message.
4. There needs to be more balance in funding.
5. I recently criticized an oceanic expedition to observe effects of global warming. How is that balance? The hazard of preconceived ideas is well documented in psychology.

Skeptics welcome honest debate, this was not it. This is issue has significant consequences either way.

How about we start by agreeing to debate and stop the anti debate tactics like "settle science".
Can't we agree that bad science hurts both sides.

451 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 8:53:43pm

re: #450 james_everest

How about we start by agreeing to debate and stop the anti debate tactics like "settle science".
Can't we agree that bad science hurts both sides.

james _everest -

I can.

POINT ONE - Pray Tell - WHY is MARS warming at a proportional rate to Earth when the ONLY "SUV's" there were sent by NASA, all less than Five (5) of them, and NO PEOPLE!
Answer that one convincingly and I WILL listen further.
Otherwise, I take an empirical observation and say that the Sun Cycle influences "Climate"/Higher Temperature more than anything else.
That is Quite Enough.

-S-

452 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 8:56:49pm

re: #447 harpsicon

The problem is that "liberals" appear to want to take advantage of it to do really useless but quite awful things that will basically end democracy as we know it (see Cato's postings about Copenhagen).

The right isn't so much about debunking AGW as combatting the strident idiocy and accompanying policy initiatives from the left which are the present danger.

Most on the right are in favor of nuclear, and sensible solutions to most problems. Those on the left seem to favor emotional responses of a grandiose nature, which they can use for political advantage.

Those of us who would like to consider things thoughtfully are, like Bjorn Lonborg, effectively assassinated in public forums by climate crazies.

Who are very sure of themselves.

I mostly agree, but I'm afraid that the "right" has let itself be drawn into a "Church vs. Galileo" error. The church, fearing that if its teachings on anything whatsoever were disputed, the whole moral basis of society would collapse, decided to fight heliocentric heresy.

The right wing today, while it has its sober realists, includes all too many tacticians who think that since the solutions proposed by Gore and company are wrong headed and destructive, (and more than half suspecting that this is intentional on some level), it therefore follows that any old rhetorical device which can be made to serve the purpose of blocking those solutions is all to the good.

No it isn't. Superman stood for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, in that order. These videos point out some of the lies bandied about by the right. These lies will be refuted, and popular logic being what it is, the public will tend to conclude that since the Right is wrong on the point of this graph or that, it is also wrong about whether the Left's solution [an industrial counterrevolution?---what?] will work.

The right also has those who think that science is the work of scientists, who are class enemies, and that therefore science is wrong wherever its answers conflict with dialectic necessities of the Right. This is both contemptible and dangerous. That way lies fascism if one wins, and ruin if one persists and gets laughed or shunned out of the public square.

As to liberals, one can discern the sincere from the windbag or tactician by whether the guy forthrightly supports nuclear power. Support that is hedged about by more caveats than Cinderella's stepmother's promise that Cindy could go to the ball "if", doesn't count. Diversions, such as claiming that we don't need it because solar and wind will solve the problem, don't count. Maybe they will. And if they do, that will be great. But there is no great harm in building a bunch of nuclear power plants, and we do not know yet how to build wind and solar installations on the scale they'd be needed and at a tolerable cost.

Anyone who believes even the sober side of the projections about global warming would welcome addressing the problem by way of nuclear power, which is a sure thing. It can be done, it can be done at a cost competitive with coal, and it can be done at least as safely as using coal, when the risks of mining and of pollution at the smokestack are taken into account. And it can be done now.

453 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 8:59:05pm

#330 Jim in Virginia

AGW is the new religion. Doubters are dangerous heretics.


That is a know-nothing statement. Science is not religion. It stands or falls on the facts. Doubters have every right to hypothesize, conduct their own research, test the prevailing theories, and present the results.

#378 Mich-again

I think lots of correction factors will tend to balance things out. All the smog and pollution in the air are blocking some of the sun's rays so we might just need more CO2 in the air to hold in the heat that does make it through. And since we have destroyed so much of the world's forests, the trees that are still here will thrive from the extra CO2. And as the glaciers melt the lower saline levels will cause disruptions to the ocean currents and parts of the Northern hemisphere will actually get colder as a result. So yes without a doubt there is more CO2 in the air than there would have been if there were no human activity. But I'm not convinced that's all bad.

Some factors balance out, others do not, which is why we have net increase in CO2 and net increase in temperature. Particulate pollution does have a "dimming" effect, but has not countered the net rise over the last century. The disruptions to ocean currents may change some regional weather patterns, but it is unclear what and when. Not being "all bad" is fine, as long as you're not in one of the "bad" places to be. Do you know where those places will be?


#396 taxfreekiller


Prior to modern man, billions upon billions of wild animals roamed the continents, belching out CO2 by the trillions of tons per day.
Science that.

Give me a source for "trillions of tons per day". Then, whatever the real number is, add ~7 Gt/year to it from human activities.

454 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 8:59:42pm

re: #356 taxfreekiller

I think the official word from the UN is we have 4 months and it's over, might as well bend over and kiss our backsides goodbye! That is according to the Sec Gen a couple of days ago.

455 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:01:48pm

re: #453 Coracle

Coracle -

SEE and ANSWER CONVINCINGLY my # 451 - That IS All - AND - I am WAITING.

-S-

456 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:03:17pm

re: #450 james_everest

I can forgive bad science, not outright deception. I have trouble with credentialed scientists making monumentally stupid mistakes and then telling us not to allow their stupidity to to obscure the really important discussion.

457 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:04:05pm

re: #454 retief_99

I think the official word from the UN is we have 4 months and it's over, might as well bend over and kiss our backsides goodbye! That is according to the Sec Gen a couple of days ago.

retief_99 -

4 Months, eh - If that's the case, I will consider adding ESPN and watching Football into January, 2010.

-S-

458 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:04:19pm

re: #453 Coracle

Another theory (which makes more sense to me) was that we have net increased co2 becasue of increased temperatures (not the other way around) resulting from increased solar activity and gradual warming of oceans over years.
THe graphs demonstrate that C02 is a laging indicator to solar activity and warming and not a leading indicator.

459 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:04:21pm

re: #451 Dr. Shalit

Please do not allow rational thinking to obscure the really important discussion.

460 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:06:48pm

re: #451 Dr. Shalit

c'mon...dont yu know Mars is warming and its ice caps are shrinking becasue of dust storms on mars blocking out the sun and thus trapping heat.
The warming on mars occuring at the same time as the warming on earth has nothing at all to do with the fireball in the sky.

461 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:08:35pm

re: #459 retief_99

Please do not allow rational thinking to obscure the really important discussion.

retief_99 -

Sorry, I'm Old Fashioned that way. I appreciate having a 21st Century standard of living rather than an 18th/19th Century "SOL." Pray Tell, where am I wrong?

-S-

462 Pythagoras  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:10:55pm

re: #448 Enkidu90046

I watched all four videos on the playlist, but it seemed as though there must be more to the series since it cut off mid sentence on the fourth video. Does anyone have a link to the rest of the videos?

He does speak right at the end of two more videos. This is very frustrating. I could not find it.

463 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:12:44pm

re: #451 Dr. Shalit

james _everest -

I can.

POINT ONE - Pray Tell - WHY is MARS warming at a proportional rate to Earth when the ONLY "SUV's" there were sent by NASA, all less than Five (5) of them, and NO PEOPLE!

BTDT in previous threads here. Mars is not "warming at a proportional rate to the earth".
NewScientist The observations show some areas of frozen carbon dioxide on mars sublimated between 1999 and 2005. Annual cycles on mars drive sublimation and condensation cycles at the poles regularly, and we've seen very few of them. Mars has irregular, sometimes planet wide dust storms that darken and warm the surface. They could be partly the cause of the observed changes. The warming could also easily simply be a regional effect - that the caps simply change year to year with little net gain or loss. To posit that we understand Mars' climate well enough to make conclusions about AGW on earth is ridiculous on its face.

Colaprete et al, Nature 435, 184-188, 2005

Fenton et al, Nature 446, 646-649 (2007)

464 Seax  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:13:57pm

"...spreading the myth that climate scientists previously believed the Earth was entering an Ice Age."

OK then - so then my wife's teachers weren't really saying and teaching that there was going to be an coming Ice Age.
They just made it up - and the scientists that advised the then Education
Dept re that teaching ciriculum weren't really scientists and thier data wasn't really scientific and...the teachers weren't really teachers...
- and you want me to believe you now?
Right...

465 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:14:05pm

re: #454 retief_99

I think the official word from the UN is we have 4 months and it's over, might as well bend over and kiss our backsides goodbye! That is according to the Sec Gen a couple of days ago.

Cite, please.

466 retief_99  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:17:23pm

re: #465 Coracle

[Link: www.un.org...]

467 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:19:22pm

re: #458 danrudy

Another theory (which makes more sense to me) was that we have net increased co2 becasue of increased temperatures (not the other way around) resulting from increased solar activity and gradual warming of oceans over years.
THe graphs demonstrate that C02 is a laging indicator to solar activity and warming and not a leading indicator.

BTDT in previous threads here.
Net solar activity not changed in any significant way in the last 30 years.
NewScientist

...rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.
468 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:19:36pm

re: #466 retief_99

[Link: www.un.org...]

"We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet."

469 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:19:46pm

We've got a real tag team of ignorance going on in this thread.

470 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:20:35pm

Charles

471 Pythagoras  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:21:34pm

re: #469 Charles

The last video of the four you posted ends with a mention of the next two videos. We'd like to see them.

472 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:21:47pm

re: #464 Seax

"...spreading the myth that climate scientists previously believed the Earth was entering an Ice Age."

OK then - so then my wife's teachers weren't really saying and teaching that there was going to be an coming Ice Age.
They just made it up - and the scientists that advised the then Education
Dept re that teaching ciriculum weren't really scientists and thier data wasn't really scientific and...the teachers weren't really teachers...
- and you want me to believe you now?
Right...

I can't speak for your wife's teachers 30 years ago, or their curriculum advisors. There was media driven hype 30 years ago not driven by or supported by the science. Take up your trust concerns with those responsible.

Not responsible for advice not taken.

473 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:22:28pm

Charles...
I was just citing the requested quote.

But thanks for the "tag team of ignorance" comment. It reminded me how I must elevate the conversation and not resort to personal attacks

474 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:22:57pm

re: #471 Pythagoras

The last video of the four you posted ends with a mention of the next two videos. We'd like to see them.

Is there something stopping you from finding them yourself at YouTube?

475 Pythagoras  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:23:34pm

re: #474 Charles

My lack of talent. I tried.

476 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:24:37pm

re: #466 retief_99

[Link: www.un.org...]

I'm not seeing "it's over" anywhere in that. It looks like they're pushing for reduced emissions to avoid a potential 2 degree rise by 2050? Is this the claim of "it's over"?

477 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:25:31pm

re: #458 danrudy

Another theory (which makes more sense to me) was that we have net increased co2 becasue of increased temperatures (not the other way around) resulting from increased solar activity and gradual warming of oceans over years.
THe graphs demonstrate that C02 is a laging indicator to solar activity and warming and not a leading indicator.

You could not possibly write this nonsense if you had watched the very first video above.

You haven't even watched the videos you're dismissing.

478 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:26:08pm

re: #448 Enkidu90046

I watched all four videos on the playlist, but it seemed as thought there must be more to the series since it cut off mid sentence on the fourth video. Does anyone have a link to the rest of the videos?

He hasn't posted them on his Youtube account yet, from what I can tell.

479 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:27:20pm

re: #476 Coracle

I'm not seeing "it's over" anywhere in that. It looks like they're pushing for reduced emissions to avoid a potential 2 degree rise by 2050? Is this the claim of "it's over"?


Here is the complete quote from the middle of the page

As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future. I'm glad that the Chairman of the forum and many other speakers have used my campaign slogan “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. I won't charge them loyalty. Please use this “Seal the Deal” as widely as possible, as much as you can. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.


This is the 4 months reference you requested that was alluded to above.

480 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:27:58pm

re: #468 danrudy


Aha! Yes, I see that. That's quite hyperbolic. But it's referring to Copenhagen, not the fact that our doom is sealed in 4 months.

481 Pythagoras  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:29:25pm

re: #478 freetoken

Thanks. I watched these a while ago and thought it would have progressed by now.

482 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:35:05pm

re: #464 Seax

Sigh... you really are confusing many issues.

Yes, indeed, there is another "ice-age" coming. Really. There is now very good proof that Earth's orbital changes (which are mostly periodic in nature) get reflected in what happens to the climate. Looking at orbital calculations, it is possible to figure out that in about 16000 years the climate will start to cool significantly as a result of said orbital changes.

This was all becoming very clear in the 60's and 70's because we started to get data from deposits on Earth, that confirmed Milankovitch's theory. This scientific advancement made it into the popular press and I too remember it from school.

Additionally, there is human-cause perturbations to the climate, both towards warming and cooling. As the videos show clearly, there were a few scientists who questioned whether human induced pollution was sufficient to cool the Earth, while the majority had thought that the warming done by human effects would outweigh anything else.

Now, three decades later, there is much greater confidence in the idea that human caused changes in the atmosphere and the Earth's surface will definitely lead to warming, and though the issue of pollution still is around it will only slightly modify the warming trend.

483 Silvergirl  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:35:56pm

re: #326 ShanghaiEd

"Chatelaine"...one of the most beautiful words, IMO, in any language. Also the title of a beautiful pop song of a few decades ago, recorded by Linda Ronstadt on one of her tribute albums to the Big Band era...

Which album? I have or have heard most of the ones she did with Nelson Riddle, if those are the ones you mean. I'm not familiar with this song.

484 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:40:42pm

re: #477 Charles
re: #477 Charles

i have to get to sleep...

However, I did watch most of them as I mentioned above.
I know the documentary "the global warming Swindle" by Durkin referenced in this video. ( which is where the solar activity theory you dismiss is cited.)

However, as i asked above (and nobody answered) who produced and distributed this video? It seemd to be anonymous on Youtube. I hve a real problem with anonymous works becasue as you know very well, documentaries can have an agenda (as the Durkin peive has been accused ). Knowing where the video originates allows me to better assess its objectivity.
The facts as presented in a documentary DO NOT stand for themselves without knowing who is presenting them. Michael Moore is the prime example of this.

485 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:42:18pm

re: #480 Coracle

Aha! Yes, I see that. That's quite hyperbolic. But it's referring to Copenhagen, not the fact that our doom is sealed in 4 months.

yes it is quite hyperbolic. " 4 months to secure the future of the planet " seems to imply a little more then just Copenhagen. This sounds more like hysteria to me.

486 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:43:20pm

re: #484 danrudy

Dozens of additional sources - primary and secondary - have been presented in this and previous GW threads. You don't have to take any claim in the videos at face value. Look at the sources.

487 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:44:57pm

re: #485 danrudy

yes it is quite hyperbolic. " 4 months to secure the future of the planet " seems to imply a little more then just Copenhagen. This sounds more like hysteria to me.

I didn't write the speech or appoint the speaker. Take it up with him. It's pretty clear the speaker thinks Copenhagen is of critical importance. You do not have to agree. But it is also clear the speaker is not saying that 'we have 4 months or we're doomed'.

488 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:47:41pm

re: #484 danrudy

re: #477 Charles

i have to get to sleep...

However, I did watch most of them as I mentioned above.

I don't believe you. You just asked an anti-AGW talking point question about the "carbon lag" effect, and a big part of the first video was specifically about that very issue. It was answered very convincingly, with evidence cited.

I'm not surprised that you're dismissing the evidence without even looking at it, but it's interesting to see it so graphically confirmed.

489 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:51:15pm

re: #365 Teh Flowah

Quite a difference between occupation and advocacy.

490 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 9:55:05pm

re: #484 danrudy


However, as i asked above (and nobody answered) who produced and distributed this video?

Apparently it is too difficult for you to double click on the video and open the Youtube window, and find out whose account is linked?

491 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:09:44pm

Thank you for posting these videos, Charles. I found it an excellent display of anti-idiotarianism.

492 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:09:48pm

re: #488 Charles


Couldnt sleep...knew you would have a reply.
Um, in fact I did watch it about 4-5 hours ago. I was mostly interested in the Penn Teller debunking.
While his tipping scale was an interesting idea to explain away the lag theory I didnt note how it was backed up by any evidence. It seemed to merely to be a theory to explain away the fact that there is a lag time of c02 behind temperature. Maybe I will have to re-watch it as I am tired and am not remembering it to well.
I believe he was referring to the lag time that was discussed in "The Great GLobal Warming Swindle" by Durkin.
Have you watched that documentary ? I saw it a while ago and thought it raised many questions about these theories and was just as convincing.

493 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:10:41pm

re: #491 Sharmuta

Stalker countered.

494 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:10:50pm

re: #490 freetoken

Apparently it is too difficult for you to double click on the video and open the Youtube window, and find out whose account is linked?


I did. Pothole54 or something like that...can you give me more info on this person other then he is a geologist who works in the media?

495 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:13:52pm

re: #492 danrudy


Have you watched that documentary ? I saw it a while ago and thought it raised many questions about these theories and was just as convincing.

It is hard to come to any conclusion other than you are being intentionally argumentative. The posted videos here are hardly the only indictments against the Swindle documentary. Indeed, others have already been posted here at LGF.

The balance analogy is used to demonstrate the idea of "feedback", in that a round object's ability to roll (thus feeling far less friction that a flat block) is a form of positive feedback (when arranged on a balance as demonstrated.)

496 Pythagoras  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:14:50pm

re: #490 freetoken

Apparently it is too difficult for you to double click on the video and open the Youtube window, and find out whose account is linked?

Thank you! I didn't guess that. I don't need to know who produced the video but it does help me know that #5 isn't out yet.

By the way, I anxiously await the next installment of this series. I wonder where he will come down in the bottom line. Sure, it's getting warmer and CO2 matters but he held off saying this is a problem that needs fixing. There are huge benefits from things like opening the northwest passage, and he did poo-poo the rising sea level hysteria. (The banana split morph was great.)

That is, of course, a testimony to the quality of the presentation. It is truly balanced. If he makes the case that global warming is about to hit some kind of "tipping point" and become a real problem, I'll be open to the argument. I have never seen that case made in detail.

497 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:18:13pm

re: #488 Charles

I don't believe you. You just asked an anti-AGW talking point question about the "carbon lag" effect, and a big part of the first video was specifically about that very issue. It was answered very convincingly, with evidence cited.

I'm not surprised that you're dismissing the evidence without even looking at it, but it's interesting to see it so graphically confirmed.

I likewise don't believe anyone who watched those videos would think they could trot out the very talking points that were debunked. This is an excellent exercise in who click links, etc.

498 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:22:10pm

re: #492 danrudy

Couldnt sleep...knew you would have a reply.
Um, in fact I did watch it about 4-5 hours ago. I was mostly interested in the Penn Teller debunking.
While his tipping scale was an interesting idea to explain away the lag theory I didnt note how it was backed up by any evidence. It seemed to merely to be a theory to explain away the fact that there is a lag time of c02 behind temperature. Maybe I will have to re-watch it as I am tired and am not remembering it to well.
I believe he was referring to the lag time that was discussed in "The Great GLobal Warming Swindle" by Durkin.
Have you watched that documentary ? I saw it a while ago and thought it raised many questions about these theories and was just as convincing.

Video: 'The Big Swindle Movie'

499 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:30:24pm

re: #496 Pythagoras

I think once you take the time to look at the science it becomes clear that AGW is a problem, and we are going to have to deal with it. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions, but it best if these are based on facts not distortions and lies. It's also important to keep in mind accepting the science does not mean accepting the solutions of the left.

500 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:30:55pm

re: #495 freetoken

I really must get to sleep.
I do thank you for your discussion rather then the "ding and run" that Sharmuta has mastered.
The balance idea is still a theory (without evidence) to explain a fact which does not fit into the model. To me, the Solar theory thus makes more sense (because I see the power of Solar Flares through my telescope) and it fits with the observable data that temperatures precede Co2 changes. It would have been alot neater if the temps followed c02 but this is not the way it happens.

Doest mean I want to pollute our environment unnecessarily . Doenst mean I dont go green on some things . Doesn't mean I am against Nuclear power plants and a better source of energy (I am.) I just dont think we have as big an impact as we think we do. Thus, while I advocate alternate fuels etc, I dont think we are doomed anytime soon until we get there. I think a more compelling argument to me about gasoline is that we are enriching Middle East governments that hate us and have a limited supply (albeit for a hundred ? years). Thus, we ought to have other sources of energy. Yes, our air will be cleaner in Los Angeles etc, but I dont think a near time global catastrophe will result.

501 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:31:43pm

re: #500 danrudy

When have you ever addressed me? I think it's called projection.

502 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:37:01pm

re: #500 danrudy


The balance idea is still a theory (without evidence) to explain a fact which does not fit into the model. To me, the Solar theory thus makes more sense (because I see the power of Solar Flares through my telescope) and it fits with the observable data that temperatures precede Co2 changes. It would have been alot neater if the temps followed c02 but this is not the way it happens.

The "balance idea" is not a "theory". Rather, it is a pedagogical device to show you what "positive feedback" means. There are better explanations that are closer to the real problem, but many of them are examples from electronics that takes many words to explain (it is at this point where I lament not being able to embed graphics in LGF entries.)

As for the sun... what part of the explanation about the measurements of Total Solar Irradiation do you miss? Output from the Sun has been measured in detail, and changes in solar radiation falling on the Earth have been shown (that is past tense) to be inadequate alone to explain changes in Earth's climate.

From your use of the word "theory", I'm getting the idea that you are one of those who dismiss Evolution as "only a theory". No?

503 Coracle  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:39:47pm

re: #498 Sharmuta

Video: 'The Big Swindle Movie'

I'm heading to bed, but just paged through that thread. It was actually disheartening to go through it and see so many of the same opinions from the same people repeated then and now. Some seem impervious to the presentation of facts and resources for real evaluation.

Ah well. To sleep.

504 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:41:02pm

re: #498 Sharmuta


wow...thanks for actually replying to me.

I am actually going to go to sleep but I will try to watch the link you posted tomorrow. Thank you.

BTW
For the record, I did watch the video (most) that Charles posted. However, watching it and accepting what is presented as fact are not the same.

505 danrudy  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:42:39pm

sharmuta...I was referring to the seeming increased incidence of you down dinging me without comment. Anyways...thank you for the link...I will watch it tomorrow

good night

506 jamihabs  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:43:38pm

Interesting point of view. But, why was Rush Limbaugh used as a counter figure to Al Gore? Did Rush put out a climate documentary that I missed? Has he been accepting peace prizes on the down low?

507 freetoken  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:55:45pm

re: #506 jamihabs

For many years, Limbaugh has mocked the idea of global warming and at times has been a voice for some of the myths.

508 Pythagoras  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 10:58:30pm

re: #499 Sharmuta

I think once you take the time to look at the science it becomes clear that AGW is a problem, and we are going to have to deal with it. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions, but it best if these are based on facts not distortions and lies. It's also important to keep in mind accepting the science does not mean accepting the solutions of the left.

I have studied global warming in great detail and I have the educational background to understand the technical papers. While many people have used the phrase "tipping point" in their description of global warming, I have not found a quantitative argument for an impending tipping point (or any other acceleration/higher order effect in the regressions).

All of the feedback mechanisms used in global warming arguments are already in play (e.g. reduced albedo from melting sea ice). None of these give any justification for a non-linear response in the future. In fact, when the Arctic runs out of ice, that feedback mechanism will hit its limit and its marginal impact will dwindle.

Look at any plot of what's changing -- temperature, sea level, Arctic sea ice extent, Antarctic sea ice extent -- the trends are all straight lines. If they stay straight lines, we do NOT have a problem. Here's a good reference on polar sea ice extent. The trends are on the right.

[Link: nsidc.org...]

509 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 11:03:00pm

Well, this series of videos are certainly better presented and less insulting to one's intelligence than the ones produced by that "Green Man" turkey. The presenter, whoever he is, has done a fine job of presenting the orthodox position on AGW, and a pretty fair job of presenting the position of some of the better-known skeptics. And I applaud his use of the relatively neutral terms, "proponent" and "skeptic", instead of the politically-charged terms "true believer" and "denier".

One issue I didn't see addressed in these four videos was the question of saturation, which is the contention (by some skeptics) that the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb all of the available IR radiation in its absorption band. Which means that further increases in CO2 won't cause further warming, because all the available energy in that wave band has already been absorbed.

He also has avoided addressing the deficiencies in the surface climate record, but apparently there are more videos yet to come in this series, so perhaps these gaps will be covered.

At any rate, at least the tone of these videos is civil and has some semblance of balance, which is certainly an improvement.

Thank you, Charles.

510 jamihabs  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 11:22:50pm

re: #507 freetoken


Please!.. Limbaugh has mocked everything under the sun and mostly whatever is promoted by the left. He does not pretend to be a climate expert, and he is not awarded prestigious awards by Nobel comities for his efforts to save the world.

I suspect he was used because he is seen as a cartoonish figure by the left. And this gives a clue to the biases of the moderator of this series of videos.

511 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 23, 2009 11:55:52pm

re: #90 ludwigvanquixote

OK, so again, some serious points.

It warms faster at the poles. This has been predicted. It is happening. That 7 degree stuff from IPCC is a global average, the poles will go if things do not change. Greenland is going as we speak and the Canadian and Siberian Tundra are not just going but dumping tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they melt.

If the poles go there will be flooding of most of the major coastal cities in the world.

Growing patterns will change. There will not be enough food.

There will also be a large number of people without clean water. This is reality.

Let me give you some links for things we are seeing now that match prediction:

[Link: www.agu.org...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]
[Link: www.nature.com...]
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Now let me give you some links for what the predictions are:

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: www.pnas.org...]

Your links do not support your sensationalist contentions. The Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are experiencing some level of increased melting (3%/year, according to one of your links), but, even with a possible 7 degree C rise in global temperature over the next century, nowhere even remotely near the 50 fold melt rate increase (5000%) that would be required to totally melt them. And since the Arctic Ice Cap is in an ocean rather than on land as the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are, it is indeed affected by ocean currents in a way that they are not, but also, since 7/8 of its bulk is already displacing the water in which it rests, its melting will not substantially affect global sea levels.

So if things do not change, the most important ice caps as far as sea level is concerned, Antarctica and Greenland, will NOT go, and according to current climatological consensus, a 7 degree C rise in global temperature over the next century will cause a ONE meter rise in global sea levels, not the TEN meter rise you continue to try to alarm people with.

512 mikebomb  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:18:40am

Then there is the new peer reviewed study from Australia claiming 72% of the variance in GTTA can be explained by a climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that makes warm El Niño conditions more likely to appear and cool La Niñas less likely.

See climatedepot.com...]>[Link: climatedepot.com......]

513 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:48:18am
in the third video he takes Penn and Teller to task for spreading the myth that climate scientists previously believed the Earth was entering an Ice Age.

Well, maybe they didn't unanimously agree there was going to be an Ice Age, but plenty of leading scientists certainly thought so.

Among them, it should be pointed out, is one of the leaders and originators of the modern Global Warming movement, and our current Science Czar: John Holdren.

Holdren wrote these exact words in the '70s:

"This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend -- a total of about 2 degrees C in the world mean surface temprature over the poast quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4 degrees would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8 degrees C. We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and outher suitable pollutants. A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made change in the direct reflectivity of the earth's surface (labedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.

The effect of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human population scarely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results and possible, however;. for instance a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history."

514 [deleted]  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:18:47am
515 mili  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:55:26am

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't think that India or even China can afford that. At least not yet.

516 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:00:56am

re: #512 mikebomb

Then there is the new peer reviewed study from Australia claiming 72% of the variance in GTTA can be explained by a climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that makes warm El Niño conditions more likely to appear and cool La Niñas less likely.

See http://climatedepot.com...

Unfortunately, their analysis method, by its very nature, removes any long term linear trend from the data.

First, they analyze 12-month running averages rather than raw data. This won’t by itself inflate the correlation, although it does make correlation estimates much more uncertain (by introducing strong false autocorrelation). More to the point, they don’t compute correlation between temperature and SOI, but between the time derivatives of temperature and SOI. They estimate time derivatives by taking the difference between 12-month running averages, 12 months apart.


Any trend in the data is reduced to a constant by the process of estimating the derivative. [Source]

You will not see a trend if you remove it beforehand.

517 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:09:50am

re: #513 zombie

Well, maybe they didn't unanimously agree there was going to be an Ice Age, but plenty of leading scientists certainly thought so.


No.. Post #9 in this thread.

Among them, it should be pointed out, is one of the leaders and originators of the modern Global Warming movement, and our current Science Czar: John Holdren.

If those were his words (I'd like a cite please), then his position regarding the imminence and level of effect was in the scientific minority at the time.

518 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:25:35am

re: #483 Silvergirl

Which album? I have or have heard most of the ones she did with Nelson Riddle, if those are the ones you mean. I'm not familiar with this song.

Silvergirl: Uh-oh. My brain miscalculated. I'm thinking of K.D. Lang's recording of "Chatelaine," not Linda Ronstadt. Sorry.

519 MKELLY  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:58:51am

Excerpts from the August 1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy, the Coming of the New
Ice Age” Random House.

From the Introduction

In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the
greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they
ordered several studies of the world’s climate, the likely changes to come and their
probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world
is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely
to occur.

The ramifications of such a change would be many, affecting the foreign policy and your
fuel bill, what food is grown and what you eat. Taken at its bleakest, the coming weather
may signify a major migration and equally massive starvation. Taken at its most
optimistic, it will cause all of us to change parts of our lifestyle.

…That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that
we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the
world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ….the evidence suggests that change will
be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850.
Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global
temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another
0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.

The book had several appendices from the CIA from 1974. Excerpts:

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a
detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based on a dependable
source of food, but this stability will not be possible under this new climate era.

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climate change is taking
place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it
becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a
long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply
of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will, in the
future, occupy a major portion of the intelligence community’s assets.

520 funky chicken  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:24:05am

I haven't been around much because I've gone back to school (yes, and it's real science, not computer generated climate prediction "science"), but once these guys are willing to call out Gore and DiCaprio for their absolute ascientific nonsense and massive lifestyle hypocracy, I'll give them a listen. Until then, it's back to the chemistry salt mines for me.

521 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:26:00am

re: #519 MKELLY

About "The Weather Conspiracy"
A response written the year it came out.

A few quotes from the pdf:

Since its 'author' is "The Impact Team", a group of 18 non-weather experts calling themselves reporters, writers, researchers, and "back-up" (whatever that means) people, they had to turn elsewhere for scientific credibility. They chose the wrong people.
...Professor Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin, whom the CIA and the Impact Team cite as the expert predicting most of the coming climatic disasters, has publically repudiated mist of the CIA reports; and they quote him as a principal source of specific climatic predictions. Bryson obejected for the simple reason that the predictions were specific- something which is beyond the state-of-the-art skills of climatologists. In fact, much of the CIA reports depend on pre-1974 views of Bryson, and he has himself argued that new evidence has required himm as any good scientist, to revise and recast his views.

The whole article is a telling statement on the state of knowledge, information, and misinformation in the late 1970's.

522 funky chicken  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:40:50am

re: #517 Coracle

Please see zombie's 513

523 Pythagoras  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:41:20am

re: #521 Coracle

Dude, what happened to the masked marmoset? The coracle shot is cool though.

524 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:53:46am

re: #520 funky chicken

I haven't been around much because I've gone back to school (yes, and it's real science, not computer generated climate prediction "science"), but once these guys are willing to call out Gore and DiCaprio for their absolute ascientific nonsense and massive lifestyle hypocracy, I'll give them a listen. Until then, it's back to the chemistry salt mines for me.

Gore and DiCaprio are guilty of over-presenting and misinterpreting some of the science, and live lifestyles many would consider antithetical to their stated concerns. Their celebrity, partisan leanings, and tendency to conflate the problem with specific policy solutions championed by one party and vilified the other do not make them effective spokesmen for the science to a non-partisan lay audience.

Willing to listen now? Aip.org is a good place to start.

525 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:55:12am

re: #522 funky chicken

Please see zombie's 513

My 517, which is what you were replying to, was a direct response to 513.

526 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:56:47am

re: #523 Pythagoras

Dude, what happened to the masked marmoset? The coracle shot is cool though.

Yeah. He was much of a non-sequitur. I might bring him back at some point.

527 Pythagoras  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:59:25am

re: #526 Coracle

OK. Gotta go pick up my wife at PT. Back later.

I still think when we clear away all the BS from both sides, the case for an acceleration of global warming is lacking. It all looks pretty linear to me.

528 JustAHouseWife  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 7:44:34am

Videos don't mean anything. All that matters is the data. climateaudit.org. Read it! And there are links to other sites there too ; that look at the DATA and the entire history of the DATA. IOW "data" means: every raw measurement "climate scientists" get their hands on and what they do to it to come up with their conclusions, and what the margin for error is, and even how sometimes they will hide data from the public and not share the data handling methods. (for instance: climateaudit just found NASA mucking up the sea level data) If a person doesn't address these detailed and very specific issues and problems with THE DATA and how it is presented; then that person is the one in denial and not behaving very "scientific". And as soon as any person whether scientist, blog owner or just plain old citizen starts name calling and labeling people (in their mind or out loud) without addressing these very detailed and specific problems with THE DATA they are doing MORE HARM then good IMHO, and they should be ignored. I have to tell you I find it more then sinister that these people; who name call and don't address these things; think of themselves as "superior".

529 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:19:53am

re: #528 JustAHouseWife

For the flipside of ClimateAudit, there is RealCimate.org.
From there:

While commentary — even quite negative commentary — of papers on blogs is entirely reasonable (after all, we do it here occasionally), claims that a particular paper has been ‘discredited’ or ‘falsified’ that have not withstood (at minimum) the process of peer-review should be viewed with extreme skepticism.


Of course this cuts both ways - pro and con, and response to pro and con. Read, educate yourself, evaluate as objectively as you can.

530 funky chicken  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:22:18am

re: #511 Salamantis

Your links do not support your sensationalist contentions. The Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are experiencing some level of increased melting (3%/year, according to one of your links), but, even with a possible 7 degree C rise in global temperature over the next century, nowhere even remotely near the 50 fold melt rate increase (5000%) that would be required to totally melt them. And since the Arctic Ice Cap is in an ocean rather than on land as the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are, it is indeed affected by ocean currents in a way that they are not, but also, since 7/8 of its bulk is already displacing the water in which it rests, its melting will not substantially affect global sea levels.

So if things do not change, the most important ice caps as far as sea level is concerned, Antarctica and Greenland, will NOT go, and according to current climatological consensus, a 7 degree C rise in global temperature over the next century will cause a ONE meter rise in global sea levels, not the TEN meter rise you continue to try to alarm people with.

Good to see you, Sal. Off to class again :-).

531 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:30:17am

re: #513 zombie

Well, maybe they didn't unanimously agree there was going to be an Ice Age, but plenty of leading scientists certainly thought so.

The point is: the anti-AGW talking point that there was previously a scientific consensus that the Earth was entering an Ice Age is simply not true. There may have been a few scientists who believed that, but the vast majority of scientists in the 60s and 70s were already accepting that the Earth's climate was warming, not cooling.

The American Meteorological Society actually did a study of this, and showed conclusively that the Ice Age claim is simply a myth:

[Link: ams.allenpress.com...]

532 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:33:06am

re: #531 Charles

That makes three links to that article in this one thread. Maybe more people will take it seriously coming from you, Charles.

533 JustAHouseWife  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:11:19am

re: #529 Coracle

For the flipside of ClimateAudit, there is RealCimate.org.
From there:


Of course this cuts both ways - pro and con, and response to pro and con. Read, educate yourself, evaluate as objectively as you can.

I know that Coracle. Climate Audit provides a link to Real Climate on its blog. The opposite is not true. What does that tell you? Who's blog is more open and interested in the getting to the truth?

This whole issue of the ice ages is silly. Of course there is an ice age after a warm period on Earth. I've said it before and I'll say it again. 22 ice advances and retreats in the last million years. Greenland melted completely 100,000 years ago.

I guess what you feel about that depends on your grasp of time and age of this planet; how important you think your humanity is and what you want to do to this society to control "all the bad stuff" humans do.

Woman and children died in child birth before the "industrial era" too.
I am all for finding alternative energy and keeping the planet clean but AGW theory IMHO is just a group think guilt fest and with little "robust" evidence from THE DATA to support these alarming conclusions for the future. 300,000 people died in one instant in a mega tsunami a few years at Christmas. I live in a coastal area of So. Cal. (so do you Charles). Zip, nada, nothing, no money for emergency planning in case of a tsunami here. I know this for a fact; my husband attended the civic meetings as an expert in the field; that year. Look at all this money spent on 1 degree rise in temperature since the end of the Little Ice age in the 1850s. Why does that mean anything to anybody who doesn't know the geologic record and does not look at THE DATA?

534 JustAHouseWife  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:21:20am

Husband says Palos Verdas has a huge fault running through it. Drove by there yesterday on the 405fwy and he commented (he likes to do that; he's a geologist). 17 instances of chaos recorded in the rock right there he says; for anyone to see. I thought of LGF right away; and these threads trying to tackle earth sciences. LOL

535 Sharmuta  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:31:59am

re: #532 Coracle

That makes three links to that article in this one thread. Maybe more people will take it seriously coming from you, Charles.

I'm wondering if people even watched video #3. It clearly stated they found 7 papers calling for an ice age. Hardly "plenty". They also found 44 papers supporting warming. This was in the first few minutes of video #3, but it still getting trotted out. Amazing.

536 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:35:16am

re: #533 JustAHouseWife

I know that Coracle. Climate Audit provides a link to Real Climate on its blog. The opposite is not true. What does that tell you? Who's blog is more open and interested in the getting to the truth?
It tells me you're not looking. CA is mentioned multiple times within RealClimate. Both by name as by climateaudit.org. It is also linked to in articles addressing CA-raised issues. You are correct it is not on the front page. I suppose McIntyre gives Schmidt et al more credit than they give him.

This whole issue of the ice ages is silly.


As presented vis a vis AGW, I agree completely.

As for the rest, I agree tsunami preparedness is woefully lacking in coastal areas. A great deal more should be done. A certain amount of that kind of preparedness could in fact be leveraged against potential other sources of higher seas as well - from storm surges to global level rise from any source, so I'm all in favor. While we're at it, we need to add a better ability to detect and mitigate potential astroid impact hazards. We don't need a dinosaur-killing 10km bolide to cause serious global consequence. A rocky body a couple hundred meters across could cause a continent-scale catastrophe (or a major tsunami if it hit an ocean - 70% probability, after all)

537 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:37:34am

Dang. Tags got all messed up in that reply. Apologies.

538 Seax  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:34:45am

Re 472
In my time they were teaching that the world was going to
drown in a sea of overpopulation ( and they brought out the
scientists as well then - with their data ).
Then it was the coming 'Ice age' of my wifes generation.
Now it's 'global warming' - er - sorry 'climate change'.
What next ...the coming 'alien invasion'?
What erks me is the almost stalinist historic revision ( we know better now - back then they knew jack s**t ) and the fact
the're still dealing in fear - and what does the average person get for 'carbon credits'? Bugger all that's what.
OK - I've got off my soap box - so - please resume your normal programme...

539 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:55:49am

re: #531 Charles

The point is: the anti-AGW talking point that there was previously a scientific consensus that the Earth was entering an Ice Age is simply not true. There may have been a few scientists who believed that, but the vast majority of scientists in the 60s and 70s were already accepting that the Earth's climate was warming, not cooling.

The American Meteorological Society actually did a study of this, and showed conclusively that the Ice Age claim is simply a myth:

[Link: ams.allenpress.com...]

I don't follow this issue closely, so know very little about the anti-AGW talking point that there was a consensus that an ice age was coming. Aside from the rebuttals of the talking point -- I'd never actually seen the claim of a consensus being made.

All I know is this: When reviewing Holdren's work in the '70s, I did come across several references to a coming ice age, which he wrote in academic/scientific books and papers. In those, he refers to others with the same opinion. The quote I gave above is from a page I scanned from one of his books, which is why I have it. And comically, I had scanned the page for an entirely different reason (a completely unrelated disturbing statement he made elsewhere on the two-page spread), and got the ice age comment by accident. I didn't even notice it until I looked at the scan later.

I didn't bother scanning the other ice age quotes from him, because they weren't the topic of my search and I had minimal interest in the issue at the time (I was instead looking for his statements about overpopulation).

Anyway, was there a consensus? I have no idea, nor any interest in tracking down the topic. If the AMS says there wasn't a consensus, then I guess we'll have to trust them.

But the lack of a consensus does not equate to no one thinking an ice age was imminent. Obviously many people did. The only matter of dispute is: What percentage of scientists foresaw a coming ice age; and what level of "authority" did those scientists or popular-science-writers have? Cataloguing every single person's opinion on the topic 35 years ago, and ranking their authority levels, is a completely overwhelming task of little interest to me (and I imagine most other people). Only the AMS article (of which we can only see an abstract) seems to have made any attempt.

Thus, I am not and wasn't claiming there was a consensus, only that many/some/who-know-the-percentage well-known scientists did worry about an ice age in the '70s. I have no interest in proving or even asserting the anti-AGW talking point that was a unanimous consensus.

540 jvic  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:21:15am

re: #513 zombie

re: #539 zombie

...The quote I gave above is from a page I scanned from one of his books, which is why I have it. And comically, I had scanned the page for an entirely different reason (a completely unrelated disturbing statement he made elsewhere on the two-page spread), and got the ice age comment by accident. I didn't even notice it until I looked at the scan later...I have no interest in proving or even asserting the anti-AGW talking point that was a unanimous consensus.

Fair enough, but I endorse Coracle #517's statement that specifying the book and page number (and chapter or article if relevant) would be helpful.

541 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:43:53am

re: #517 Coracle

If those were his words (I'd like a cite please), then his position regarding the imminence and level of effect was in the scientific minority at the time.

I haven't yet published the citation. It's a scoop I have, scanned from one of Holdren's books. I haven't gotten around to publishing it yet (mainly because the whole health care debate suddenly drowned out any other news story -- I'll have to wait until the health care thing dies down before getting back to Holdren). He wrote it in the early-mid '70s. Eventually I'll post it on zombietime or zomblog, I presume.

As for his opinion being the scientific minority -- again, that wasn't something I was disputing. Just giving a quote I found from one guy.

542 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:47:27am

re: #540 jvic

re: #539 zombie

Fair enough, but I endorse Coracle #517's statement that specifying the book and page number (and chapter or article if relevant) would be helpful.

It will be published soon. I would hope at this stage that if I'm giving a quote from John Holdren, people will assume I've got the goods to back it up -- considering my track record.

Perhaps because there is so much interest in this quote (which was of little interest to me personally), I'll make a separate small post about it on zomblog.

543 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:50:30am

re: #532 Coracle

That makes three links to that article in this one thread. Maybe more people will take it seriously coming from you, Charles.

I actually didn't read the earlier comments in the thread -- just dropped in (long after it was a dead thread) to post that interesting quote I had found by accident. So I didn't see the earlier citations of the AMS article (which I'd like to get the full-text of, out of curiosity).

544 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:54:56am

re: #543 zombie

I actually didn't read the earlier comments in the thread -- just dropped in (long after it was a dead thread) to post that interesting quote I had found by accident. So I didn't see the earlier citations of the AMS article (which I'd like to get the full-text of, out of curiosity).

A full PDF is linked from that abstract page. If you can't get to it, I can email it to you. Do you have a drop box address somewhere?

Aside: Does a given thread go "dead" when a new thread starts? What's the protocol/tradition/whatnot here?

545 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:19:01pm

This discussion of the "Ice Age issue" is interesting and somewhat amusing. From Charles' and Sharm's recent posts it doesn't sound as though Ice Age prognostication was as widely accepted as anti -AGW folks claim, but let's say for a moment it had reasonably broad acceptance. That was what, 30-40 years ago.

What do we keep saying on the evolution threads? Science is self correcting. Reevaluation and correction of the data will occur. Obviously there has been a great deal of work done on AGW in the past 40 years. Obviously there is also a lot of work to be done, but throwing out today's scientific conclusions because 40 year old science was incomplete seems, well, unscientific.

(But please, let's keep the politics out of it--from both left and right-- as far as possible.)

546 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:32:42pm

Just finished watching that third video and I have to say that if 7 scientific papers were predicting global cooling and 44 papers were predicting global warming, despite a contemporary cooling trend, that speaks well for the utility of the science. They made a prediction--and (so far) it has proven correct.

547 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:34:59pm

re: #544 Coracle

Aside: Does a given thread go "dead" when a new thread starts? What's the protocol/tradition/whatnot here?

Nothing official, but poster interest tends to divert to newer threads. Eventually people stop posting, or rarely post, on older threads. At some point you will realize that no one will read what you are posting and you too will abandon the thread.

548 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:37:12pm

re: #547 transient

Hey, Thanks (I didn't want to abandon a thread with an outstanding question I asked).

549 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:44:01pm

re: #544 Coracle

A full PDF is linked from that abstract page.

Oh, I see now. From the way that page is laid out, I thought it was a pdf of the abstract, not a pdf of the whole article. Thanks for pointing it out -- now I can see it.

However, having now read the pdf, I see that the authors unconsciously have made the exact same kind of error that they debunked.

Basically, their argument boils down to, "All the deniers are now claiming that there was a censensus about Global Cooling back in the 1970s. We prove here, after surveying the literature, that Global Cooling papers existed, but they were in the minority -- hence, there was no consensus."

But see the flaw in this argument? It happens in the first word -- "All."It seems that they're rebutting a straw man. A fundamental aspect of their argument should be to first establish that a majority of skeptics are in fact making the claim that scientific consensus in the '70s pointed to Global Cooling. Yet instead all they do is provide five or six examples of people making such a claim. (See the section called "Perpetuating the Myth.")

So, it seems that the authors of that paper are making the exact same kind of logical misstep that they're trying to counter.

Think of it like this:

A few climate skeptics say: "A consensus of scientists in the '70s claimed that we are entering a new ice age."
Conclusion: The skeptics' assertion is false -- only a minority of 1970s scientists made such a claim.

AMS authors say: "A consensus of climate skeptics claim that scientists in the '70s all worried about the coming ice age."
Conclusion: The authors' assertion is false -- only a minority of skeptics now make such a claim.

The AMS authors no more prove that the erroneous belief that there was a 1970s Ice Age consensus is now a "pervasive myth" (their words) among skeptics, than do the small number of skeptics prove that there was a consensus in the '70s.

I know this verbiage seems to be going in circles, but there's no other way to describe it.

The authors of the AMS article are trying to shoot down a fringe claim, but exaggerate how widespread that fringe claim is; which, coincidentally, is the exact same kind of misdirection contained in the claim they're debunking.

550 zombie  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:50:57pm

re: #544 Coracle

Aside: Does a given thread go "dead" when a new thread starts? What's the protocol/tradition/whatnot here?

There is no "official" determination of what makes a dead thread.

The two standard definitions are:

1. Any thread prior to the current thread. In other words, as soon as a new thread goes up, the previous thread joins the ranks of "dead threads."

OR...

2. Any thread on which commenting has entirely or mostly stopped.

Luckily, the two definitions often are mutually complementary: generally, when any any thread is supereceded by a newer thread, the older thread stops getting comments.

However, that's not always the case -- sometimes older threads keep getting comments long after they'd stopped being the top thread. In those cases, they're sometimes called "dead threads" even though the comments keep coming. And in rare instances, sometimes the most-current thread stops getting comments, in which case it also could be called a "dead thread."

And in some case, such as this one, threads come back to life! A new spate of comments gurgle up long after the thread has gone through a period of commentless dormancy.

551 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:51:50pm

re: #548 Coracle
You can always check back for a reply.

552 transient  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 12:53:20pm

re: #550 zombie

And in some case, such as this one, threads come back to life! A new spate of comments gurgle up long after the thread has gone through a period of commentless dormancy.

Lazarus thread!
Reinthreadation!

553 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:20:32pm

re: #549 zombie

Oh, I see now. From the way that page is laid out, I thought it was a pdf of the abstract, not a pdf of the whole article. Thanks for pointing it out -- now I can see it.

The authors of the AMS article are trying to shoot down a fringe claim, but exaggerate how widespread that fringe claim is; which, coincidentally, is the exact same kind of misdirection contained in the claim they're debunking.

I'd be readily willing to concede that the 70's cooling myth is not a consensus or even "majority" Anti AGW talking point. However, in the last two weeks I've seen it brought up numerous times - I'd hazard more than half a dozen - along with other long retired Anti-AGW claims here in LGF. The fact it may not be the majority AAGW view doesn't invalidate the fact that this (pardon the usage) zombie argument keeps on getting reanimated and must be shot down again and again, and the article certainly does that.

554 c-low  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:23:09pm

[Link: www.time.com...]

Time Magazine 1974 using the same name dropping and innuendo that the "scientist consensus" was a coming ice age.

Climate theory is just that theory and speculation on the best guess at this time of what the future holds.

My personal climate theory is that the earth is millions upon millions of years old and our minute of earth time cannot even fathom the natural earth cycles. A fly who lives hours to maybe a day, cannot understand the seasons no more than humans can understand or control earth cycles.

--It was allot hotter during the dinosaurs time and allot colder during the mammoths time. Neither cycle had jack to do with human intervention or cow farts.

555 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 1:28:45pm

#554 proves my #553. No matter how many times you cut a zombie argument (not the poster) down, even multiple times in the same thread, people who pay no attention will bring them back. Although, I will admit, it is less likely that rational discussion can reach such people.

556 jvic  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 2:42:52pm

re: #542 zombie

It will be published soon. I would hope at this stage that if I'm giving a quote from John Holdren, people will assume I've got the goods to back it up -- considering my track record.

Absolutely. I hope you didn't take my post any other way. I very much appreciate your contributions.

However, I was thinking of sharing the information with people who probably do not know your record.

Congratulations on the scoop. I look forward to the details whenever you choose to provide them.

557 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:36:16pm

re: #511 Salamantis

Your links do not support your sensationalist contentions. The Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are experiencing some level of increased melting (3%/year, according to one of your links), but, even with a possible 7 degree C rise in global temperature over the next century, nowhere even remotely near the 50 fold melt rate increase (5000%) that would be required to totally melt them. And since the Arctic Ice Cap is in an ocean rather than on land as the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are, it is indeed affected by ocean currents in a way that they are not, but also, since 7/8 of its bulk is already displacing the water in which it rests, its melting will not substantially affect global sea levels.

Sal, if you ever took the time to read the links, you would find that they do support my claims. Greenland is melting and melting at an increasing rate that is faster than IPCC. IPCC was a lowball estimate. Further the bogs are melting and there is a giant feedback from them. There are two links to that there. Just read them. You accuse me of not giving you the basic science, yet every time I give it to you, you refuse to look.

A gigantic increase is perfectly possible because of the feedbacks. I don't know how many different times I have to keep saying this to you again and again. There was once a period where much of the Earth's oceans were covered in ice. It really was a terrible ice age over 500 million years ago, and the carbon from volcanos coupled with orbital forcing was sufficient to thaw us out.

This is in the AIP link I keep begging you to read. But you refuse to.
Here is is one more time.

[Link: www.aip.org...]

Now 7 degrees is an average temp over the globe - it warms much more at the poles in different seasons. How many times do I keep needing to repeat that? Why does this not penetrate?

Further, you argument is just wrong because again, the response is not linear. You don't bother to look up the meaning of the word. I explain the word to you again and again, yet you refuse to let that penetrate either, and now you just lurk for the end of one of these threads to insult me.

Just read the damn science and educate yourself.

558 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:46:13pm

re: #515 mili

I don't think that India or even China can afford that. At least not yet.

Yes but we can not afford them not becoming more green. We can help them to do so too. I am all for carrot and stick.

559 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:48:04pm

re: #508 Pythagoras

I have studied global warming in great detail and I have the educational background to understand the technical papers. While many people have used the phrase "tipping point" in their description of global warming, I have not found a quantitative argument for an impending tipping point (or any other acceleration/higher order effect in the regressions).

All of the feedback mechanisms used in global warming arguments are already in play (e.g. reduced albedo from melting sea ice). None of these give any justification for a non-linear response in the future. In fact, when the Arctic runs out of ice, that feedback mechanism will hit its limit and its marginal impact will dwindle.

Look at any plot of what's changing -- temperature, sea level, Arctic sea ice extent, Antarctic sea ice extent -- the trends are all straight lines. If they stay straight lines, we do NOT have a problem. Here's a good reference on polar sea ice extent. The trends are on the right.

[Link: nsidc.org...]

But that is not true at all, show me one graph of the trends that is a straight line. They all have positive second derivatives in the last 40 years.

560 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 4:49:23pm

re: #508 Pythagoras

To be fair that graph did have a linear fit, however, that does not make the data linear at all.

561 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:02:31pm

re: #488 Charles

I don't believe you. You just asked an anti-AGW talking point question about the "carbon lag" effect, and a big part of the first video was specifically about that very issue. It was answered very convincingly, with evidence cited.

I'm not surprised that you're dismissing the evidence without even looking at it, but it's interesting to see it so graphically confirmed.

AT this point I have a whole battery of links that I just keep reposting in the hopes that someday, some of the people here who have their heads in the sand will just look at them if only out of curiosity.

562 Pythagoras  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:27:24pm

re: #560 LudwigVanQuixote

To be fair that graph did have a linear fit, however, that does not make the data linear at all.

You are exactly right. Just because someone plots a linear regression on a graph does not mean that the trend is linear. You can draw a straight line on anything.

However, these NSIDC graphs are darn straight. Two years ago, you might have thought that the Arctic plot was turning (and some folks announced as much) but the recovery since has been significant. The August plot will be out in a couple of weeks and will show 2009 well above 2008.

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

One of the great things about these threads has been the beat-down of the extremist positions on both sides. The posted videos did a marvelous job of exactly that. However, if the "tipping point" gets beaten down too, then AGW isn't CAGW and limiting CO2 is nuts. Show me a thorough, technical, quantitative argument that GW is about to accelerate and I'll be very interested.

But if none even exists, then it's just an unsupported, extremist position.

563 Pythagoras  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 5:35:35pm

re: #559 LudwigVanQuixote

But that is not true at all, show me one graph of the trends that is a straight line. They all have positive second derivatives in the last 40 years.

The global temperature graphs have zig-zagged but the last zig was downward. Obviously, there are a lot of contenders here and I don't want to get into the controversy on whose data set is legit. I happen to favor the UAH data set because its source, the Aqua satellite, uses on-board fuel to maintain its orbit. Sorry, it's a table, not a graph.

[Link: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu...]

564 Optimizer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:23:58pm

re: #107 Dark_Falcon

Your didn't but Coracle called Retief's arguments "manure" and I thought that insulting. I wanted to calm things down before Charles started deleting comments.


re: #183 ludwigvanquixote
"stupid"

re: #281 ludwigvanquixote
Two F-bombs, plus "To hell with you."

re: #296 ludwigvanquixote
Another F-bomb.

re: #312 Jim in Virginia

I think you [LVQ] need to take a deep breath. You've blown up on two threads tonight.
None of my business, just my observation..

re: #334 ludwigvanquixote
"asshole"

re: #350 ludwigvanquixote
Another F-bomb.

re: #354 Jim in Virginia

Are you [LVQ] violating the Iron Fist rule?


"Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, ..."

... or maybe not.

You ain't seen nothin', Dark_Falcon. These guy was abusive on the last AGW-related thread also.

565 Optimizer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:33:37pm

re: #140 Coracle

... We currently have the tech to make Wind and Solar combined well over 50% of our power needs. ...

That sounds pretty far-fetched.


re: #217 Coracle

... I both write and review grants, as part of what I do. ...

re: #287 Coracle

That's not how the NSF or NASA work. That's what I know. That's all I can say. ...

So ... you're one of the guys whose livelihood is made more secure by the AGW hysteria? Nice...

566 Optimizer  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:40:27pm

re: #452 lostlakehiker

...

As to liberals, one can discern the sincere from the windbag or tactician by whether the guy forthrightly supports nuclear power. Support that is hedged about by more caveats than Cinderella's stepmother's promise that Cindy could go to the ball "if", doesn't count. Diversions, such as claiming that we don't need it because solar and wind will solve the problem, don't count. Maybe they will. And if they do, that will be great. But there is no great harm in building a bunch of nuclear power plants, and we do not know yet how to build wind and solar installations on the scale they'd be needed and at a tolerable cost.

Anyone who believes even the sober side of the projections about global warming would welcome addressing the problem by way of nuclear power, which is a sure thing. It can be done, it can be done at a cost competitive with coal, and it can be done at least as safely as using coal, when the risks of mining and of pollution at the smokestack are taken into account. And it can be done now.

I like the "nuclear litmus test."

567 jvic  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 6:59:52pm

re: #562 Pythagoras

One of the great things about these threads has been the beat-down of the extremist positions on both sides...

I'd follow these threads more closely if the tone weren't so...unconstructive. As things stand, I've occasionally tossed in links in case anyone found them relevant. Afaik the climatology conference and program at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics haven't yet been mentioned.

My current attitude is:

I'll go along with prudent mitigation, but, more importantly, I believe that capable climatological technologies can be developed. If forced to choose between draconian mitigation and the economic growth that will fund those presumed future technologies (and our quality of life), I'll take my chances on the future.
568 Mich-again  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 7:43:25pm

re: #453 Coracle

Not being "all bad" is fine, as long as you're not in one of the "bad" places to be. Do you know where those places will be?

psst. there's a clue in my nic.

569 Pythagoras  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 7:56:34pm

re: #567 jvic

I agree. Sometimes the tone reminds me of the joke:

Q) Why is the politics in academia so vicious?
A) Because the stakes are so low.

It's a discussion thread on a web page for crying out loud and we're not using our real names. Just how sensitive should people get? Imagine these folks in real life.

No. Sorry. Erase that thought.

Anyway, I'm more of a skeptic than you are; I don't want to do anything until I see the case made that GW is about to accelerate. But the "tipping point" bit is only spewed by the alarmist crowd; there is no technical argument being made. It belongs in the bucket with Gore's crap about a 10 meter rise in sea level.

Let me toss out a wild speculation. Is it possible that the last two installments in the video series aren't out yet because the producer is waiting for something?

The CLOUD experiment at CERN may yield results soon and the video did mention Svensmark's theory. Also, the amazingly AWOL solar cycle 24 is making everyone wonder what the future holds. Given the levelheadedness of the video, waiting for a few more "returns" to trickle in would fit his style.

570 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:06:55pm

re: #564 Optimizer

"Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, ..."

... or maybe not.

You ain't seen nothin', Dark_Falcon. These guy was abusive on the last AGW-related thread also.

Call the wahhhmbulance!

571 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:07:45pm

re: #565 Optimizer

So ... you're one of the guys whose livelihood is made more secure by the AGW hysteria? Nice...

and that isn't snarky, insulting and malicious?

ahhh fuck you too optomizer... feel better?

572 Coracle  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 8:22:39pm

re: #565 Optimizer

So ... you're one of the guys whose livelihood is made more secure by the AGW hysteria? Nice...

No. Not what I said. Not what I meant. I do not do climate research myself. Don't put words in my mouth. This is, I believe, the third time I've had to tell you that. Your insinuations are slimy.

Look at the last AGW thread's discussion. Several links were posted with ~40 year plans that would result in >50% US power from wind and solar. Or don't. You don't really seem interested in anything you don't already believe on the subject.

573 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 9:59:55pm

re: #569 Pythagoras

Except that the consequences are not small. The reason that we are trying so hard to give you the evidence is precisely because the consequences are so big. THis is not some obscure debate about small academic matters that only a few specialists might care about. This quite literally affects the whole world.

As to the CLOUD experiment don't hold your breath. Why are you so wedded to the idea that somehow Svensmark is going to make this all go away. Even if somehow conditions in the upper atmosphere can be like a cloud chamber to any large extent - something which few really believe is likely, all correlations between cosimc ray activity and the present warming trends only have the most weak correlations over short periods. The best that you can possibly hope for is that this is a much smaller effect than the effects of anthropogenic origin. The energy budget just isn't there.

By insisting on this, you are only showing a bias.

574 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:02:11pm

re: #566 Optimizer

I like the "nuclear litmus test."

Then you should notice that:

1. I have been advocating nuclear from the get go, and Coracle is not opposed to it.

2. NIMBY crosses party lines. You can not blame the trend against nuclear energy in this nation solely on the liberals. But that would require consistent thinking on your parts.

575 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:07:41pm

re: #572 Coracle

No. Not what I said. Not what I meant. I do not do climate research myself. Don't put words in my mouth. This is, I believe, the third time I've had to tell you that. Your insinuations are slimy.

Look at the last AGW thread's discussion. Several links were posted with ~40 year plans that would result in >50% US power from wind and solar. Or don't. You don't really seem interested in anything you don't already believe on the subject.

Well, since they don't know basic science and can't read anything that hasn't been checked for their brand of orthodoxy the only thing left is snide remarks, slimy insinuations and trying to whine to Charles when they get called on it.

You may not believe it, but I started these threads out about two months ago, being as sweet and level headed as possible. I have to commend you for much greater patience with robotic regurgitation of the same stupidity, coupled with arrogance, and general meanness than I have.

576 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:20:32pm

re: #569 Pythagoras

And the tipping point argument is not crap. Here are some papers with complete discussions.

[Link: ams.allenpress.com...]

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

And here is the PDF.

[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

Please read these.

577 brazilofmux  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:31:53am

The electromagnetic modeling we did as students in a few pages of FORTRAN was probably brutally simple compared to the IPCC models. Our models didn't use finite analysis or consider air/charge movement. After a day of working out the equations, and a day of coding, not even the best-written code in the class reached any equilibrium. The earth became the equivalent of an electromagnetic death trap. Air broke down, formed a plasma, and everyone died.

After the weekend, and with concern for our grades, we cornered the Professor who saved himself by declaring this was 'an opportunity to learn from the model because it failed to match reality.'

Modeling is a useful tool in that it helps you at least fill out your theory and validate to a degree that your systems are internally consistent. I'm sure these guys are smart, and their models are shiny, but I've never trusted the climate models to make predictions.

Eventually this will be settled by scientists gambling their reputations, and I've been lazy about arguing about it because these things tend to fall apart under their own weight as time passes.

Roy Spencer's work on feedback makes sense to me. Bob Carter speaks clearly, and his arguments rests on the quality of his data.

What has bothered me from the beginning: Given the age of the earth, and the time it took for our species to evolve, if climate processes are as inherently unstable as the models predict, how could it possibly have remained stable over that length of time without killing us off? Forget anthropogenic sources for a moment. Over that time period, by random chance, any nearby tipping points would already have been hit.

578 mikebomb  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:44:12am

re: #516 Coracle

If you had followed the link I supplied, you would have seen that the co-authors address your point. They say, among other things, "Those who claim correlation using derivatives (differences) removes a linear trend miss the point" and they explain the reason why that is so.

579 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 5:08:24am

re: #578 mikebomb

If you had followed the link I supplied, you would have seen that the co-authors address your point. They say, among other things, "Those who claim correlation using derivatives (differences) removes a linear trend miss the point" and they explain the reason why that is so.

They claim about their Fig. 7
" If an underlying trend existed, it would have shown up in Figure 7. One would see the temperature line rising away from the SOI line if, for example, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had a significant influence. There is little or no sign of this."

Unfortunately, the main reason we don't see this "rising away" is that they alter the vertical scale of their temperature data inside the figure, without altering the vertical scale of their SOI plot proportionally. This smacks of graphical gamesmanship. They don't plot a differential between SOI or GTTA, which would have been compelling, possibly because, from what I see, it would not support their contentions. The scale difference leaves a bad taste.

580 JustAHouseWife  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 6:26:52am

re: #573 ludwigvanquixote

Except that the consequences are not small. The reason that we are trying so hard to give you the evidence is precisely because the consequences are so big. THis is not some obscure debate about small academic matters that only a few specialists might care about. This quite literally affects the whole world. As to the CLOUD experiment don't hold your breath. Why are you so wedded to the idea that somehow Svensmark is going to make this all go away. Even if somehow conditions in the upper atmosphere can be like a cloud chamber to any large extent - something which few really believe is likely, all correlations between cosimc ray activity and the present warming trends only have the most weak correlations over short periods. The best that you can possibly hope for is that this is a much smaller effect than the effects of anthropogenic origin. The energy budget just isn't there. By insisting on this, you are only showing a bias.

LOL Project much?. "energy budget" is model speak. You are not talking about the physical world AT ALL and you do not represent "these things you believe" truthfully to everyone else here either. How can you? Your head is in a computer and when all that fails, all you've got is ice melting. Just an example by googling "energy budget" plus "climate models" I get an abstract from the Journal Of Climate that says: "The major biases in the model are related to the position of deep convection in the tropical Pacific, summertime convective activity over land regions, and the model’s inability to realistically represent marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds." Dated 1997. Clouds and convection are not figments of the imagination. That's major REAL LIFE stuff that the model can't perform with any degree of certainty. I do not believe model makers have fixed this over 10 yrs later either (this is the time my husband was in school to present day!) "All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error. For instance, how the model alters cloud cover with warming can make the difference between anthropogenic global warming being catastrophic, or just lost in the noise of natural climate variability." -NASA scientist Roy Spencer. [Link: www.drroyspencer.com...] All that matters is the DATA and how it is handled. The level of accuracy of the technology and measuring devices (satellites etc), paleo data processing etc is also being represented falsely and emotionally by the alarmist crowd. April 2009 "Abstract It has been the prime objective of the GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) over the last 15 years to develop improved parameterizations of cloud systems for climate and weather prediction models by improving our understanding of the physical processes for all the climate relevant cloud types" it goes on:...new future directions of research within GCSS will be outlined. These include most notably, new process-oriented strategies to understand and narrow down the spread in cloud climate feedback of climate models which is well known to be the largest source of uncertainty in climate model predictions for future climate." [Link: svcp.jpl.nasa.gov...]

581 JustAHouseWife  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 6:56:28am

Erice 2009 [Link: www.climateaudit.org...] by Steve McIntyre on August 15th, 2009 I'm off to Italy for the next two weeks, starting tonight. I suggested that the Erice seminar of the World Federation of Scientists have a session on Water Cycle Feedback... The big question in climate is the “sensitivity” of global climate to doubled CO2. Estimates in AR4 GCMs vary from 2 to 4.5 deg C. Within the IPCC GCMs, the primary source of sensitivity uncertainty is cloud feedbacks, and, in particular, the shortwave response of low-level clouds (marine boundary layer). Despite a wide range of sensitivity within IPCC GCMs, IPCC GCMs do not necessarily span both sides of relevant characteristics of critical cloud types, e.g in tropical and midlatitude regions, simulations systemically yield clouds that are too optically thick, and not abundant enough in the mid-troposphere and in large-scale subsidence regimes. Questions: - IPCC AR4 pinpointed the largest source of intermodel variability between IPCC models to SW response of low-level clouds. What are the prospects for narrowing this source of uncertainty? - IPCC AR4 identified several areas of systemic bias in cloud modeling GCMs e.g in tropical and midlatitude regions by simulating clouds generally too optically thick, and not abundant enough in the mid-troposphere and in large-scale subsidence regimes. Do these (or other biases) result in any material risk of under- or over-estimation of climate sensitivity? How could this be tested? - are cloud (and other GCM) properties sufficiently constrained to confidently exclude the possibility of either very high climate sensitivity (above 4.5 deg C) or low climate sensitivity (under 2 deg C)? - if not, which modeling components (cloud or otherwise) are mostly likely to result in a large enough systemic bias to yield either a higher or lower climate sensitivity? What steps can be taken to reduce such areas of uncertainty? - Can paleoclimate and/or other indirect studies add any confidence to constraining climate sensitivity?

582 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 7:03:44am

re: #580 JustAHouseWife

. Just an example by googling "energy budget" plus "climate models" I get an abstract from the Journal Of Climate that says: "The major biases in the model are related to the position of deep convection in the tropical Pacific, summertime convective activity over land regions, and the model’s inability to realistically represent marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds." Dated 1997.

That just borders on willful ignorance. This last fall's American Geophysical Union meeting had 198 papers hammering on climate models, and over 200 with both "energy budget" and "climate models" in the title and/or body (18 with both terms in the title).

Clouds and convection are not figments of the imagination. That's major REAL LIFE stuff that the model can't perform with any degree of certainty. I do not believe model makers have fixed this over 10 yrs later either.

Over abstracts at Fall AGU dealt with climate models and clouds, including. No progress in 10 years is a truly baseless assumption.

"All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error. For instance, how the model alters cloud cover with warming can make the difference between anthropogenic global warming being catastrophic, or just lost in the noise of natural climate variability." -NASA scientist Roy Spencer.

He's right, which is why so much work goes in to modeling, and why modeling alone cannot make the compelling argument. But AGW does not, and never did rely on modeling alone.

I'm not sure why you cite a single seminar abstract about improving the cloud modeling of one particular system, but even that abstract falsifies contentions that no progress has been made. I'm not sure what criteria you intend with the use of the word "fixed". I hope you don't mean that to imply that models are useless unless they are perfect simulations.

583 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 7:14:33am

re: #581 JustAHouseWife

Erice 2009

All those are reasonable questions. Too bad the session only represents one side. Perhaps they'll all be present at AGU 2009?

584 JustAHouseWife  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 7:48:11am

re: #583 Coracle

"One side" means nothing. Too bad you have to bring it up. Again. you prove to me you don't care about the data. Same with your comment about Real Climate and giving "credit". What I noticed is that you had nothing to say about NASA mucking up the sea level information it released to the public!

Nobody is barred and McIntyre also states: "I suggested a number of speakers on both sides of the debate. My own hope was that I'd be able to learn something from the debate. The roster has ended up being over-weighted towards "skeptic" speakers: Lindzen, Arking, Choi, Kininmonth, Paltridge, but it is a blue-ribbon "skeptic" session. Invited but unable to attend: Peter Webster, Judy Curry, Andrew Dessler, Stephen Schwartz, Sandrine Bony, Tom Crowley. The invitations were only made in May and schedules had unforunately filled in for many people by then."

He could have said they were too afraid/disgusted/snobbish/invested/bias/religious-like zealots/shills of the carbon trade industry/ to attend.

It is not a popularity contest. It is not an argument from authority. It is not a contest or who's who about who gets more papers published.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE DATA. Sheesh!

585 JustAHouseWife  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 8:18:31am

"But AGW does not, and never did rely on modeling alone." This really irks me. That's a false statement. I'd call it propaganda too. Everything about AGW and "Global Warming" relies on a model. Including the proposed fractions of 1 degree "warming" itself.

586 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 8:24:14am

re: #584 JustAHouseWife

"One side" means nothing. Too bad you have to bring it up.


I was merely reflecting McIntyre's own observation, which you quoted.

you prove to me you don't care about the data.


Bull. I've repeatedly dealt with and talked about the data, and encouraged people to base their judgements on its merits.

What I noticed is that you had nothing to say about NASA mucking up the sea level information it released to the public!


What are you talking about? Did I miss a question to me? If so I apologize and ask for the link so I can revisit and correct my omission.

He could have said they were too afraid/disgusted/snobbish/invested/bias/religious- like zealots/shills of the carbon trade industry/ to attend.


I suppose he could have. The fact he didn't gives him credit for not being an out an out liar.

It is not a popularity contest. It is not an argument from authority. It is not a contest or who's who about who gets more papers published. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE DATA. Sheesh!


I completely agree.

587 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 8:32:56am

re: #585 JustAHouseWife

"But AGW does not, and never did rely on modeling alone." This really irks me. That's a false statement. I'd call it propaganda too. Everything about AGW and "Global Warming" relies on a model. Including the proposed fractions of 1 degree "warming" itself.

AGW is derivable from basic physics and chemistry and historical observations. It is supported by current observations, reconstructions (some of which are model based - though not climate model based) and historical proxies (some of which are model based - though not climate model based). It is projected into the future by models of many kinds, some of which are simple, some of which are highly complex, all of which are under constant test and refinement, and many of which must be discarded or modified when confronted with new data. That is the process. If you contend that this is still "modeling alone", then we are at an impasse.

588 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 9:47:06am

re: #580 JustAHouseWife

LOL Project much?. "energy budget" is model speak. You are not talking about the physical world AT ALL

What because energy is not conserved in the real world? You are an idiot.

How can you? Your head is in a computer and when all that fails, all you've got is ice melting.

And Keeling curves, direct observations of increased concerntrations, direct measurements of changing weather patterns, direct observation of shifting currents, direct observation changing temperatures, shifts in migratory patterns and the basic QM that tells us that CO2 is a GHG...

But you keep ignoring those things. This too makes you an idiot.

Just an example by googling "energy budget" plus "climate models" I get an abstract from the Journal Of Climate that says: "The major biases in the model are related to the position of deep convection in the tropical Pacific, summertime convective activity over land regions, and the model’s inability to realistically represent marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds." Dated 1997.

Would you believe that the whole point of such papers is to make the models better and better? Would you believe that since 1997, the models and the computers have gotten much better? When you see papers like this and then see how these issues were addressed, it is reason to believe the models, not to discount them, because the scientific community is fact checking. Again you are an idiot.


Clouds and convection are not figments of the imagination. That's major REAL LIFE stuff that the model can't perform with any degree of certainty.


Which Model? There are hundreds. PLease don't speak like you have expertise in this. It gets tiresome.

I do not believe model makers have fixed this over 10 yrs later either (this is the time my husband was in school to present day!)

You wouldn't read a paper that claimed it was fixed anyway, so what is the point? And BTW, I hate to break it to you, but you make so many basic science errors, like energy being conserved etc... that you ought not keep referring to him as a scientist. Your ignorance reflects poorly on him.

589 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:13:43am

re: #576 LudwigVanQuixote

And the tipping point argument is not crap. Here are some papers with complete discussions.

[Link: ams.allenpress.com...]

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

And here is the PDF.

[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

Please read these.

Excellent! Let's go through them in order.

The first one contends that Arctic sea ice may have tipped in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The NSIDC data since looks to me like it didn't. My contention is that global warming for the future decades has to be significantly faster than for the past few decades for it to be bad. This paper, while useful, isn't in that direction.

The second paper is absolutely fantastic. Anyone who has followed this thread this far should take the (significant) time to read it. It handles some really tough topics with great precision and tact. Here's a key quote:
"Many of the systems we consider do not yet have convincingly established tipping points. Nevertheless, increasing political demand to define and justify binding temperature targets, as well as wider societal interest in nonlinear climate changes, makes it timely to review potential tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing (5) (Fig. 1). . ."

They introduce the term "tipping element" which I like a lot. It is analogous to speaking of positive feedback "terms" -- a syntax I use.

The top two tipping elements in their ranking are the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic sea ice. However, since the Arctic sea ice is already contributing a positive feedback (or tipped) and that feedback will end when the ice is gone, a tip the other way is the only thing due soon.

The key sentence in the conclusion (IMHO) is:
"Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under anthropogenic climate change."

In the section titled "The Prospects of Early Warning" they get into some useful detail on the challenges involved in detecting an impending tip. I strongly AGREE that this is a good idea. I favor spending resources to increase our understanding of climate and, if that ever actually does yield a real warning, acting boldly to prevent disaster. However, this paper does not say that a tipping point is near nor does it support mitigation actions now.

So, you are right; I should not have used the word "crap." It is precisely the kind of speech I object to in others. However, my basic contention -- that the case for an impending tipping point has not been made -- is reinforced.

As the extreme positions and statements (including my own) are cropped out, and we get down to the truth in the middle, what we find is that climate is worth studying and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions might eventually become a problem, but that problem is not at hand. Thus, extreme measures to limit CO2 are ill advised.

All the traditional ecological considerations are still valid. We shouldn't waste limited resources and we need to take care of our planet (e.g. don't poison the groundwater). But the CO2 thing has gone off the rails and, frankly, could threaten the credibility of the whole environmental movement. That would be a real disaster.

590 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:53:21am

re: #589 Pythagoras

That was a great response. I respect the effort and reason you've put into this. I also agree with many of your conclusions. In the end, I am more uncomfortable about the current rate of increase than you are. My greatest concerns are two - first is that the trend may in fact not be linear, and second that even a linear increase is problematic, regionally if not globally, and sooner, rather than later. Unfortunately, I think that only more time will seal the deals on both of those, and, as I've said more than once, It would truly suck to be wrong on a lowball prediction. That's what I get from the science.

So where does that leave me with policy? I do not favor "extreme measures to limit CO2". I favor, for multiple reasons which I have also stated before, strong measures to replace fossil fuels as rapidly as possible (primarily through solar+wind+nuclear). Reduced CO2 is "merely" a side benefit of that. The direct benefits are energy independence and security, and economic/industrial expansion in a high-technology, globally exportable market (solar+wind).

591 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:22:55am

re: #589 Pythagoras

re: #590 Coracle

First off, I really do enjoy this conversation with you and your very thoughtful response that shows you have actually read the papers given to you. Pythagoras, you are the only person debating with me that I would call a skeptic and not a denier.

Now at no point, have I claimed that we have passed a tipping point yet. There are a very few respectable people who believe that we may have, however they are in the minority.

The point of those papers is to show the mechanisms by which people conclude that a tipping point is something to worry about and that it is coming up.

The salient points to take:

1. A tipping point is something to expect, rather than just a wild speculation. Wherever it is, is still a matter of great debate. That it is out there, much less so.

2. The tipping point happens before we hit the collapse.

3. We are so far, as of today, this minute, still marching towards a tipping point wherever it may be.

592 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:30:18am

re: #589 Pythagoras

Also, I believe that you have drawn the completely incorrect view of the issue. It is true that the full flower of the problem is not yet at hand. Rather, that we are absolutely marching towards one, and the sooner we start fixing it, the less extreme the fix will need to be.

Further, I ask that you look at the chart of predictions in the middle of the second paper. It is notably preliminary and based on a survey of multiple predictions, but the climatologists at the conference were talking about loosing both ice caps, Siberian and Canadian glaciers and Greenland within a 300 year period.

That is to say many meters of water rise in 300 years, and 1 meter rise by the end of this century is pretty much a given at current rates. I personally, think it is likely to be as high as three meters in the next 100-150 years.

You also need to llook at the effects of shifting growing patterns, rainfall, food production and fresh water supply.

The fact of the matter is that if you buy that second paper - which you thought is excellent, then the exact opposite conclusion than the one you reached, about taking large strides to correct things is called for.

We really need to start fixing this last year.

593 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:32:13am

re: #589 Pythagoras

Also, just to be clear, 1 meter will take out our economy and civilization.

594 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:34:16am

re: #593 LudwigVanQuixote

3 meters will take out our economy and literally destroy our civilization.

595 Salamantis  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:47:19am

re: #557 Ludwigvanquixote

Sal, if you ever took the time to read the links, you would find that they do support my claims. Greenland is melting and melting at an increasing rate that is faster than IPCC. IPCC was a lowball estimate. Further the bogs are melting and there is a giant feedback from them. There are two links to that there. Just read them. You accuse me of not giving you the basic science, yet every time I give it to you, you refuse to look.

But the Greenland ice cap melt rate increase isn't anywhere near 30+ times faster than IPCC, which it would have to be for your catastrophist ten meter scenario to hold. Not even remotely close.

And I'm still waiting for the basic science I asked you for, that you have YET to provide - a chart correlating ice melt rate with ambient temperature so you can show me where a 7 degree C increase in temp causes a 5000% increase (50 fold) in melt rate.

A gigantic increase is perfectly possible because of the feedbacks. I don't know how many different times I have to keep saying this to you again and again. There was once a period where much of the Earth's oceans were covered in ice. It really was a terrible ice age over 500 million years ago, and the carbon from volcanos coupled with orbital forcing was sufficient to thaw us out.

Yep. But that melt didn't all happen in a hundred years, or even in a few thousand.

This is in the AIP link I keep begging you to read. But you refuse to.
Here is is one more time.

[Link: www.aip.org...]

I've checked out that link. It's not the magic catastrophic-tipping-point-proving wand you seem to think it is.

Now 7 degrees is an average temp over the globe - it warms much more at the poles in different seasons. How many times do I keep needing to repeat that? Why does this not penetrate?

It also cools much more at the poles in different seasons. Like WAAAY below 0 C, or even 0 F. And during that time, ice is being ADDED.

Further, you argument is just wrong because again, the response is not linear. You don't bother to look up the meaning of the word. I explain the word to you again and again, yet you refuse to let that penetrate either, and now you just lurk for the end of one of these threads to insult me.

The word 'nonlinear' isn't a magic wand that makes a 7 degree C increase in global temp translate into our ice caps melting 50 times faster, either. And once again you fucking lie; I posted definitions of the term for you in past threads.

Just read the damn science and educate yourself.

Like the recent Bristol report, which supports IPCC? Or the mysterious problem with the CO2 sink (the vast difference between what measured CO2 increase SHOULD be according to measured CO2 emissions and actually measured atmospheric CO2 increase), which has caused AGW disaster advocates to 'normalize' model equations? Einstein did that, too, so as to render a steady state universe model workable - and he was wrong. AGW catastrophists 'normalize' their equations in the opposite direction, so they can get disasters out of them. Or Lindzen's recent research showing that recent increases in the CO2 atmospheric percentage are smaller than IPCC estimates, and are in fact NOT nonlinear? Or the rate of heat radiating off this earth being many times what was assumed in the models, as Paltridge shows, and as Lindzen furnishes empirical evidence for? Or the fact that the oceans above their thermoclines have actually been COOLING for the last decade? And that the antarctic ice cap has actually been GROWING for the past 30 years?

I guess this is science that you don't like, because it doesn't agree with the direction of your personal or political advocacy. And so you dismiss or ignore it.

596 Salamantis  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:49:00am

re: #594 LudwigVanQuixote

3 meters will take out our economy and literally destroy our civilization.

You mean to say that no one can live more than 10 feet above the present sea level? You don't think we have land that high?

597 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:00:28pm

re: #592 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #590 Coracle

Thanks. I admit I am learning -- and will reread the second paper, paying more attention to the graphs (I really blew through the bifurcation bit). This can't be this afternoon though.

Let me be frank and introduce something I don't think anyone has mentioned, using a sports analogy. There are two different ways you can be on the side of, say, a particular football team. One is to think they will win, the other is to root for them to win. In the AGW issue (as in sports), I think rooting for one side often spills over into optimism.

I will readily admit that I am totally rooting for the skeptics side, and that I struggle/fail to keep the psychological effects at bay. The unprofessional conduct by Al Gore and others has simply sent me around the bend. Some on the skeptics side have done badly too but I think the proponents side (is that the right label?) did it first and worst. The withholding of data and other details is positively scandalous and I am hard pressed to imagine a legitimate explanation for this unprofessional behavior. OK, with friends like this, who needs enemies -- it doesn't prove their side is wrong.

So, I'm pretty close to on the fence on how much CO2 really matters. I do think the 800 years lag for CO2 is important and I am unconvinced by the argument in the video that the ice-age/interglacial swings had CO2 as a major feedback. For their argument to work temperature has to be driven by the first derivative of CO2, not the level itself. Why, after some triggering event, would a slight increase in CO2 drive a temperature increase while the CO2 level is still very low? Something else must be at play (e.g. that the "triggering" event wasn't transient).

Meanwhile, if sunspots matter, we sure are going to find out. This is like God having a sense of humor. I mean WTF happened to solar cycle 24 anyway? I do believe that if we get 50 years without a sunspot we'll get a little ice age.

And my "rooting" will change sides fast if that scenario becomes likely.

598 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:19:38pm

re: #597 Pythagoras

Thanks again. I appreciate your sports analogy. It highlights one of my issues with the debate as well. To continue your analogy, the team I really, really want to win, I don't believe will. I want the skeptics to be right. It would truly make things hugely easier if we didn't have to worry about climate change on the decadal, and that we had plenty of time to let gentle, natural corrections due purely to human innovation take care of any problem in its nascent stage. But I don't think the evidence is on their side.

As for the CO2 records and forcings of past geologic eras, I'll have to defer to the papers on the subject. Climate forcings in the geologic past are, of course free from human influence, and many are indeed explained by the various other cycles detailed in the literature. The fact that forcing from, say Milankovich cycling may have raised temperatures to certain ecological tipping points is not in dispute.

Imagine as a strawman (freely admitted) that temperatures raised by increased insolation in the northern hemisphere caused huge swaths of coniferous trees to die off in the north, melted permafrosts, and desertified large areas in the low latitudes. Depending on the lag time for new, climate appropriate growth to enter the changed ecological regime, significant amounts of CO2 could enter the atmosphere from decay processes. Additioanlly significant would be the release of GHG reservoirs from the oceans - similar to what is contended today as potential trigger mechanisms. All reached naturally in the past, now potentially reachable on a much faster time scale by human influence.

599 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:57:15pm

re: #595 Salamantis

And I'm still waiting for the basic science I asked you for, that you have YET to provide - a chart correlating ice melt rate with ambient temperature so you can show me where a 7 degree C increase in temp causes a 5000% increase (50 fold) in melt rate.

It is not a simple seven degree raise. The seven degree is a global average. If you would actually look at the latest papers I have posted as well, you will get all of the explanation you need. Also the AIP link is background to bring you up to speed so that you could have a hope of speaking intelligently about this rather than being a pompous, ignorant gas bag.

So not that you will understand it, but this is one of many papers that explains tipping points and what to look for. It has graphs too. Not that you will look. It also has predictions that are much more harsh than your vaunted Bristol paper, which believe it or not, is not the magic wand you think it is, and which you have not even read either.

[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

Please stop being such an ignorant fool. You repeat the same things over and over until I finally bash them down enough for you to shift goal posts.

Sal, just please, please go away. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have nothing to contribute.

This is a serious issue. It threatens everyone. All you are doing is trying to add to confusion because you think it adds value to your existence somehow to challenge me on these boards. Sal, this is not a game. You are part of the problem.

600 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 12:57:28pm

re: #596 Salamantis

You mean to say that no one can live more than 10 feet above the present sea level? You don't think we have land that high?

That's not the question.

Play around with the Google Sea Level Rise Explorer.

Check out your favorite coastal cities. Check out your favorite coastal industrial zones and shipping hubs. Don't forget tidal range of +/- about 1 meter. Not to mention even normal storm surges.

601 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:00:26pm

re: #596 Salamantis

You mean to say that no one can live more than 10 feet above the present sea level? You don't think we have land that high?

YOu forget the changed growing patterns, droughts, lack of food and lack of clean water that would go along with several billion refugees world wide and the loss of trillions of dollars in capital.

You are a real idiot. I know that you think these little babyish snarks are clever. I know that some equally deluded and stupid folks here think so too. However, you really are just an idiot.

602 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:02:18pm

re: #600 Coracle

That's not the question.

Play around with the Google Sea Level Rise Explorer.

Check out your favorite coastal cities. Check out your favorite coastal industrial zones and shipping hubs. Don't forget tidal range of +/- about 1 meter. Not to mention even normal storm surges.

The odds him actually looking and putting the pieces together are less than the odds of me quantum tunneling to wherever you are.

603 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:08:37pm

re: #602 Ludwigvanquixote

The odds him actually looking and putting the pieces together are less than the odds of me quantum tunneling to wherever you are.

Even if he ignores it, someone else with doubts and questions - or even simple curiosity - might still follow the link and explore the implications. What matters most is that people look at facts and employ their intellects instead of their emotions.

604 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:10:25pm

re: #598 Coracle

re: #597 Pythagoras

LIke I've said many times too, I wish that this was not the case. However, we should actually take comfort in the fact that the cause is anthropogenic. That means we can do something about it. IF the presently observed warming were a planetary scale natural phenomena, we would be completely screwed.

605 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:10:53pm

re: #603 Coracle

Even if he ignores it, someone else with doubts and questions - or even simple curiosity - might still follow the link and explore the implications. What matters most is that people look at facts and employ their intellects instead of their emotions.

Amen brother, I do believe that is why we are both at this.

606 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:15:12pm

re: #600 Coracle

That's not the question.

Play around with the Google Sea Level Rise Explorer.

Check out your favorite coastal cities. Check out your favorite coastal industrial zones and shipping hubs. Don't forget tidal range of +/- about 1 meter. Not to mention even normal storm surges.

The time scales are way to long on that link though.

607 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:38:04pm

re: #606 LudwigVanQuixote

The time scales are way to long on that link though.

Perhaps. The critical thing to look at is the topography rather than the time, though. Look how much of our population, and how much of our industry is in the red zones.

If I think about it, I could see how a slow sea level rise would be worse, economically. It would give the industrialized nations incentives to do what Holland has done, diking off ever larger chunks of coastal cities and infrastructure to keep the existing cityscapes safe. It would be done piecemeal and in increments, spurred by this storm, or that tidal surge, and hence would cost, in the end, far more resources than either prevention or a forward looking preparedness plan. Part of the irony being that with sea level at +3 meters, most of Holland doesn't stand any chance at all.

608 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 1:51:53pm

re: #607 Coracle

Perhaps. The critical thing to look at is the topography rather than the time, though. Look how much of our population, and how much of our industry is in the red zones.

If I think about it, I could see how a slow sea level rise would be worse, economically. It would give the industrialized nations incentives to do what Holland has done, diking off ever larger chunks of coastal cities and infrastructure to keep the existing cityscapes safe. It would be done piecemeal and in increments, spurred by this storm, or that tidal surge, and hence would cost, in the end, far more resources than either prevention or a forward looking preparedness plan. Part of the irony being that with sea level at +3 meters, most of Holland doesn't stand any chance at all.

That is exactly correct. The 100-150 year timescale coupled with growing lack of food and clean water will do that job for us most effectively even in the real timescale. We have, at best a few decades, to make large strides to turn this around. As of now, we are still piddling around in America. China and India and the third world believe that if America and Europe got to pollute then it is their right to pollute too. The FSU is still one of the filthiest polluters of all, and no-one is doing squat about them.

There are those who believe that there is no way that the political will to do anything will happen before we start loosing cities and having food riots. By then though, we will have almost certainly passed a tipping point, and it really will be too late.

609 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 2:02:54pm

If you are curious about how nonlinear dynamics comes into play with climate, here is an interesting early discussion of the issues - one of many, and the first I found on google scholar that someone not in the biz might get into.

PDF warning

[Link: ams.allenpress.com...]

610 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 2:19:15pm

re: #609 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, I printed it. Maybe I'll get time to read it tonight. I read the beginning and the intro was hard to read even though not complex. Lots of technical writers could use some tips on brevity and clarity. I'd rather he skipped the balls, tracks and cups example too. Anyone who can (and would!) wade through the intro doesn't need that help. Still, it's legit.

By the way, on the issue of which side to root for, if it's not anthropogenic, then the tipping points are off the table, no?

611 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 2:39:52pm

re: #600 Coracle

That's not the question.

Play around with the Google Sea Level Rise Explorer.

Check out your favorite coastal cities. Check out your favorite coastal industrial zones and shipping hubs. Don't forget tidal range of +/- about 1 meter. Not to mention even normal storm surges.

Great link! I live in coastal SC. I zoomed in until I could see my street. The topo on my lot puts me at 15' but I'm yellow/green on the map. That's a good 12' higher. There must be something about a topo I don't know. We're required to build 30" up (except for the garage).

612 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:03:04pm

re: #607 Coracle

If I think about it, I could see how a slow sea level rise would be worse, economically. It would give the industrialized nations incentives to do what Holland has done, diking off ever larger chunks of coastal cities and infrastructure to keep the existing cityscapes safe. It would be done piecemeal and in increments, spurred by this storm, or that tidal surge, and hence would cost, in the end, far more resources than either prevention or a forward looking preparedness plan. Part of the irony being that with sea level at +3 meters, most of Holland doesn't stand any chance at all.

Wow. That is the best argument I've seen yet. Yes, the hairless bipeds will screw up the response totally and end up making it worse in the long run. On that point, I absolutely agree. This is how a one-meter rise could snowball into a real disaster. (OK, the pun sucked but stay with me here.) In any case, man will need to cope with climate changes intelligently.

Fat chance.

Gotta go. Back in 3 hours.

613 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:10:27pm

re: #610 Pythagoras

By the way, on the issue of which side to root for, if it's not anthropogenic, then the tipping points are off the table, no?

No. Not at all. That would just mean that something natural was pushing us towards them.

614 Coracle  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 4:21:13pm

re: #612 Pythagoras

Wow. That is the best argument I've seen yet. Yes, the hairless bipeds will screw up the response totally and end up making it worse in the long run. On that point, I absolutely agree. This is how a one-meter rise could snowball into a real disaster. (OK, the pun sucked but stay with me here.) In any case, man will need to cope with climate changes intelligently.

Fat chance.

Gotta go. Back in 3 hours.

Pythagoras, thank you for your discussion and your candor. It is very gratifying to know one is not merely pissing into the wind.

615 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 8:16:11pm

re: #613 Ludwigvanquixote

re: #614 Coracle

OK, I spent some time with the papers (Lenton, et al & Palmer). Admitting up front that I'm not perfectly open minded (ya think?), I was not convinced in the least that we are nearing a tipping point. They clearly obliterate the case that there's no such thing as a tipping point in climatology, but they don't make a detailed case for one soon.

I didn't finish Palmer but it is simply showing the existence of non-linear mechanisms. I readily concede that -- it's just that the recent trends don't show curvature. Palmer was written almost 12 years ago and the trends since are still linear.

Linton is a great primer but it only presents the various feedback mechanisms and it's conclusions are survey results. I suppose if I followed its numerous references, I might find the arguments I'm looking for but only the overviews are here. It's all good but I need the RHO(crit)s detailed and defended. I know that's asking a lot but I feel that the folks who want to alter our lives have the burden of proof.

I do have one big disagreement with them. Their fourth tipping mechanism is the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation. I agree with absolutely everything they said but it's a negative feedback! Surely if it stopped or was greatly reduced the Arctic would freeze up in a snap. It is one of the key negative feedbacks that I assume is holding the whole thing back.

There are lots of other negative feedbacks that MIGHT be important. For example, the Antarctic is easily cold enough to capture any H2O that drifts by and increased global temperature will clearly send it more. That might explain the positive trend in Antarctic sea ice.

Similarly, I think (but can't find) that someone earlier mentioned evergreen trees dying off. Global warming will send the tree line north and so there will be some new trees. Man might do well to help this along a bit instead of waiting for the seeds to spread naturally.

Anyway, we all knew that there are lots of feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative. The issue is how that mix functions in toto. Since the Arctic sea ice can't go negative, that positive feedback term will be diminishing soon. I don't see any new ones kicking in.

LVQ is right in #613. I made my point poorly. What I was thinking is that if GW natural, then what's about to happen isn't unprecedented and so won't destroy the planet. However, this is where #607 kicks in. The planet will be fine but we'll self-destruct in response.

Thus, my WAG is that one meter of sea level rise will be worse than it should be but by then we'll have fusion. I can't imagine Copenhagen making any difference in this unless China plays along.

Yeah, and if hell freezes over global warming is probably solved anyway.

616 Optimizer  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 9:54:18pm

re: #601 Ludwigvanquixote

YOu forget the changed growing patterns, droughts, lack of food and lack of clean water that would go along with several billion refugees world wide and the loss of trillions of dollars in capital.

You are a real idiot. I know that you think these little babyish snarks are clever. I know that some equally deluded and stupid folks here think so too. However, you really are just an idiot.


Actually, you're the one who wrote, "3 meters will take out our economy and literally destroy our civilization," and there's been no indication that sea level rise has been, or will be, greater than about a foot per century, anyway. The melodramatic bit about lack of food and water is, perhaps, the among the most speculative of the AGW hysteria - especially since history tells us that warmer temperatures, and higher CO2 levels, make for better agriculture on the whole.

Now, you're really a college kid, right? Maybe a grad student (although, actually, you sound more like a sophomore) in some second-rate college? C'mon, and 'fess up!!

617 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:02:27pm

re: #616 Optimizer

Actually, you're the one who wrote, "3 meters will take out our economy and literally destroy our civilization," and there's been no indication that sea level rise has been, or will be, greater than about a foot per century, anyway.

Actually, if you ever took the time t read any of the links that we have been patiently providing for you, you would see that is just not true.

The melodramatic bit about lack of food and water is, perhaps, the among the most speculative of the AGW hysteria - especially since history tells us that warmer temperatures, and higher CO2 levels, make for better agriculture on the whole.

We are already seeing changes in growing patterns rainfall and migration patterns. This is happening right now and the effects haven't even really started rolling yet. Open your eyes. Again, please do read the paper.

Now, you're really a college kid, right? Maybe a grad student (although, actually, you sound more like a sophomore) in some second-rate college? C'mon, and 'fess up!!

How charming. And you are really an utter idiot who is completely blind obdurate and foolish. Why don't you get a clue? Tell you what, I'll tell you that I'm in the first grade if it means you actually read a paper or two that educates you.

618 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:07:26pm

re: #615 Pythagoras

First off, I want to compliment you very much on being someone who is honestly looking into this. It is very gratifying to see someone at least give a damn enough to try to find out for oneself.

Some notes: The thermohaline shut down is at first a negative feedback. Once the freshwater stops trickling in (when the caps melt) that water starts heating again.

There are lots of other negative feedbacks that MIGHT be important. For example, the Antarctic is easily cold enough to capture any H2O that drifts by and increased global temperature will clearly send it more.

Not everywhere and not forever.

That might explain the positive trend in Antarctic sea ice.

In which part? Western and Eastern Antarctica have different reactions due to mountains and the geographical relationship to other continents and currents. In the long run, both melt.

619 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:10:00pm

re: #615 Pythagoras

Also, about having fusion already. Believe me, I am a strong proponent of doing more controlled fusion research. However, we could already address the issue with fission and we are not. Moreover, fusion is a long way away. We are nowhere near deploying a working fusion reactor. Plasmas are tricky and obnoxious things to control.

620 Optimizer  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:16:07pm

re: #577 brazilofmux

...

What has bothered me from the beginning: Given the age of the earth, and the time it took for our species to evolve, if climate processes are as inherently unstable as the models predict, how could it possibly have remained stable over that length of time without killing us off? Forget anthropogenic sources for a moment. Over that time period, by random chance, any nearby tipping points would already have been hit.

Exactly the point I made in the last AGW thread. Maybe you don't have to have studied control theory to understand this point. You just need a bit of common sense to see how "tipping point" talk is complete fiction, invented in desperation to try to keep the hysteria going while the Chicken Little sky keeps refusing to fall. But there I go, getting all "Creationist" and "un-scientific", while shilling for Big Oil!

621 Optimizer  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:27:38pm

re: #617 ludwigvanquixote

You remind me so much of the religious crowd who say "Look, just open your eyes!" to "prove" the existence of God. Basically, it's the mother of all conspiracy theories. "Well, somebody must have done it!..."

Too bad the logic doesn't work.

But good luck, working on that degree, kid! Hopefully, someone will teach you some manners along the way.

622 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:31:08pm

re: #620 Optimizer

Exactly the point I made in the last AGW thread. Maybe you don't have to have studied control theory to understand this point. You just need a bit of common sense to see how "tipping point" talk is complete fiction, invented in desperation to try to keep the hysteria going while the Chicken Little sky keeps refusing to fall. But there I go, getting all "Creationist" and "un-scientific", while shilling for Big Oil!

If you had the common sense to be consistent in your thinking, then perhaps you would remember that there have been multiple mass extinctions in Earth's history that correspond with dramatic climate shifts as well.

The shifts happens and thousands of species disappeared. This happened more than once.

Why not look that up. I'm sure it wasn't covered in control theory.

623 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:33:05pm

re: #621 Optimizer

You remind me so much of the religious crowd who say "Look, just open your eyes!" to "prove" the existence of God. Basically, it's the mother of all conspiracy theories. "Well, somebody must have done it!..."

Too bad the logic doesn't work.

But good luck, working on that degree, kid! Hopefully, someone will teach you some manners along the way.

No look just open your eyes and look at the papers and the evidence and the data.

As to manners, please. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

624 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:43:03pm

re: #621 Optimizer

You remind me so much of the religious crowd who say "Look, just open your eyes!" to "prove" the existence of God. Basically, it's the mother of all conspiracy theories. "Well, somebody must have done it!..."

Too bad the logic doesn't work.

But good luck, working on that degree, kid! Hopefully, someone will teach you some manners along the way.

Oh and BTW, the ID crowd is frequently, because they are good Christians less smugly obnoxious than you. Other than that, you argue with the same zealous fervor and silliness. You repeat the same half truths over and over, and then you simply can do nothing better than try to call names.

You see one difference is I say Look at the data asshole, don't take my word for it and I try, when people are polite to actually explain.

You on the other hand simply go for the same foolishness over and over. In fact you are too stupid to see how I am using you as an object lesson for what the anti AGW denier crowd is actually like.

Tell you what.

Since you are an expert in control theory, (a field with little or no relation to this, and there have been multiple people claiming all sorts of falsehoods here - from your side) and you feel that I am only a sophomore in a second rate school - I'm so hurt really, my school pride is damaged... Let's talk basic science.

You deny the existence of tipping points... OK lets refute them from the math shall we?

What is the definition of non-linear?

What is a bifurcation? How would changing a parameter lead to a bifurcation?

How do these things relate to Climate?

I am only asking, because someone with a deep background in control theory, who is clearly qualified to pontificate on these matters should know this.

Come on... Dazzle us with your brilliance... I know you can't wiki these questions, so you have been challenged. If you could answer those things, you would know about tipping points. But, I bet you can't.

Prove to us that you aren't a complete and utter fraud.

625 Pythagoras  Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:59:04pm

re: #618 ludwigvanquixote

Thanks. I meant sea ice -- on the right here, but you have to select Antarctic.

[Link: nsidc.org...]

I realize that the east and west portions on land are more important and relevant (though yield little or no feedback as the area/albedo is constant). However, there is a ton of controversy surrounding recent papers (e.g. Steig & Mann) on the Antarctic land temps, ice, etc. I am not inclined nor prepared to defend any position on this and so chose to use a non-controversial data set.

I do think, because it's "initially" a negative feedback, that the THC will not completely shut down. It'll slow a bit and and stay in the "negative feedback region." A complete shut-down would be a total catastrophe, on the scale of "The Day After Tomorrow" and I thought everyone agreed this was bogus.

Oh, and I did say "WAG" on the fusion thing. A century seems a very, very long way away in terms of technology. If they really figure out high temp superconductivity (and there's steady progress there) the containment problem will get a boost. Who knows? And at 3mm/year for sea level currently, a meter could take a while.

626 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 12:13:41am

re: #625 Pythagoras

Thanks. I meant sea ice -- on the right here, but you have to select Antarctic.

[Link: nsidc.org...]

I realize that the east and west portions on land are more important and relevant (though yield little or no feedback as the area/albedo is constant). However, there is a ton of controversy surrounding recent papers (e.g. Steig & Mann) on the Antarctic land temps, ice, etc. I am not inclined nor prepared to defend any position on this and so chose to use a non-controversial data set.

I do think, because it's "initially" a negative feedback, that the THC will not completely shut down. It'll slow a bit and and stay in the "negative feedback region." A complete shut-down would be a total catastrophe, on the scale of "The Day After Tomorrow" and I thought everyone agreed this was bogus.

Oh, and I did say "WAG" on the fusion thing. A century seems a very, very long way away in terms of technology. If they really figure out high temp superconductivity (and there's steady progress there) the containment problem will get a boost. Who knows? And at 3mm/year for sea level currently, a meter could take a while.

It will not stay at 3mm a year. That is the whole pint of the feedbacks.

627 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 12:27:59am

re: #625 Pythagoras

Also, when the conveyor shuts down, it would mean some vey cold winters in the north east of the US and in Northern Europe for a time. We are seeing some of that now. It would not mean Day After Tomorrow.

Day After Tomorrow is bogus. The shut down is not. It is a very real possibility that we are headed towards as we speak.

628 Coracle  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 4:28:09am

Optimizer, you have repeatedly shown unwillingness to look at the science, and cast aspersions on anyone who opposes your point of view. I concede you are unreachable on the subject.

629 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 8:58:18am

re: #599 Ludwigvanquixote

It is not a simple seven degree raise. The seven degree is a global average. If you would actually look at the latest papers I have posted as well, you will get all of the explanation you need. Also the AIP link is background to bring you up to speed so that you could have a hope of speaking intelligently about this rather than being a pompous, ignorant gas bag.

That's funny; I view your logorrheal bloviations as qualifying YOU for that epithet.

So not that you will understand it, but this is one of many papers that explains tipping points and what to look for. It has graphs too. Not that you will look. It also has predictions that are much more harsh than your vaunted Bristol paper, which believe it or not, is not the magic wand you think it is, and which you have not even read either.

[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

And it was submitteded a full 2 years BEFORE the Bristol paper, which corroborated the IPCC estimate. So which one more accurately represents the contemporary consensus?

Please stop being such an ignorant fool. You repeat the same things over and over until I finally bash them down enough for you to shift goal posts.

Actually, it is YOU who have retreated from your laughable contention that we face a complete ice cap meltdown and a 10 meter sea level rise in the next century. As well you should. Because it is ludicrous on its face, and the type of thing that only an ignorant fool such as you would have proffered in the first place.

Sal, just please, please go away. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have nothing to contribute.

Zombie and I have contributed the irretrievable falsification of your sensationalist alarmist ten-meter-ocean-level-rise-in-the-next-century "Day After Tomorrow" catastrophist scenario. As I stated before, it is surpassingly easy to understand why you fail to value this contribution.

This is a serious issue. It threatens everyone. All you are doing is trying to add to confusion because you think it adds value to your existence somehow to challenge me on these boards. Sal, this is not a game. You are part of the problem.

What is being threatened - and well it should be - is the omniscient facade that alarmists like you are trying to cobble together out of selectively chosen and emphasized snippets of a much greater and vastly more inconclusive body of empirical investigation, much of which you also selectively and self-servingly ignore.

630 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 9:01:29am

re: #600 Coracle

That's not the question.

Play around with the Google Sea Level Rise Explorer.

Check out your favorite coastal cities. Check out your favorite coastal industrial zones and shipping hubs. Don't forget tidal range of +/- about 1 meter. Not to mention even normal storm surges.

Your exact words were as follows:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

3 meters will take out our economy and literally destroy our civilization.

Hyperbole me over
in the clover

631 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 9:02:38am

re: #630 Salamantis

Sorry, Coracle; those are Ludwig's exact words, not yours.

632 Salamantis  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 9:06:22am

re: #601 Ludwigvanquixote

YOu forget the changed growing patterns, droughts, lack of food and lack of clean water that would go along with several billion refugees world wide and the loss of trillions of dollars in capital.

Yep. Warmer average global temps mean longer growing seasons, and more liquid water in the ecosphere should translate to increased rainfall overall.

You are a real idiot. I know that you think these little babyish snarks are clever. I know that some equally deluded and stupid folks here think so too. However, you really are just an idiot.

You're the idiot for stating that a ten foot rise in global sea level over the next century (and only a third of that is predicted according to the current climatological consensus) would spell The End Of The World As We Know It.

633 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 9:36:55am

re: #632 Salamantis

You're the idiot for stating that a ten foot rise in global sea level over the next century (and only a third of that is predicted according to the current climatological consensus) would spell The End Of The World As We Know It.

Um Sal, Really, is your goal to lurk and attempt to get in a last word?

Can you say something new? Don't try to drag Zombie into this. She is much smarter than you.

Yep. Warmer average global temps mean longer growing seasons, and more liquid water in the ecosphere should translate to increased rainfall overall.

Except that isn't happening - even now.

Three meters of rise is very possible in the next 100-150 years. I personally think that it is likely from all of the papers I have read and data I have seen. If it is only 1 meter, we are going to be lucky. You are simply being insane if you think that the US or the world economy can just eat that like there will be no problem - even 1 meter. A three meter rise, and all of the havoc associated with it is Wrath of G-d bad. It would be the collapse of civilization as we know it. The only way it could possibly go would be either totalitarian or Mad Max.

IPCC was a lowball estimate.

Even the folks at Bristol acknowledge that other forcing might make their predictions lowball. They say so in the opening sentences of their paper. Why not actually read it?

So once again Sal, I don't recall you demonstrating anything. Perhaps I missed it. Would you do me the kindness of going over your brilliant experiment again? Please... It would be amusing.

634 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 9:45:08am

re: #629 Salamantis

Zombie and I have contributed the irretrievable falsification

Again, leave Zombie out of this. She said no such thing, and she is much smarter than you.

However, I do agree that your attempts at falsification through melting ice cubes in your house are indeed irretrievable.

NOw once again. The statement is that a 10 meter rise can not be ruled out in 150 years because of the fact that the ice melts in very punctuated ways and because of all of the trapped methane under the Siberian and Canadian Bogs. You see there is a giant carbon bomb there waiting to go off that will more than double the amount of CO2 in the air if it goes and the amounts of methane - another really potent GHG are staggering also.

It is not impossible. Now, I do not think it is likely that we will loose everything in 150 years - however, to just blanket state that it is laughable when you do not know the very first things about this field - or even basic physics or mathematics is laughable.

You can not even do basic calculus. Who the fuck are you to make claims about what is and is not possible even if you did look at the data?

You are them most obnoxious arrogant prat. You are arrogant because you assume that your knowledge - which would not pass a high school science exam is the equal of all the papers that you refuse to read. Of course, you would not understand them anyway. You just aren't smart enough.

635 Pythagoras  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 10:07:38am

re: #626 LudwigVanQuixote

It will not stay at 3mm a year. That is the whole point of the feedbacks.

Maybe. Lenton used a century for 1 meter (10mm/yr avg.) as their consensus and I mentioned that too. That obviously assumes some curvature from the current rate. Long before the average gets up to 10mm/yr, the current rate will have gotten everyone's attention. Heck, 6mm/yr for a few years would show me an obvious second derivative.

Folks, it's been a pleasure but I've been putting too much time into this and I've got a bug (or 10) in a Fortran program that's just about got me ready to jump out the window (pun intended). No more from me until the next thread.

Cheers.

636 Optimizer  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 10:28:33am

re: #622 ludwigvanquixote

If you had the common sense to be consistent in your thinking, then perhaps you would remember that there have been multiple mass extinctions in Earth's history that correspond with dramatic climate shifts as well.

The shifts happens and thousands of species disappeared. This happened more than once.

Why not look that up. I'm sure it wasn't covered in control theory.

Wow. And, yet here we sit, having (as a species) survived all that after, a few million years? Without our techno-wizardry to protect us! Even the humble polar bear managed to survive both ice ages and the medieval warm period. When was the last "tipping point", by your estimate, and what was its nature? It would have to have been many thousands of years ago, no? Are we to accept that the conditions to cause such a thing never occurred within the last, say, 10,000 years?

But - even more remarkably than that - it seems worth noting that you actually managed to behave yourself for one post in a row! Make sure to tell your mom about it; she should be very proud.

637 Coracle  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 10:39:42am

re: #630 Salamantis

Salamantis, your blindness is showing.

You reply to me, "Your exact words were as follows:"
and then proceed to quote LVQ.

What I said was that "whether we can live more than 10 feet above the present sea level," was not the issue, and provided a reason why.

But it seems you'd rather trade barbs than check out facts.

638 Coracle  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 10:43:29am

re: #637 Coracle

Bah! So is my own blindness showing. I decided to go reply immediately to #630 instead of reading the very next post. Teach me to get hot headed. For that, you have my apologies.

639 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 10:57:04am

re: #636 Optimizer

Still waiting...
So in case you forgot...

You deny the existence of tipping points... OK lets refute them from the math shall we?

What is the definition of non-linear?

What is a bifurcation? How would changing a parameter lead to a bifurcation?

How do these things relate to Climate?

I am only asking, because someone with a deep background in control theory, who is clearly qualified to pontificate on these matters should know this.

I know you can't wiki these questions, so you have been challenged. If you could answer those things, you would know about tipping points. But, I bet you can't.

Prove to us that you have a right to render any opinion on the subject.

640 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 11:15:22am

re: #636 Optimizer

And yes indeed there has NOT been a major climate shift of the kind we are heading for in the last 10,000 years. Also, if there were, say 5,000 years ago, it would have crashed coastal civilization then too, but there were far fewer people then and many more places to migrate to that would have provided ample food. It is a lot different in the present.

If you are going to argue past climate history, then do it consistently.

641 Richie  Wed, Aug 26, 2009 10:41:36pm

I specifically remember being shown a film in the 70s that said we were heading for an ice age. I think it was 8th grade.

642 Salamantis  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 4:41:48am

Once again, here's the math:

In the last hundred years, the sea level has risen 8 inches.

You have contended in the past that, as a consequence of global temperatures gradually rising by 7 degrees C, it was likely/probable all three ice caps – Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland – would completely and totally melt within the next century; causing a sea level rise of 10 meters.

A meter is roughly 39.37 inches. 10 meters would be roughly 393.7 inches.

393.7 divided by 8 = 49.2125

Thus what you are asserting is that a 7 degree C increase in global temperature would cause close to a 5000% (50 fold) increase in ice cap melt rate.

I empirically observed that a 7 degree C increase in temp melted ice cubes 33% faster. So there is a massive and vast gap between empirical reality and your catastrophist assertions. And that experiment was loaded in your favor, since it did not have the temp gradually warming from the cooler temp, but starting at the warmer temp, which effectively doubles the melt rate. And still it falls orders of magnitude short of your dire predictions.

Facts are stubborn things. Sensationalist alarmism does not budge them one iota or whit. And performing the same mathematical operations on the same numbers produces the same result every time. One that conclusively demonstrates your Chicken Little 10 meter Noahide global flood scenario to be so egregiously wrong as to cause the saner heads among us to scratch our heads wondering why an alleged scientist would ever have asserted it in the first place.

643 Coracle  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 9:26:22am

re: #642 Salamantis

I do not necessarily agree with the end-member warming temperature or melting rate you present. However, more modest temperature changes and melting rates pose their own challenges.

You still haven't given a response to #600. We don't need 10 meter sea level rise to have severe impact on our cities and infrastructure. Work the question backwards. How much rise is worth worrying about? What do you think the economic/industrial cost will be of 1 meter over 100 years? 3 meters? It seems to be your contention that we will have virtually no sea level gain over the next century (or at most an equivalent to the last 100 years). How much are you willing to wager on that? What is the cost of doing nothing and being wrong vs. doing something and being wrong?

Part of the answer, to me, lies in what is the "something" you are doing. I, and others, have stated multiple times, that the primary solution lies in the same direction as energy independence and energy security. Solar+wind+nuke are all solutions with existing deployable tech bases. Solar and wind, moreover, are exportable technologies we could also use to both improve our economy and help prevent the developing world offsetting any improvements we might make unilaterally.

In the end, catastrophists, deniers, proponents, and skeptics should all be able to see the win-win scenario of getting off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

644 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 10:09:18am

re: #642 Salamantis

Once again, here's the math:

And once again, here is why it is wrong.


You have contended in the past that, as a consequence of global temperatures gradually rising by 7 degrees C, it was likely/probable all three ice caps – Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland – would completely and totally melt within the next century; causing a sea level rise of 10 meters.

No, No, and NO.

First off it heats a lot more than seven degrees at the poles. The seven degrees is a global average. It heats a lot more in different spots. Your thinking stops making sense as soon as you fail to see this. I have contended that more than a meter is a given in the next 100-150 years. I have said that I think 3 meters is likely in the next 100-150 years and that actually losing everything is unlikely but can not be completely ruled out. That is a correct statement.

A meter is roughly 39.37 inches. 10 meters would be roughly 393.7 inches.

393.7 divided by 8 = 49.2125

Thus what you are asserting is that a 7 degree C increase in global temperature would cause close to a 5000% (50 fold) increase in ice cap melt rate.

Again it is much more than seven degrees at the poles! How many times does the notion that when you average numbers, that means that some numbers are bigger than the mean and others are smaller?

I empirically observed that a 7 degree C increase in temp melted ice cubes 33% faster. So there is a massive and vast gap between empirical reality and your catastrophist assertions. And that experiment was loaded in your favor, since it did not have the temp gradually warming from the cooler temp, but starting at the warmer temp, which effectively doubles the melt rate. And still it falls orders of magnitude short of your dire predictions.

That experiment has nothing to do with reality Sal. There is more than a seven degree raise at the poles predicted and much more importantly, you had ice melting in your ambient room air. There were no feedbacks, no forcings and no interactions other than convection. You don't even have solar forcing (the effect of light doing your ultimate heating) or currents, let alone topological details. Your ice cubes are too small and too isolated from interactions with geography, and currents, to break in punctuated ways. The real system has many more moving parts. What you observed has very little to do with the situation. You did not test anything!

To recap:

1. Even if you were doing the right experiment you got the temperature difference wrong.

2. The right experiment has a lot more than just convection happening. You do not account for known feed backs, solar forcing, reduction of albedo, increased GHG feed backs from the ice itself melting, currents etc...

3. Your mathematics assumes melting at a constant rate. The observed actual rate is increasing. Again, your reasoning is utterly flawed.

You are very foolish to think that putting ice cubes out in different rooms in your house counts as an experiment that would challenge the real system.


Facts are stubborn things.

You are not John Adams. He would have understood the argument.

Sensationalist alarmism does not budge them one iota or whit. And performing the same mathematical operations on the same numbers produces the same result every time.

I am glad that you can divide. Did you notice that your mathematical argument assumes melting at a constant rate and that the actual observed rate is increasing?

One that conclusively demonstrates your Chicken Little 10 meter Noahide global flood scenario to be so egregiously wrong as to cause the saner heads among us to scratch our heads wondering why an alleged scientist would ever have asserted it in the first place.

Well, see why you are wrong...

645 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 10:13:03am

re: #642 Salamantis

Please read 644 carefully.

I don't know how to make it more clear that your experiment does not reflect reality.

What I don't understand is how you can do such a stupid "experiment" and let it convince you of anything - particularly to going to the point of all the hyperventilating and fighting.

Sal,

The facts are stubborn things. Please look at them.

646 brazilofmux  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 10:55:07am

re: #639 LudwigVanQuixote

Pulling out an old control systems book, _Automatic Control Systems, Fourth Edition_ by Benjamin C. Kuo, it does not define linear and non-linear systems directly. Instead it gives the examples of non-linear systems: pendulum, backlash, and hysteresis. That is, if the differential equations describing the system are non-linear, then the system is classified non-linear.

And, most real systems are non-linear to some degree. They are only idealized as linear over some operating range.

A system is time-variant (versus time-invariant) if some parameter (e.g., gear wear or resistance of a wire) changes over time.

The book doesn't talk about bifurcation, but it is a change in the system itself as a parameter varies (link: [Link: www.exploratorium.edu...]

Perhaps other readers don't know, so I'll throw this out as well: A linear system (with and without a control system) has poles and zeros. It is the location of these poles in s-space which dictate the stability and time behavior of the system -- whether the system moves gently to a stopping point, oscillates, or explodes.

When a pole is located in negative s-space, it represent negative feedback to the system. When a pole is located in positive s-space, it represent positive feedback. If the poles are too far into positive space, you get 'tipping points' which tend to make a system explode.

None of this seems to get at the question that Optimizer and I are hovering over: If the climate system was inherently unstable (like a fighter jet or balancing a stick on the end of one's finger) regardless of it begin non-linear, time-variant, chaotic, and bifurcated, it seems that it would have blown apart on its own over the last million years -- especially considering the different life forms that have arisen over that time. A million years is a long time to randomly exercise the many paths through the system.

647 Salamantis  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 10:55:19am

Ludwig, every time you bring up sunlight, I’m going to bring up the fact that a combination of the interference of cloud cover and the vast masses of atmosphere that sunlight traversing such a severe angle as exists at the poles must negotiate minimizes its effect on such a highly reflective and minimally absorptive surface as ice/snow. And every time you mention ocean currents I am going to mention that since the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps sit upon land, the ocean current effect upon them is minimal, and restricted to the edges of the land masses upon which they sit, while the Arctic Ice Cap does indeed float in a sea, but that very fact means that 7/8 of its volume is already displacing seawater, so its melting will have minimal effects upon sea levels.

These are stubborn facts that you cannot refute.

It is also a stubborn fact that at least half of the time, the polar regions (including the Greenland Ice Cap) are mainly in darkness and far below freezing temperature, and during this time ice mass is added onto them.

Coracle, the current climatological consensus is that the global sea level will rise only a meter, even granting a 7 degree C rise in global temperature during that time (in fact the single meter rise is calculated from the 7 degree C rise assumption). Ludwig’s views on this matter are just as much on the loony fringe as are the views in the other direction that there will be no rise in global sea level whatsoever during this time (at least his 3 meter view is just as much on the loony fringe; his ten meter scenario is even more insanely out there). The single meter rise in the next century scenario occupies the moderate sensible center, and is embraced, like most sensible centrist positions on an opinion bell curve, by a solid majority of climatologists.

And a rise of a single meter over a century is not the massive catastrophe that Ludwig seems to demand that we believe it to be. In fact, it is only 4 ½ times the global sea level rise that we saw in the last hundred years, and I didn’t notice civilization being 20% destroyed as a result.

There are extremist fanatics on both sides of this debate. And Ludwig has proven himself to be one of them by embracing and proselytizing such an easily falsifiable and senastionalist alarmist position with such zealous missionary fervor.

I also embrace a move to both electric cars and nuclear power; it does us no good to have electric cars if the power we recharge them with comes from oil or coal fired power plants. We need to harbor the globe’s shrinking petroleum resources for other essential uses – the manufacture of plastics, for instance - for which there are no economically feasible substitutes, and not breathing fossil fuel toxins has got to be a good thing health-wise, whatever the global warming consequences of the switch might be.

648 Salamantis  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 10:59:36am

Oh yeah, Ludwig; and a much greater percentage of my ice cubes was exposed to the ambient temperature than would be the case in an ice cap. As a result, the ice cap shouold melt much SLOWER, not FASTER. And the melt rate increase of ice cap ice exposed to rising temperatures should be LESS than that of ice cubes, not 30+ times more, as your surpassingly strange contentions would require.

649 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 12:14:51pm

re: #646 brazilofmux

In non-linear systems there are regimes of stability as a parameter is changed.

In the non-linear system we are looking at here, you can find wells of stability and then once you leave those wells, all sorts of bad things can happen. This is a very non technical way to discuss bifurcations.

A more solid way to discuss them is to point out that you can have multiple attractors and in deed a transition into full blown chaos once the proper parameter is changed sufficiently.

This link goes into the notions of tipping points very well from a technical level and explains most of the core idea.

[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

650 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 12:17:21pm

re: #647 Salamantis

Ludwig, every time you bring up sunlight, I’m going to bring up the fact that a combination of the interference of cloud cover and the vast masses of atmosphere that sunlight traversing such a severe angle as exists at the poles must negotiate minimizes its effect on such a highly reflective and minimally absorptive surface as ice/snow.

Stop right there with the bullshit.

Acknowledge that you understand why your experiment does not reflect the real system - even if this garbage you just pulled out of your ass is true (and it isn't).

Give me some evidence that this latest line of BS is actually true. Data? Evidence? Citation?

If you can do that you can make speeches about what facts are and are not being ignored.

651 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 1:13:35pm

re: #647 Salamantis

And a rise of a single meter over a century is not the massive catastrophe that Ludwig seems to demand that we believe it to be. In fact, it is only 4 ½ times the global sea level rise that we saw in the last hundred years, and I didn’t notice civilization being 20% destroyed as a result.

that is remarkably stupid.

652 Salamantis  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 3:25:17pm

re: #650 LudwigVanQuixote

Stop right there with the bullshit.

Acknowledge that you understand why your experiment does not reflect the real system - even if this garbage you just pulled out of your ass is true (and it isn't).

Give me some evidence that this latest line of BS is actually true. Data? Evidence? Citation?

If you can do that you can make speeches about what facts are and are not being ignored.

What? You don't think that sunlight hitting at a 10 degree angle rather than perpendicularly doesn't pass through a shitload of additional atmosphere? Or are you questioning the fact that all that additional atmospheric buffer insulation would drastically attenuate its end effects?

You're right; my experiment was heavily biased - in YOUR direction. First, the ice cubes were melted at two different temps fom the get-go, rather than having both sets begin at the same temp and the air around one set gradually warm 7 degrees C. That fact right there produced a melt rate difference roughly twice what it should have been to be faithful to the model. Second, five of the six sides of an inch thick cube were exposed to the temps, which is massively lower percentage than a slightly convex surface of a kilometers-thick ice cap being subjected to the same temps.

The contemporary climatological consensus overwhelmingly supports the SINGLE METER scenario, not the three or the ten that you push. The present science is predominantly on MY side, and NOT yours. Or rather, it is I, and NOT YOU, who is on the side of the present scientific consensus. And all of your snooty snotty appeals to 'the science' cannot succeed in obfuscating this single simple fact.

You seem to be deeply emotionally invested in wildly exaggerating the empirically obtaining situation, so that you can play the role of the messianic list prophet crying that humans must all drastically turn away from their evil path or we're all Doomed, I Tell You! Which is why your intellection, dispassion and objectivity have autodefenestrated.

To have someone so possessed by his Cassandra complex that he moronically Nostradamizes in opposition to the contemporary climatological consensus falsely and paradoxically calling ME stupid and claiming that I am the one not following the science rather than he is a side-splitting irony that I find to be deliciously rich.

BTW: what is remarkable about my #647 is its apodictically self-evident truth.

653 Salamantis  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 3:50:29pm

Hoo Boy; I can't believe that Ludwig actually asked me to prove that sunlight is much stronger at the equator than at the poles, and that this is due to its vastly different angle of approach! What kind of clueless nimrod actually DEMANDS proof of such a contention?

Oh, that's right; Dr. Nimrod!

654 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 27, 2009 10:40:17pm

re: #653 Salamantis

re: #652 Salamantis

Stop. Just stop.

Acknowledge that you understand why your experiment does not reflect the real system. Please acknowledge the explanation that has been given. It takes time to explain things slowly.

Could you do me the kindness of even slightly looking at the links of paper after paper that have been presented to you?

I have neither the time or the inclination to go through yet another long list of everything you have misunderstood, confabulated and just pulled out of your bottom in your last foolish tirade. You still won't understand the basic science involved from your first tirade. And dear Lord, it seems that there has been some small progress on that front, but this is after dozens of goings back and forth. I'm tired of it.

And saying that ten meters is unlikely but can not be ruled out is hardly pushing it now is it? You are just some tragically broken record.

Life is too short to debate with the willfully blind. You are too pompous and full of nonsense to bother with anymore.

Here is the bottom line:

You would fail freshman science. You have no more clue about how science works than a toenail. I have C- students who have left bowel movements in the toilet that know more science than you. Those feces however have the modesty to not claim scientific expertise. When science is patiently explained to you, you get aggressive and insulting after refusing to process the most basic things.

Bottom line. It would be more productive to attempt to explain algebra to a cat than to continue this.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 109 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0