Video: No Global Warming in the Last 10 Years?

Environment • Views: 4,328

Environmentalist Peter Sinclair has an excellent new video debunking one of the most prevalent falsehoods promoted by a huge number of climate change skeptics, a talking point that has shown up in every LGF thread about climate change: that global warming stopped sometime in the last decade.

Note that even one of the most prominent reputable climate change skeptics has refused to sign on to this canard, yet it still circulates constantly on anti-AGW sites and in recent editorials by conservative columnists like George Will.

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

1101 comments
1 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:46:27pm

Thank you. I am so tired of having to debunk this over and over and over.

2 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:47:54pm

re: #1 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank you. I am so tired of having to debunk this over and over and over.

Ask and ye shall receive.

3 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:48:59pm

re: #1 LudwigVanQuixote

Umm, the feeling is pretty mutual...
///
Take that heavy load off your shoulders.

4 rain of lead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:49:13pm

hang on folks
another wild ride comming

5 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:49:37pm

Before the subject comes up, yes, we know that Peter Sinclair is a lefty, scion of Al Gore etc. That's irrelevant if you can't refute the facts presented however.

6 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:51:03pm

.re: #2 ArchangelMichael

Ask and ye shall receive.

I am very afraid though that many will refuse to watch this through and think it through. But we can hope that with repeated applications of the facts that those on the fence get to see that this really isn't a commie plot. Much like the creationists, pretty much anything said by the Anti-AGW side is suspect, because of the sheer volume of lies and distortions that come from them.

7 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:52:18pm

re: #5 Thanos

Before the subject comes up, yes, we know that Peter Sinclair is a lefty, scion of Al Gore etc. That's irrelevant if you can't refute the facts presented however.

Rock on thanos... I have this feeling like in a movie where guys gotta hold a line, and they know a charge is coming - sometime...

8 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:52:40pm

re: #5 Thanos

Just don't cite any Al Gore statements. He's made a lot of them that bear no relation to scientific fact.

9 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:53:11pm

Thank you in advance, LVQ. (In case I am not able to read the whole thread)

10 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:53:22pm

two sept issues
climate change there has always been climate change there was 1/2 mile of ice in Chicago 12,000 years ago

vs. political and econ. issues such as CAP AND TAX.

NOTHING is ever as simple as the political hype.

11 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:55:23pm

NASA A Tour of the Cryosphere 2009

Youtube Video
12 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:56:08pm

re: #8 tradewind

Just don't cite any Al Gore statements. He's made a lot of them that bear no relation to scientific fact.

This is true, and Pete Sinclair also has some opinion and non fact in some of his vids. The point is that this one's factual.

13 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:56:53pm

Excellent! Watching now...

14 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:57:24pm

re: #8 tradewind

Just don't cite any Al Gore statements. He's made a lot of them that bear no relation to scientific fact.

Don't you worry. We got the science down...

in fact, just as a pre-emptive:

FAQ from NOAA
[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

Overview and tutorial from UCSD
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

History of subject from AIP
[Link: www.aip.org...]

Modeling from Princeton:
[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]

Real Climate index:
[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

15 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:57:25pm

Good video, Thanks Charles.

16 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:58:01pm

I will go to my grave as a skeptic.

Course, I'm living in the blue area

17 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:58:15pm

re: #12 Thanos

This is true, and Pete Sinclair also has some opinion and non fact in some of his vids. The point is that this one's factual.

I got a kick out of the comment "even some of our most distinguished journalists have been taken in" ... and he cuts to ... Steve Doocy. Heh.

18 rain of lead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:58:22pm

watched the vid.
here is my takeaway
global warming is real
humans have an effect
so does el nino
so does la nina
so do volcanoes
so does the sun
now what?

19 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:58:46pm

re: #9 Bloodnok

Thank you in advance, LVQ. (In case I am not able to read the whole thread)

You rock :) Though I am likely to get some dinner soon :).

20 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:58:49pm

re: #18 rain of lead

watched the vid.
here is my takeaway
global warming is real
humans have an effect
so does el nino
so does la nina
so do volcanoes
so does the sun
now what?

cap and tax obviously!
//

21 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:59:19pm

re: #18 rain of lead

watched the vid.
here is my takeaway
global warming is real
humans have an effect
so does el nino
so does la nina
so do volcanoes
so does the sun
now what?

Drink !

22 Mich-again  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:59:22pm

I thought that was very well done and I look forward to his next video.

23 MacDuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:59:31pm

Color me agnostic on this one. The whole AGW question has taken on a distubing quasi-religious fervor, which I fully expect will play out according to script on this thread.

Over heat as you will, I'm sitting this one out. Whatever side you're on, if you think you are the arbiter of truth in this matter, you're likely a fool.

24 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 3:59:32pm

re: #18 rain of lead

The effects of volcanoes and el niño mask a general warming trend.

25 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:00:37pm

re: #20 rwdflynavy

cap and tax obviously!
//

Unfortunately, cap and tax is a watered down, neutered piece of legislation that doesn't go nearly far enough to have any effect on the problem.

26 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:01:10pm

re: #18 rain of lead

watched the vid.
here is my takeaway
global warming is real
humans have an effect
so does el nino
so does la nina
so do volcanoes
so does the sun
now what?

We need to come up with ideas that will minimize our impact while not undermining the ability of the American economy to remain a global leader.

27 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:01:34pm

looks like the people at the beach are enjoying the global warming in the video!

28 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:01:37pm

re: #25 Charles

Unfortunately, cap and tax is a watered down, neutered piece of legislation that doesn't go nearly far enough to have any effect on the problem.

Cap and Tax is a shell game which doesn't address the problem, it makes it appear that people are doing something while punting it down the road.

29 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:01:38pm

re: #26 Sharmuta

We need to come up with ideas that will minimize our impact while not undermining the ability of the American economy to remain a global leader.

aye, and that's the rub!

30 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:02:20pm

rain of lead kinda summarizes my thoughts as well.

I have no reason to doubt the facts Sinclar presents. What I'm still confused about is how anyone -- with a high degree of certainty -- can claim that human activity is the cause of climate change?

My background is in software engineering so please excuse my ignorance on any presumably-settled science.

31 rain of lead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:03:18pm

re: #24 jaunte

The effects of volcanoes and el niño mask a general warming trend.

my point,
el nino,la nina, volcanoes, the sun, these things can also have a huge
effect on climate, even in the short term

32 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:03:28pm

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Don't you worry. We got the science down...

LVQ, I think you may have mentioned it in an earlier thread, but where do you teach this subject?

33 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:03:36pm

re: #18 rain of lead

watched the vid.
here is my takeaway
global warming is real
humans have an effect
so does el nino
so does la nina
so do volcanoes
so does the sun
now what?

Well, respectfully, please look at the links posted in my #14. You will see that we are the major effect.

Once you see that and get a feel for what the world will look like in 100-150 years, then let's seriously talk policy. Cap and trade will not do it.

Nothing more or less than a scientifically based public understanding of how much of a threat this is (and that there is still time to do something about it) will get real actions taken.

34 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:04:00pm

re: #28 Thanos

Cap and Tax is a shell game which doesn't address the problem, it makes it appear that people are doing something while punting it down the road.

Right.

35 transient  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:04:14pm

re: #26 Sharmuta

And, I would add, help to free us from dependency on oil dictatorships.

Even if one is agnostic on AGW, there are political advantages to be had on reducing our dependence on oil. (Eliminating petroleum entirely is not in the foreseeable future, but replacement technologies are notoriously difficult to predict.)

36 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:04:42pm

re: #28 Thanos

Cap and Tax is a shell game which doesn't address the problem, it makes it appear that people are doing something while punting it down the road.


99% of government policy

37 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:05:12pm

Remarkable that the Party of Teddy Roosevelt, conservationist, naturist, naturalist and preservationist, has become the party of stasist stupidity.

Progressive dreamcatchers to the left of me, reactionary retroverts to the right.

LGF may be the last harbor of the open mind.

38 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:06:54pm

re: #33 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, respectfully, please look at the links posted in my #14. You will see that we are the major effect.

Once you see that and get a feel for what the world will look like in 100-150 years, then let's seriously talk policy. Cap and trade will not do it.

Didn't it work in the case of the EPA acid rain program, admittedly far more modest in scope than the carbon emissions reductions that are needed? Also, how successful has the European program been?

39 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:07:07pm

re: #32 John Neverbend

LVQ, I think you may have mentioned it in an earlier thread, but where do you teach this subject?

I don't teach this subject. I'm currently doing research into chaos and non-linear dynamics. I specialize in fluid turbulence. I would rather not say the university I am at though. The science world is small enough and there are enough tidbits about me here that it would be posting my name.

One of last times my nic was blue I got a rather huge amount of Anti AGW fan mail, and I really don't want my university accounts flooded.

40 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:07:17pm

re: #35 transient

And, I would add, help to free us from dependency on oil dictatorships.

Even if one is agnostic on AGW, there are political advantages to be had on reducing our dependence on oil. (Eliminating petroleum entirely is not in the foreseeable future, but replacement technologies are notoriously difficult to predict.)

cough/nuclear power

41 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:07:35pm

Very well explained, IMO. Well done Mr Sinclair.

42 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:08:31pm

Explain to me, just exactly how is global warming a bad thing?

43 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:08:42pm

re: #28 Thanos

Cap and Tax is a shell game which doesn't address the problem, it makes it appear that people are doing something while punting it down the road.

And even worse, it encourages rapidly developing polluters to pollute more for us, while giving the opposition (who has as a party plank that this isn't real) ammo to say "you got your compromise." All, when it does nothing, and the problem grows.

44 Mich-again  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:08:56pm

re: #25 Charles

mUnfortunately, cap and tax is a watered down, neutered piece of legislation that doesn't go nearly far enough to have any effect on the proble.

I think the global economic recession may have actually caused a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Probably a more dramatic effect then any piece of legislation could have done so fast. I would like to see that data. I know we sure have shut down lots of factories and reduced power consumption around here.

45 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:09:12pm

re: #39 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't teach this subject. I'm currently doing research into chaos and non-linear dynamics. I specialize in fluid turbulence. I would rather not say the university I am at though. The science world is small enough and there are enough tidbits about me here that it would be posting my name.

I quite understand, and I certainly don't want you to reveal your name, which is any case against the rules of this blog (personal information). I obviously misunderstood the earlier discussion where I thought you were actually teaching climatology or a related subject.

46 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:09:12pm

Good grief, Charles. You're really dancing with the devil today.

As soon as I heard Heartland institute in the video, my eyes rolled.

Here we go again.

47 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:09:27pm

re: #42 Edgesitter

Explain to me, just exactly how is global warming a bad thing?

Oy. Now you've done it...

48 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:09:46pm

re: #38 John Neverbend

Didn't it work in the case of the EPA acid rain program, admittedly far more modest in scope than the carbon emissions reductions that are needed? Also, how successful has the European program been?

good questions, i'd like to know the answers myself...

49 Ojoe  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:10:05pm

re: #18 rain of lead

Thank God that there is not another Ice Age right now.

50 Gus  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:10:09pm

re: #17 Charles

I got a kick out of the comment "even some of our most distinguished journalists have been taken in" ... and he cuts to ... Steve Doocy. Heh.

I started laughing when I saw that. Goofy Doocy.

Effective video in that he uses Pat Michaels who's considered a contrarian but in the video you see him supporting AGW to an extent and at one point he says "global warming is real." All the while you can see the poster in the background with the name Heartland Institute.

51 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:10:25pm

re: #42 Edgesitter

Explain to me, just exactly how is global warming a bad thing?

How about massive alterations in interior climates? Farmland becoming wasteland? How about watching the video in #11 and telling me where the Western US will get water if not from snow melt?

52 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:10:26pm

re: #44 Mich-again

Never fear, China will pick up the slack.

53 transient  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:10:36pm

I am only beginning, slowly, to educate myself on climate change so I am glad Charles is devoting the occasional thread to the topic. I am also glad to see LVQ's contributions (please keep it civil!)

re: #30 HebrewToYou
My incomplete understanding is that it is not only possible to document a significant increase in CO2, but to determine that some proportion of the carbon atoms are of anthropogenic origin. How precisely this is done I am not sure, but I assume it has to do with the carbon isotope.

54 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:10:40pm

Edgesitter makes another point that holds relevance in this discussion...

Putting aside the question of whether or not the current climate change is being driven by human activity, is there any solid data that can determine whether or not the change will result in a net-negative result?

Again, high degrees of certainty would help. Speculation isn't very helpful.

55 Ojoe  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:11:03pm

re: #37 The Shadow Do

Join the Modern Whigs ?

www dot ModernWhig dot org

56 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:11:31pm

re: #42 Edgesitter

Explain to me, just exactly how is global warming a bad thing?

Short form,

1. Changes in growing patterns and weather lead to massive food and clean water shortages in many parts of the world, leading to massive starvation.

2. Coastal cities flood, leading to the loss of trillions of dollars in capital and millions of homes world wide.

3. Millions of hungry homeless desperate people get cranky.

4. The economy as we know it crashes.

5. Millions die.

Other than that, it's a walk in the park.

57 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:11:44pm

re: #46 theheat

As soon as I heard Heartland institute in the video, my eyes rolled.

The Heartland Institute is one of the main sources of false information on climate change. As Sinclair notes in the video, they started as a shill group for the tobacco industry, making absurd and false claims about the dangers of smoking. Now that all of that stuff has been completely discredited, they've moved on to another big industry-friendly propaganda campaign.

58 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:11:53pm

As world population grows we are confronted with a series of problems, and man made global warming has been on my list since the 80's. It's not at the top of the list, but it's not at the bottom either.

I like to think long term, and our goal should be "assured long term survival, freedom, and prosperity for all of humanity" or something close to that. So on my list at the top are energy security and food security. With the values of "prosperity" and "freedom" in that statement you quickly discover that energy must not just be plentiful but also clean to achieve the overall goal with any degree of hope.

59 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:11:54pm

re: #51 Sharmuta

You are SURE it'll stop snowing?

60 teh flowah  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:12:07pm

Charles, you have a big problem. You've made yourself a target of the left and right blogospheres. However will you sleep at night?

61 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:12:19pm

re: #44 Mich-again

I think the global economic recession may have actually caused a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Probably a more dramatic effect then any piece of legislation could have done so fast. I would like to see that data. I know we sure have shut down lots of factories and reduced power consumption around here.

but didn't we move those factories to countries where emissions policies are more lax or non-existent?

62 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:12:50pm

...and it'll stop raining too I guess...

63 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:13:13pm

cap and tax will severely damage the American econ. and have no positive effect upon the weather.

it has everything to do with politics and diddle squat about science.

carbon credits have made an ex v.p very very rich. it is a ponzi scam

64 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:13:14pm

re: #38 John Neverbend

Didn't it work in the case of the EPA acid rain program, admittedly far more modest in scope than the carbon emissions reductions that are needed? Also, how successful has the European program been?

The Euro program has failed in goal and fossil fuel use in Europe has increased. It's the baseload problem that nuclear energy solves.

65 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:13:50pm

re: #60 teh flowah

Charles, you have a big problem. You've made yourself a target of the left and right blogospheres. However will you sleep at night?

Soundly!

66 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:13:58pm

re: #50 Gus 802

I started laughing when I saw that. Goofy Doocy.

Effective video in that he uses Pat Michaels who's considered a contrarian but in the video you see him supporting AGW to an extent and at one point he says "global warming is real." All the while you can see the poster in the background with the name Heartland Institute.

"global warming is real, get over it"
:P

67 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:14:11pm

re: #53 transient
While I have no reason to doubt that we can track human release of carbon dioxide to some degree, my concern lies in our overall understanding of how Earth's climate is regulated. Perhaps regulated is not the best word, but I always worry when people claim to have a solid grasp of incredibly complex systems.

68 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:14:35pm

re: #43 LudwigVanQuixote

And even worse, it encourages rapidly developing polluters to pollute more for us, while giving the opposition (who has as a party plank that this isn't real) ammo to say "you got your compromise." All, when it does nothing, and the problem grows.

Is this really the case if the program is managed properly:

1. Limit the number of available credits (and reduce them annually), avoiding a repeat of EU ETS phase I.
2. Sell them by auction (no free hand-outs).
3. Impose a large financial penalty for polluters who don't meet their targets.

Where there was an incentive to pollute was in the Kyoto Protocol CDM, as projects were approved which arguably should have failed the "additionality test".

69 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:14:50pm

re: #59 Edgesitter

You didn't watch the video, did you?

70 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:15:03pm

re: #58 Thanos

As world population grows we are confronted with a series of problems, and man made global warming has been on my list since the 80's. It's not at the top of the list, but it's not at the bottom either.

I like to think long term, and our goal should be "assured long term survival, freedom, and prosperity for all of humanity" or something close to that. So on my list at the top are energy security and food security. With the values of "prosperity" and "freedom" in that statement you quickly discover that energy must not just be plentiful but also clean to achieve the overall goal with any degree of hope.

I agree with you in principle and in most of your facts, but given the potential for AGW to crash completely civilization as we know it, I think it is number one on our list.

71 Linden Arden  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:15:10pm

There has been a Cap and Trade system in place in the USA since the early 90's for Sulfer Dioxide - the cause of acid rain. "Sour" crude is no longer refined in volume here as a result. That is why you see Light Sweet Crude or WTI referenced in oil trading here. Acid rain has since abated.

Crude oil prices actually fell after this legislation. Look into Cap and Trade and its corporate sponsors - you will find Conoco and Shell among them. Money is the driver here as always. American companies want to sever the Saudi connection that we (and they) are dependent on.

72 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:15:41pm

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

Short form,

1. Changes in growing patterns and weather lead to massive food and clean water shortages in many parts of the world, leading to massive starvation.

2. Coastal cities flood, leading to the loss of trillions of dollars in capital and millions of homes world wide.

3. Millions of hungry homeless desperate people get cranky.

4. The economy as we know it crashes.

5. Millions die.

Other than that, it's a walk in the park.

Al (The Alarmist) Gore, is that you?

73 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:15:54pm

re: #57 Charles

Yes, I know, hence the eye roll. Pretty much, anything Heartland panders to fear. There's a lot of crossover with that group to disco people, and other anti-science science.

74 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:16:05pm

re: #48 mt3_1234

good questions, i'd like to know the answers myself...

I worked for a time in carbon finance, and I used to know a lot more about this. I recall that some people held up the EPA program as a model of what could be achieved by a cap and trade program. The problem was the difference in scale between the relatively small EPA program (SOx and NOx pollutants) and the vast carbon emission program.

75 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:16:13pm

re: #18 rain of lead

watched the vid.
here is my takeaway
global warming is real
humans have an effect
so does el nino
so does la nina
so do volcanoes
so does the sun
now what?

Apply human ingenuity to control the things we can and attempt as best as possible to mitigate the things we can't?

Create good-paying tech jobs to try to come up with practical solutions for the problem?

Try to the best of our ability to stop pooping where we eat?

76 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:16:39pm

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

Short form,

1. Changes in growing patterns and weather lead to massive food and clean water shortages in many parts of the world, leading to massive starvation.

2. Coastal cities flood, leading to the loss of trillions of dollars in capital and millions of homes world wide.

3. Millions of hungry homeless desperate people get cranky.

4. The economy as we know it crashes.

5. Millions die.

Other than that, it's a walk in the park.

I'm Buying property in Greenland and waiting to get rich

77 rain of lead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:17:19pm

so, in short we need a better energy source than oil
hmmm what could it be...

78 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:17:38pm

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote
Comments like this are what make me truly want to dismiss your argument outright, LVQ. Resorting to "Chicken Little" rhetoric doesn't help make your case -- it actually works against it. And right now you're doing a better job of convincing people to disbelieve anything you write.

Please, understand that this isn't an insult -- it's criticism designed to help you improve the way you make your case.

79 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:17:39pm

re: #73 theheat

Yes, I know, hence the eye roll. Pretty much, anything Heartland panders to fear. There's a lot of crossover with that group to disco people, and other anti-science science.

Yes, it's a pseudo-science factory, churning out distorted garbage that looks sorta scientific to people who don't know any better.

80 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:17:42pm

re: #77 rain of lead

so, in short we need a better energy source than oil
hmmm what could it be...

whisper/nuclear

81 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:17:57pm

re: #76 Shug

I'm Buying property in Greenland and waiting to get rich

If you buy it on the ice cap, you'll never live to see your soil.

82 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:18:17pm

re: #71 Linden Arden

There has been a Cap and Trade system in place in the USA since the early 90's for Sulfer Dioxide - the cause of acid rain. "Sour" crude is no longer refined in volume here as a result. That is why you see Light Sweet Crude or WTI referenced in oil trading here. Acid rain has since abated.

Was WTI ever not the main US crude index? WTS trades as a basis to WTI, but the major world index is Brent which is far closer to WTI than WTS. WTI also produces a better mix of distillates, as I understand.

83 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:18:50pm

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote

I agree with you in principle and in most of your facts, but given the potential for AGW to crash completely civilization as we know it, I think it is number one on our list.

Well you know I disagree with you there, I think we had that discussion. There is grimmer and more certain math in the needed energy curve and the likelihood of food shortages that comes with expensive energy. I consider that more urgent and likely to occur in the near term. (England expected to have brownouts in coming years etc.)

84 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:19:02pm

re: #28 Thanos

Cap and Tax is a shell game which doesn't address the problem, it makes it appear that people are doing something while punting it down the road.

That's our biggest problem with everything. Our culture lately seems to want to pretend to do stuff, duck responsibility and kick it off on generations unborn - and that's not just with the environment. That's the same dumb attitude that got us in to the economic mess we're in. Throw it on the charge card, we'll worry about it later!!!

Our great-grandparents would be crying if they could see us now.

85 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:19:22pm

making ethanol from corn has already caused food riots and raised the price of food in poor countries and in reality had little or no effect on global climate

going to nuke power to make electrify would help a lot. but the democrats are so tied to the anti nuke crowd some how will of the wisps like wind mills and solar will solve it yeah right.

86 transient  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:19:30pm

re: #67 HebrewToYou
I'm not sure that climatologists claim to have a complete understanding. I suspect they would be the first to agree with you that this is a highly complex topic, but several decades of research have added to our understanding. At this point there does not seem to be serious dispute that there is global warming, and that humans are having some effect. There is obviously a lot more research to be done. There are plenty of resources on the web; LVQ has listed some of them. Start reading, and you will get a better feel for the state of the science!

87 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:19:53pm

For those of you willing to look at real science on this issue:

The Discovery of Global Warming

This link is packed with a number of articles from the sun to ocean currents. I recommend starting here:

Introduction: A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

88 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:20:11pm

Water shortages:

The World Bank reports that 80 countries now have water shortages that threaten health and economies while 40 percent of the world — more than 2 billion people — have no access to clean water or sanitation. In this context, we cannot expect water conflicts to always be amenably resolved.


[Link: ag.arizona.edu...]

89 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:20:14pm

re: #72 The Shadow Do

Al (The Alarmist) Gore, is that you?

No, do look at all of the scientific links that I provided in #14 for sound back up to my statements. What is your scientific basis for discrediting the statements?

Yes it is alarming.

It is also true.

Discount it, if you can, with honest facts.

90 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:21:24pm

re: #35 transient

And, I would add, help to free us from dependency on oil dictatorships.

Even if one is agnostic on AGW, there are political advantages to be had on reducing our dependence on oil. (Eliminating petroleum entirely is not in the foreseeable future, but replacement technologies are notoriously difficult to predict.)

One argument I wish people would make is how many beneficial products we get from petroleum, and yet we're throwing it in our car's engines and burning it.

There are some substitutes for internal combustion engines, there are not a lot of good subsitutes for medical plastic components.

91 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:21:28pm

re: #75 ~Fianna

Try to the best of our ability to stop pooping where we eat?

Years ago, there was a documentary about the Ganges river in India, full of human waste, floating dead cows - you name it - and how the ignorant people thought there was no limit to the amount of pollution it could withstand because it was iconic in their culture as being an "absolute". Without offending people that actually believed that, engineers were developing ways to allow people to still bathe in it, drink from it, shit in it, and float their dead critters down it - without offending their ideas that they were actually a major part of the problem, and - no - the river could not sustain that level of contamination.

92 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:21:37pm

re: #85 yochanan

making ethanol from corn has already caused food riots and raised the price of food in poor countries and in reality had little or no effect on global climate

going to nuke power to make electrify would help a lot. but the democrats are so tied to the anti nuke crowd some how will of the wisps like wind mills and solar will solve it yeah right.

Keep making the point that only nuclear power can meets our needs and meet emissions standards. It may not be a great thing, but it works.

93 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:21:44pm

re: #64 Thanos

The Euro program has failed in goal and fossil fuel use in Europe has increased. It's the baseload problem that nuclear energy solves.

I had thought with the collapse in natural gas prices, that major users were switching from coal to gas, although at the same time, EUA prices have fallen, so it's not so costly to use dirtier coal and load up on EUAs. Is this what caused the fossil fuel use to increase?

94 rain of lead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:22:13pm

re: #88 jaunte

Water shortages:


[Link: ag.arizona.edu...]

another question re water shortages

where does it go?

95 Gus  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:22:59pm

This is still a line that no one will soon forget.

...If their argument there is “Well, we don’t want to use oil and gas because we think it pollutes" — which it doesn’t...

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
July 2009

96 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:23:10pm

re: #83 Thanos

Well you know I disagree with you there, I think we had that discussion. There is grimmer and more certain math in the needed energy curve and the likelihood of food shortages that comes with expensive energy. I consider that more urgent and likely to occur in the near term. (England expected to have brownouts in coming years etc.)

Both issues can be addressed by the same fixes.

Nuclear, as primary.
Solar,
Wind,
New battery deployment,
electric vehicles.

This also staunches the flow of billions to hostile governments and creates millions of jobs here. And we could have done it for a fraction of the bailout. Ultimately because of the staunch of dollars out of the nation, the program would pay for itself.


It is a win win win.

97 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:23:32pm

re: #91 theheat

Years ago, there was a documentary about the Ganges river in India, full of human waste, floating dead cows - you name it - and how the ignorant people thought there was no limit to the amount of pollution it could withstand because it was iconic in their culture as being an "absolute". Without offending people that actually believed that, engineers were developing ways to allow people to still bathe in it, drink from it, shit in it, and float their dead critters down it - without offending their ideas that they were actually a major part of the problem, and - no - the river could not sustain that level of contamination.

The key lesson being this: If you really want to change things, you will offend people. That is why politicians always tend to favor the status quo.

98 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:23:49pm

re: #86 transient

Several decades of research have gone into "cold fusion" -yet I don't really see people planning their future around its existence. I know that's a somewhat-poor analogy, but I think the point stands. I have no real motivation to believe one thing over another in this debate; it's just very hard when appeals-to-authority are made with so flippantly.

99 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:24:33pm

I blame the polar bears!

Youtube Video
100 Chekote  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:24:38pm

I am trying to sort through this global warming issue. Clearly, the global termperatures have increased. Also CO2 levels have increased. There is a correlation. However, as the video shows several factors can affect global temperature. So how do we know that global warming is solely man made or that man is the biggest factor? I am sincerely looking for answers. Please don't blast me.

101 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:03pm

re: #93 John Neverbend

I had thought with the collapse in natural gas prices, that major users were switching from coal to gas, although at the same time, EUA prices have fallen, so it's not so costly to use dirtier coal and load up on EUAs. Is this what caused the fossil fuel use to increase?

No, what caused it to increase is the inconstancy of the clean solutions minus nuclear energy. You need a baseload source for solar on cloudy days and overnight, you need baseload source for Wind on windless days. The more wind and solar and less nuclear the Euros used, the more coal and gas they found themselves needing.

102 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:04pm

There was a big oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico the other day...[Link: news.xinhuanet.com...]

103 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:12pm

His graphs are useful for showing trends, but would be more convincing, maybe, if he included some values.

104 joegelman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:16pm

Oh no, we're all going to die!

105 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:25pm

re: #89 LudwigVanQuixote

No, do look at all of the scientific links that I provided in #14 for sound back up to my statements. What is your scientific basis for discrediting the statements?

Yes it is alarming.

It is also true.

Discount it, if you can, with honest facts.

Beyond the fact of global warming which I accept, the rest is projection. People have proven themselves to be pretty darned adaptable. To pretend we will not improvise, adapt and overcome sells history of the species a little short.

106 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:29pm

re: #96 LudwigVanQuixote

My understanding of solar panels is that the technology needs to get a lot better before they can have a serious impact.

107 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:25:31pm

re: #94 rain of lead

Aquifers are getting pumped out for all kinds of reasons, and waste water gets flushed into the sea. We're taking it out faster than the aquifers can be replenished.

108 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:26:04pm

re: #104 joegelman

Oh no, we're all going to die!

Yes, but you already knew that right?

109 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:26:40pm

re: #68 John Neverbend

Is this really the case if the program is managed properly:

1. Limit the number of available credits (and reduce them annually), avoiding a repeat of EU ETS phase I.
2. Sell them by auction (no free hand-outs).
3. Impose a large financial penalty for polluters who don't meet their targets.

Where there was an incentive to pollute was in the Kyoto Protocol CDM, as projects were approved which arguably should have failed the "additionality test".

The Europeans are not so compliant with the accords. The reality of it is that there is no real agreement to do much of anything that would make a real impact on emissions. The kind of regulations you are talking about simply are not there and not enforced. They further do not go far enough. Right now Europe wants to sell credits to China which it hungrily buys up - expanding it's industry.

Anyhting that actually seriously impacts actual emission levels is not on the horizon.

110 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:26:43pm

re: #100 Chekote

Look at some of the articles in #87. There are articles on the sun, ocean currents, and other factors.

111 captdiggs  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:26:54pm

Staying out of this, except ...
"Maybe the meaning of life is that we humans were put on this planet to make plastic"
~George Carlin

112 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:27:48pm

re: #92 Dark_Falcon

Keep making the point that only nuclear power can meets our needs and meet emissions standards. It may not be a great thing, but it works.

as with most things, it's a case of weighing the advantages with the disadvantages
for example, storage of the nuclear waste is still a huge problem...

113 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:28:19pm

re: #67 HebrewToYou

While I have no reason to doubt that we can track human release of carbon dioxide to some degree, my concern lies in our overall understanding of how Earth's climate is regulated. Perhaps regulated is not the best word, but I always worry when people claim to have a solid grasp of incredibly complex systems.

We claim to understand it sufficiently to know what we are claiming is true.

No doctor completely understands cancer. And yet, we know that smoking causes it in many people.

114 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:28:23pm

re: #112 mt3_1234

as with most things, it's a case of weighing the advantages with the disadvantages
for example, storage of the nuclear waste is still a huge problem...

No it isn't; drop it down dry oilwells.

115 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:28:38pm

re: #59 Edgesitter

You are SURE it'll stop snowing?

Google "Las Vegas" and water and you'll get a sense of the problems we're already suffering.

Short story: big drought; Lake Mead water level drastically falling; lots of people, homes, casinos, lawns, golf courses and businesses in the middle of a desert; underground aquifers pumped dry back in the 60s; no rain, no snowmelt, Lake Mead gets worse; Vegas looks for another source of water; figures out that they have water in Northern Nevada; Northern Nevadans don't want to share; Vegas gets mad; Northern Nevada gets mad... that's about where we're at now. Both sides are convinced that they need the water more than the other side. Some fairly hostile words have been spoken by politicians on both sides...

This is one state in the union. We're generally on pretty good terms with each other as Americans, but when it comes down to the thought of water rationing, it starts to get ugly.

116 LibertyvilleMike  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:28:44pm

So, a biased video is used to discredit biased scientists, and the bottom line is - what was the question? The question should be, is the evidence clear and convincing that MAN is causing GLOBAL WARMING, and that GW will be CATASTROPHIC, and that we can AVOID IT THROUGH TAXES/REGULATION/THE TOOTH FAIRY? When I see an equation that correlates CO2 to global temperature, and that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in global temperature, and that man's contribution to CO2 levels is causing the measured increase in CO2, that gets us past the first causality. The geologic record has the cause and effect in reverse of what the GW faithful are claiming, so we don't event get to any of the following elements in the argument. Historically, the earth is always cooling or warming - so what?

117 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:29:00pm

re: #114 Salamantis

No it isn't; drop it down dry oilwells.

No such thing as a 'dry' oilwell.

118 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:29:09pm

re: #106 rwdflynavy

They've improved greatly. The panels of today bear little resemblance to the panels of even five years ago. There are panels now as thin as a roll-up keyboard, with a lot of innovation coming from Germany. Both Arizona and Washington state have invested in producing these, among states.

119 rain of lead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:29:39pm

I have always believed on the time in inverse ratio to effort rule
"if it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done"

there will never be a good replacment for oil and other carbon based energy sources until said sources are depleted.
so let's get to pumping

120 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:29:44pm

Whale Wars!

I've had the TV on all day seeing what that is all about having never watched before. I am now officially drawn in on this one.

Save the whales!

121 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:30:01pm

re: #100 Chekote

I am trying to sort through this global warming issue. Clearly, the global termperatures have increased. Also CO2 levels have increased. There is a correlation. However, as the video shows several factors can affect global temperature. So how do we know that global warming is solely man made or that man is the biggest factor? I am sincerely looking for answers. Please don't blast me.

good question, i hope someone has laid it out in simple terms

122 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:30:25pm

re: #115 ~Fianna

That's a case of demand outrunning supply. Maybe AGW will make it rain and the desert will bloom.

123 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:30:53pm

re: #117 Edgesitter

No such thing as a 'dry' oilwell.

There are oilwells too dry to be profitably pumped, even with major advances in technology and a $200/bbl price.

124 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:30:54pm

re: #101 Thanos

No, what caused it to increase is the inconstancy of the clean solutions minus nuclear energy. You need a baseload source for solar on cloudy days and overnight, you need baseload source for Wind on windless days. The more wind and solar and less nuclear the Euros used, the more coal and gas they found themselves needing.

Interesting. The perils of loading up only on renewable energy.

125 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:30:54pm

re: #121 mt3_1234

good question, i hope someone has laid it out in simple terms

Sure they have:

[Link: www.aip.org...]

It just requires reading.

126 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:31:08pm

So, what to do about GW?

If it is truly as bad as all that, we are screwed. Royally.

Drastic measures must be taken immediately. CFL bulbs will not do it. Hybrids will not do it. What will immediately reduce CO2, and thereby reduce the amount of GW?

Or is mother nature just going to wipe a whole bunch of those pesky humans off the planet?

127 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:31:08pm

re: #112 mt3_1234

as with most things, it's a case of weighing the advantages with the disadvantages
for example, storage of the nuclear waste is still a huge problem...

Only until Harry steps aside so that Yucca Mountain may be used for the purpose for which it was built.

128 Chekote  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:31:55pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

Thanks. It has been booked marked.

129 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:32:00pm

re: #106 rwdflynavy

My understanding of solar panels is that the technology needs to get a lot better before they can have a serious impact.

There are two limiting factors to solar.

1 Watts/meter. Only do much energy falls on your roof. So solar is limited by the number of people under a given roof of a given size. It makes little sense to deploy in big apartment flats, but great sense to deploy in private homes and large malls or factories for this reason. It could cut down overall grid use by 15-30% depending on how aggressively present panels are deployed.

2. Battery storage. What about when the sun ain't shining? It turns out the vastly better battery technology has been recently developed at ANL that alleviates this issue.

130 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:32:14pm

re: #123 Salamantis

Those have salt water in them, they all do, water migrates through rock, no disposal there. Best solution so far is WIPP. Bury it salt beds that don't move for millions of years.

131 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:32:30pm

re: #105 The Shadow Do

Beyond the fact of global warming which I accept, the rest is projection. People have proven themselves to be pretty darned adaptable. To pretend we will not improvise, adapt and overcome sells history of the species a little short.

this was the same rationale of the river discussed in #91
depends on how much one is willing to improvise around such inconveniences...

132 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:32:52pm

re: #76 Shug

I'm Buying property in Greenland and waiting to get rich

I follow some of the news in the wine world, and it seems that several of the large champagne houses have been very, very quietly buying property in Dover, UK as a hedge. Wine has already started to change because of environmental changes and the makers are very, very aware of it.

If you look at a lot of the up-and-coming regions, many of them are out of the traditional band of vinefera growth area... think Canada, Argentina and New York, instead of the traditionally more Mediterranean climates of France, Italy and Spain.

133 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:33:15pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

We claim to understand it sufficiently to know what we are claiming is true.


Your "chicken little" rhetoric doesn't help your claim... Resorting to hyperbole only makes your understanding of the science appear weak and unsubstantiated.

134 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:33:48pm

re: #133 HebrewToYou

Your "chicken little" rhetoric doesn't help your claim... Resorting to hyperbole only makes your understanding of the science appear weak and unsubstantiated.

Oh my.

Duck. Just duck.

135 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:33:51pm

re: #128 Chekote

Thanks. It has been booked marked.

Yes- there's a lot of reading there. I'm still making my way through it, but I've found so far none of it is so above my understanding that I can't comprehend it. Very informative, and readable stuff so far.

136 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:34:12pm

re: #130 Edgesitter

Those have salt water in them, they all do, water migrates through rock, no disposal there. Best solution so far is WIPP. Bury it salt beds that don't move for millions of years.

Salt bed disposal is a good solution. But sealed canisters of nuclear waste aren't gonna bubble up from dry wells sunk a mile below the water table any time soon.

137 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:34:17pm

Seems like the video pretty much agree with the position I was advocating at the end of the last thread on the subject here. Whether the latest temperature trend is slightly down or slightly up isn’t important. In the zigzagging temperature trend, it’s another zig. It simply makes the long term trend look linear.

I take the “moderate skeptical” position – specifically that global warming is not accelerating and, thus, will not be a catastrophe. In defending that, I’d like to avoid tangential arguments so I chose some raw data sources that are, I hope, completely non-controversial. I have avoided any references to Wikipedia or other sources with concerns about their accuracy. These are just raw data.

Temperature:

[Link: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu...]

(There are other sources but this one uses NASA’s Aqua satellite which has on-board fuel to maintain a constant orbit. Thus, objections raised for other sources don’t apply. They all pretty much agree anyway, but I don’t want to let in any tangents.)

Sea Ice:

[Link: nsidc.org...]

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

[Link: arctic-roos.org...]

[Link: ocean.dmi.dk...]

While these four (US, Japan, Norway & Denmark respectively) are distinct they are highly compatible – generally validating each other. Note that the first 3 define “sea ice extent” as the area where sea ice exceeds 15%; the last one uses 30% instead, so it’s extent is lower. Also, the download button on the second one is a treasure.

Sea level:

This is important but I haven’t found one yet that is unassailable. The numbers are so small that precision is an issue. The current rise is about an inch a decade and the low end of the 2007 IPCC projection is 7 more inches by the end of the century – so there isn’t a ton of disagreement here anyway. Still, I’d like to add a sea level data source to this list.

My argument is this – they all show linear trends. You want to predict the next few decades, just extend the straight lines. The people who claim we’re about to reach a tipping point need to make their case and they, most notably, have not. They make statements but they don’t make detailed, quantitative arguments. All the “feedback” mechanisms (reduced albedo from loss of sea ice, methane release from melting permafrost, etc.) are already happening, and yet the plots keep marching in a straight line. The urgent predictions are starting to get a bit long in the tooth and they simply have not come true.

Yes, it’s warming. Yes, CO2 matters (I don’t know how much). But the people who want to change our lives have not made the case for what they are advocating.

138 Edgesitter  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:34:20pm

re: #132 ~Fianna

I follow some of the news in the wine world, and it seems that several of the large champagne houses have been very, very quietly buying property in Dover, UK as a hedge. Wine has already started to change because of environmental changes and the makers are very, very aware of it.

If you look at a lot of the up-and-coming regions, many of them are out of the traditional band of vinefera growth area... think Canada, Argentina and New York, instead of the traditionally more Mediterranean climates of France, Italy and Spain.

and that is exactly my point. It won't happen overnight, and there will be plenty of ways to take advantage of AGW. The chicken littles are nuts.

139 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:34:37pm

We tried to go hiking today, only to drive out into the Columbia River Gorge to discover that, out there, it's raining.

So, we visited Bonneville Dam. Guess what the ranger dude said? They actually shut the turbines down when the power "isn't needed." Politics demand that the hydroelectric producers not produce more than their current share of the market. At least, that's what the guy said, and it does sound like politics.

140 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:35:24pm

re: #78 HebrewToYou

Comments like this are what make me truly want to dismiss your argument outright, LVQ. Resorting to "Chicken Little" rhetoric doesn't help make your case -- it actually works against it. And right now you're doing a better job of convincing people to disbelieve anything you write.

Please, understand that this isn't an insult -- it's criticism designed to help you improve the way you make your case.

Then read my links in # 14 it is not chicken little. This is the truth. Look at the science.

It is perfectly scientific to say that if someone is standing in front of a speeding train they will be squished to jelly on the tracks, assuming that they do not bounce, and splatter elsewhere.

Is that alarming?

Yes.

Is it true none the less?

Yes.

141 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:35:32pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

We claim to understand it sufficiently to know what we are claiming is true.

No doctor completely understands cancer. And yet, we know that smoking causes it in many people.

excellent analogy
if we'd wait until we knew ALL the facts about something before we made ANY decision, who knows if we'd do anything in the first place :)

142 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:35:33pm

re: #134 Bloodnok

What's wrong with mentioning out that LVQ continually resorts to hyperbole in order to make a point? I've read enough of Charles' climate posts to have seen it on a consistent basis. Making reckless assumptions doesn't help any argument. That's a valid critique of the delivery of the argument; not of the argument itself.

143 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:35:38pm

re: #91 theheat

Years ago, there was a documentary about the Ganges river in India, full of human waste, floating dead cows - you name it - and how the ignorant people thought there was no limit to the amount of pollution it could withstand because it was iconic in their culture as being an "absolute". Without offending people that actually believed that, engineers were developing ways to allow people to still bathe in it, drink from it, shit in it, and float their dead critters down it - without offending their ideas that they were actually a major part of the problem, and - no - the river could not sustain that level of contamination.

I'm reading Jared Diamond's Collapse right now and he talks a little about how people don't want to see the impact of human change on the environment. In some ways it's because anthropologists and others who study populations don't want to see the people that they study as "bad" or "damaging" and partially because we've never quite gotten over the "Noble Savage" concept - those innocent pastoralists and hunter-gatherers happily hand-in-hand with Nature in a state of Edenic, uncorrupted cooperation.

It's a really good read, and I recommend it to anyone that hasn't read it.

144 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:36:00pm

re: #131 mt3_1234

this was the same rationale of the river discussed in #91
depends on how much one is willing to improvise around such inconveniences...

Uh, that level of ignorance does not lend itself to that whole adapt and overcome thing. Truly, we are not that primitive and to argue so is a bit silly.

145 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:36:09pm

re: #122 Edgesitter

That's a case of demand outrunning supply. Maybe AGW will make it rain and the desert will bloom.

ONly it won't look at the predictions from Princeton in my # 14.

146 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:36:16pm

re: #25 Charles

Unfortunately, cap and tax is a watered down, neutered piece of legislation that doesn't go nearly far enough to have any effect on the problem.

It's also the wrong kind of approach.
I think the right wing is seriously missing out on advocating free market solutions to global warming. What we should acknowledges is that in this case the free market fails because of an future cost to society for certain products right now in the form of global warming that isn't being paid by anyone. Therefore the government must correct the free market's negligence to the invisible cost to society by taxing but they must let the innovating and search for solutions to the free market.

That means:
-no subsidies for new technologies
-no rules on how to design cars
-no cap and trade witch is going to be an bureaucratic nightmare.

Just taxes.
This might be a strange slogan for the right but I say taxes taxes taxes!
It doesn't take any bureaucracy, no complicated rules and gives by far the best results
Currently gasoline is taxed with like 18 cents/gallon just make it a dollar or two and watch how soon the free market creates efficient cars
Instead of making a hugely complex cap and trade system why not just tax emissions? etc. etc.

147 Erik The Red  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:36:42pm

re: #126 Racer X

So, what to do about GW?

If it is truly as bad as all that, we are screwed. Royally.

Drastic measures must be taken immediately. CFL bulbs will not do it. Hybrids will not do it. What will immediately reduce CO2, and thereby reduce the amount of GW?

Or is mother nature just going to wipe a whole bunch of those pesky humans off the planet?

I have an idea. Just tell China and India to go green. Once they do that, then the USA can do the whole cap n trade thing.

148 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:37:08pm

re: #94 rain of lead

another question re water shortages

where does it go?

Where does what go? the water? It evaporates, gets used up and/or gets too dirty to re-use for human or animal consumption.

149 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:37:18pm

re: #141 mt3_1234

excellent analogy
if we'd wait until we knew ALL the facts about something before we made ANY decision, who knows if we'd do anything in the first place :)

Exactly. We know enough to act. We know that the longer we wait to act, teh more drastic the measures we will have to take. We know that if we wait too, long, we are screwed sooner or later.

150 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:37:31pm

re: #140 LudwigVanQuixote

LVQ, there is no "truth" when predicting exactly what's going to happen in the future. Do you not understand that simple fact? Unless you have a time machine you're still guessing.

151 Izzyboy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:37:31pm

re: #126 Racer X

So, what to do about GW?

If it is truly as bad as all that, we are screwed. Royally.

Drastic measures must be taken immediately. CFL bulbs will not do it. Hybrids will not do it. What will immediately reduce CO2, and thereby reduce the amount of GW?

Or is mother nature just going to wipe a whole bunch of those pesky humans off the planet?

Mass suicide?

152 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:37:33pm

re: #139 Emmmieg

We tried to go hiking today, only to drive out into the Columbia River Gorge to discover that, out there, it's raining.

So, we visited Bonneville Dam. Guess what the ranger dude said? They actually shut the turbines down when the power "isn't needed." Politics demand that the hydroelectric producers not produce more than their current share of the market. At least, that's what the guy said, and it does sound like politics.

Why would we want a renewable energy source? ///

153 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:38:03pm

re: #143 ~Fianna


Anyone who thinks that the "traditional" ways of living were so great ought to live that ways for five years and report back to us. No:

electricity
antibiotics (they might not report back)
central heating
synthetic fibers
labor saving devices
and so on.

154 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:38:44pm

re: #142 HebrewToYou

What's wrong with mentioning out that LVQ continually resorts to hyperbole in order to make a point? I've read enough of Charles' climate posts to have seen it on a consistent basis. Making reckless assumptions doesn't help any argument. That's a valid critique of the delivery of the argument; not of the argument itself.

Bullshit. Claiming he has a "weak and unsubstantiated" understanding of the science is not speaking to his delivery and is most assuredly wrong if you've bothered to read any of his links. Which, I'm guessing, you haven't.

155 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:39:13pm

re: #142 HebrewToYou

What's wrong with mentioning out that LVQ continually resorts to hyperbole in order to make a point? I've read enough of Charles' climate posts to have seen it on a consistent basis. Making reckless assumptions doesn't help any argument. That's a valid critique of the delivery of the argument; not of the argument itself.

Please see my response to that. #140 . It is not hyperbole.

My statements are all backed up in the links I have provided.

156 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:39:38pm

re: #124 John Neverbend

Interesting. The perils of loading up only on renewable energy.

Yes, Patrick Moore speaks to it here, keep in mind that Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, used to be anti nuclear until he did the math. The same is true of Stewart Brand.

Youtube Video

note that NEI is a biased, Nuclear industry supported source.

157 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:39:40pm

re: #127 The Shadow Do

Only until Harry steps aside so that Yucca Mountain may be used for the purpose for which it was built.

"harry"?

158 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:39:57pm

re: #101 Thanos

No, what caused it to increase is the inconstancy of the clean solutions minus nuclear energy. You need a baseload source for solar on cloudy days and overnight, you need baseload source for Wind on windless days. The more wind and solar and less nuclear the Euros used, the more coal and gas they found themselves needing.

They're working on that with liquid salt as a backup to retain heat for baseload generation: [Link: scitation.aip.org...]

It's pretty cool, actually - and really ingenious.

159 Bobblehead  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:40:09pm

OT

NFL Players Mentor Troubled Detroit Lions


[Link: www.theonion.com...]

160 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:40:10pm

re: #157 mt3_1234

"harry"?

As in Reid, I suspect.

161 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:40:30pm

re: #154 Bloodnok

Bloodnok, claiming to see the future with 100% clarity is the only "bullshit" I've seen presented. I'm not going to argue about the science as I don't have a dog in this fight. My concern is with the delivery of both sides of the argument. And when the side that claims to have "settled science" behind it resorts to prophecy it's hard to get a real good understanding of the debate.

Make sense?

162 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:40:37pm

hyperbole such as we are all going to die if we don't pass cap and tax is what gets people not to beleive the rest of the issues how many times do they cry wolf.?

163 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:40:38pm

re: #151 Izzyboy

Mass suicide?

"The Earth must be saved".

News flash: The earth will be fine. Humans might get a little worked over though.

164 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:40:50pm

re: #104 joegelman

Oh no, we're all going to die!

Sooner or later, yes, that is a 100% true statement.

/personally, I pick later.

165 lincolntf  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:41:01pm

re: #146 jantjepietje

"Taxes, taxes, taxes" sounds easy because it is. The fact is that a major increase in gasoline/heating oil taxes would absolutely crush the lower end of the income scale. Poor people need to heat their homes, drive to work, etc. and when those bills go up 20 or 30% they have to take that 20 or 30% from food/clothing/housing, etc. Raising taxes is a cruel solution when the only thing being spared is a bunch of stinking oil lying underground.

166 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:41:48pm

re: #42 Edgesitter

NYC and Miami are going to wash away, and we're all gonna burn up despite the stinging acid rain while the polar bears drown and the forests disappear. But that's not the worst of it... The Cherry Blossom Festival in DC is going to totally be ruined.

167 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:41:49pm

re: #161 HebrewToYou

Bloodnok, claiming to see the future with 100% clarity is the only "bullshit" I've seen presented. I'm not going to argue about the science as I don't have a dog in this fight. My concern is with the delivery of both sides of the argument. And when the side that claims to have "settled science" behind it resorts to prophecy it's hard to get a real good understanding of the debate.

Make sense?

So if a scientist predicted that dropping an apple would cause it to hit the floor, and it's settled science- you would doubt it?

168 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:42:21pm

re: #105 The Shadow Do

Beyond the fact of global warming which I accept, the rest is projection. People have proven themselves to be pretty darned adaptable. To pretend we will not improvise, adapt and overcome sells history of the species a little short.

Look at the societies that didn't, though. Easter Island, the Assyrians, Viking Greenland, the Anazsazi - and all of those civilizations have environmental problems as a contributor if not a direct cause of their fall.

169 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:42:54pm

re: #150 HebrewToYou

LVQ, there is no "truth" when predicting exactly what's going to happen in the future. Do you not understand that simple fact? Unless you have a time machine you're still guessing.

Please do not presume to lecture me on what I understand on this topic. PLease take the time to look into the links provided in #14.

Now as to your contentions:

It depends on what you consider truth.

If you mean that it is impossible to say that if nothing changes, on this day in the year 2107 the weather will be x in NY, then you are correct.

But so what?

If however, I say that it is certain, that if nothing changes in 100 to 150 years at the outside NY is flooded out... then that is sufficient to change things and take actions.

170 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:43:05pm

re: #161 HebrewToYou

Bloodnok, claiming to see the future with 100% clarity is the only "bullshit" I've seen presented. I'm not going to argue about the science as I don't have a dog in this fight. My concern is with the delivery of both sides of the argument. And when the side that claims to have "settled science" behind it resorts to prophecy it's hard to get a real good understanding of the debate.

Make sense?

So you'll remain asleep until the scientists sugarcoat the effects of AGW until it either stops frightening or offending you. Got it. Sleep tight.

171 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:43:05pm

re: #153 Emmmieg

Anyone who thinks that the "traditional" ways of living were so great ought to live that ways for five years and report back to us. No:

electricity
antibiotics (they might not report back)
central heating
synthetic fibers
labor saving devices
and so on.

Actually one week ought to do it.

172 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:43:23pm

re: #139 Emmmieg

I think that's because our battery technology still sucks. If we had better ways to store electricity they could keep them running all the time and just store the electricity.

173 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:43:25pm

re: #144 The Shadow Do

Uh, that level of ignorance does not lend itself to that whole adapt and overcome thing. Truly, we are not that primitive and to argue so is a bit silly.

agreed, that's an extreme case, but the mindset or mentality is similar. HOPEFULLY, we're much more intelligent than that, but considering some of the truther/beck articles on LGF...

174 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:43:49pm

re: #167 Sharmuta

Strawman. Sharmuta, that test can be easily replicated to show indisputable results. Please show me an easily-replicated test that can predict future climate with 100% certainty. And I'm not talking about statistical models -- I'm talking about an actual experiment that can be verified as that's the example you've used.

175 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:43:53pm

re: #157 mt3_1234

"harry"?

Sr Senator from Nevada

176 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:44:49pm

re: #146 jantjepietje

The problem with that is that high energy prices whether it's through taxation or supply and demand kills real people. It's simple math.

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

It's a long article, but if you read the full thing you will see the energy conundrum we are faced with. Energy needs to be clean, but it also must remain cheap or people die from starvation.

177 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:45:20pm

re: #156 Thanos

Yes, Patrick Moore speaks to it here, keep in mind that Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, used to be anti nuclear until he did the math.

For a moment there, I thought you were referring to the British TV astronomer Sir Patrick Moore, whose show I used to watch "religiously"!

178 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:45:24pm

re: #168 ~Fianna

Look at the societies that didn't, though. Easter Island, the Assyrians, Viking Greenland, the Anazsazi - and all of those civilizations have environmental problems as a contributor if not a direct cause of their fall.

I give you a more modern example, complete with technology: israel.

179 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:45:51pm

re: #172 Killgore Trout

I think that's because our battery technology still sucks. If we had better ways to store electricity they could keep them running all the time and just store the electricity.

Better batteries are coming online. Part of the issue is technological and infrastructure upgrades are needed nationwide.

This is likely something that could be headed up by- I don't know- some one like a green jobs czar... Oops.

180 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:45:55pm

re: #137 Pythagoras

Seems like the video pretty much agree with the position I was advocating at the end of the last thread on the subject here. Whether the latest temperature trend is slightly down or slightly up isn’t important. In the zigzagging temperature trend, it’s another zig. It simply makes the long term trend look linear.

I take the “moderate skeptical” position – specifically that global warming is not accelerating and, thus, will not be a catastrophe. In defending that, I’d like to avoid tangential arguments so I chose some raw data sources that are, I hope, completely non-controversial. I have avoided any references to Wikipedia or other sources with concerns about their accuracy. These are just raw data.

Temperature:

[Link: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu...]

(There are other sources but this one uses NASA’s Aqua satellite which has on-board fuel to maintain a constant orbit. Thus, objections raised for other sources don’t apply. They all pretty much agree anyway, but I don’t want to let in any tangents.)

Sea Ice:

[Link: nsidc.org...]

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

[Link: arctic-roos.org...]

[Link: ocean.dmi.dk...]

While these four (US, Japan, Norway & Denmark respectively) are distinct they are highly compatible – generally validating each other. Note that the first 3 define “sea ice extent” as the area where sea ice exceeds 15%; the last one uses 30% instead, so it’s extent is lower. Also, the download button on the second one is a treasure.

Sea level:

This is important but I haven’t found one yet that is unassailable. The numbers are so small that precision is an issue. The current rise is about an inch a decade and the low end of the 2007 IPCC projection is 7 more inches by the end of the century – so there isn’t a ton of disagreement here anyway. Still, I’d like to add a sea level data source to this list.

My argument is this – they all show linear trends. You want to predict the next few decades, just extend the straight lines. The people who claim we’re about to reach a tipping point need to make their case and they, most notably, have not. They make statements but they don’t make detailed, quantitative arguments. All the “feedback” mechanisms (reduced albedo from loss of sea ice, methane release from melting permafrost, etc.) are already happening, and yet the plots keep marching in a straight line. The urgent predictions are starting to get a bit long in the tooth and they simply have not come true.

Yes, it’s warming. Yes, CO2 matters (I don’t know how much). But the people who want to change our lives have not made the case for what they are advocating.

Is there any data on permafrost loss that you are aware of? I'm still in the mushy middle on this... believe that there is AGW but rate/extent I'm not so certain about.

Hopefully some of your points will be discussed.

181 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:45:57pm

re: #169 LudwigVanQuixote

Please do not presume to lecture me on what I understand on this topic.


Then cease to presume you're certain as to what the future holds. It will help your argument immensely.
re: #170 Bloodnok

So you'll remain asleep until the scientists sugarcoat the effects of AGW until it either stops frightening or offending you. Got it. Sleep tight.


Right. Because that's exactly what I said. It's not like what I actually said relates to the style of debate rather than the argument. Nuance.

182 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:46:00pm

re: #167 Sharmuta

So if a scientist predicted that dropping an apple would cause it to hit the floor, and it's settled science- you would doubt it?

Thats provable in the present
HTY is talking about proving soemthing in the future

Listen,, GW is real. What the debate should be is
A) how real
B) what can we learn from past "real times"
C) are those lessons applicable now
D) to what extent does man contribute, to what extent can man help

183 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:46:02pm

re: #169 LudwigVanQuixote

Please do not presume to lecture me on what I understand on this topic. PLease take the time to look into the links provided in #14.

Now as to your contentions:

It depends on what you consider truth.

If you mean that it is impossible to say that if nothing changes, on this day in the year 2107 the weather will be x in NY, then you are correct.

But so what?

If however, I say that it is certain, that if nothing changes in 100 to 150 years at the outside NY is flooded out... then that is sufficient to change things and take actions.


So it's not all bad.

184 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:46:23pm

New York City wouldn't flood out, but it would have to contend with some difficulties:

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

185 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:46:46pm

re: #179 Sharmuta

Better batteries are coming online. Part of the issue is technological and infrastructure upgrades are needed nationwide.

This is likely something that could be headed up by- I don't know- some one like a green jobs czar... Oops.

Socialist! Thruther!
/

186 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:48:01pm

re: #165 lincolntf

There are no easy, pain free, solutions to gigantic problems like this it would be foolish to think otherwise. Any cost would eventually have to be brought up by the consumer and the poor will always suffer more from higher prices the only solution to this is to let the government raise taxes on hiher income and let the government subsidize things I think you'd agree with me that is a bad solution that eventually doesn't really solve the problem.

Also gas prices sky rocketed last year and people had a hard time but they didn't get crushed.

187 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:48:20pm

re: #176 Thanos

Energy needs to be clean, but it also must remain cheap or people die from starvation.


That is the problem, even now ignoring CO2 output. With a growing world population, and with modernization in the developing world, energy demands are increasing.

188 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:48:41pm

re: #182 sattv4u2

Exactly.

189 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:48:54pm

re: #172 Killgore Trout

I think that's because our battery technology still sucks. If we had better ways to store electricity they could keep them running all the time and just store the electricity.

We have a great battery - its called "the grid". Solar cells can pump electricity out onto the grid during the day. At night Hydroelectric can kick in.

190 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:49:06pm

LVQ - Thoughts on #137?

191 transient  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:49:53pm

re: #174 HebrewToYou

Strawman. Sharmuta, that test can be easily replicated to show indisputable results. Please show me an easily-replicated test that can predict future climate with 100% certainty. And I'm not talking about statistical models -- I'm talking about an actual experiment that can be verified as that's the example you've used.

To use LVQ's medical analogy, which is actually quite good: it has been shown that smoking is a major factor causing lung cancer. Now, not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. (And some people who don't smoke DO get lung cancer.) Maybe you are one of the lucky ones. A lot of people continue to smoke believing they are immune. But if I were your doctor, I would strongly recommend you quit. And if you knew how to play the odds, you would quit.
...
As much as I wish to continue the debate, the salt mines are calling and they are looking very very busy, so I doubt I will be able to post again.

192 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:50:00pm

re: #172 Killgore Trout

I think that's because our battery technology still sucks. If we had better ways to store electricity they could keep them running all the time and just store the electricity.

BIG time

At work we have a back-up generator to run the place for days on end if we lose shore power. Prior to the generator taking over automatically, if the power cuts off we're on battereies for awhile. The gen should take the load within 5 minutes.

IF the generator broke or did not engage the batteries would run the place for 45 minutes

Here's the kicker. Our battery room filled floor to ceiling with cells is 40 ft by 40 ft. There are over 600 batteries in there

They would need to generate electricity for the equivilant of a small strip mall

45 minutes ,, MAX

193 Izzyboy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:50:04pm

re: #189 Racer X

We have a great battery - its called "the grid". Solar cells can pump electricity out onto the grid during the day. At night Hydroelectric can kick in.

That would require a major infrastructure overhaul, no?

194 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:50:19pm

re: #137 Pythagoras


I fail to see how you can argue that the trends are linear.

I would like to direct you to the following articles briefly.

These are just for the Greenland ice sheet which is clearly accelerating for many reasons. There are other articles for the poles and the tundras as well.

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

Abstract:

Using satellite radar interferometry observations of Greenland, we detected widespread glacier acceleration below 66° north between 1996 and 2000, which rapidly expanded to 70° north in 2005. Accelerated ice discharge in the west and particularly in the east doubled the ice sheet mass deficit in the last decade from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers per year. As more glaciers accelerate farther north, the contribution of Greenland to sea-level rise will continue to increase.

And one more for good measure:

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

195 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:50:39pm

Until they make a battery powered 737, I'll hold my breath on battery powered travel.

Perhaps a nuclear jet?
Sweet

196 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:50:46pm

The world is doomed! Bernie's Deli at 42nd and 1st could be under water in just a hundred years! Shit!

197 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:50:54pm

re: #146 jantjepietje

It's also the wrong kind of approach.
I think the right wing is seriously missing out on advocating free market solutions to global warming. What we should acknowledges is that in this case the free market fails because of an future cost to society for certain products right now in the form of global warming that isn't being paid by anyone. Therefore the government must correct the free market's negligence to the invisible cost to society by taxing but they must let the innovating and search for solutions to the free market.

That means:
-no subsidies for new technologies
-no rules on how to design cars
-no cap and trade witch is going to be an bureaucratic nightmare.

Just taxes.
This might be a strange slogan for the right but I say taxes taxes taxes!
It doesn't take any bureaucracy, no complicated rules and gives by far the best results
Currently gasoline is taxed with like 18 cents/gallon just make it a dollar or two and watch how soon the free market creates efficient cars
Instead of making a hugely complex cap and trade system why not just tax emissions? etc. etc.

There are several problems with this approach.

First, taxes are difficult to raise for political reasons. Particularly at a time when so many people are trying to save against an uncertain future, and have had much of their savings and other wealth wiped out.

Second, you're taxing gasoline. Which will drive consumers to do two things: use less gasoline, and use alternatives. If the alternatives - electric cars, for example - are ultimately powered by another carbon source, like coal or natural gas, you're simply shifting carbon emissions from one source to another, accomplishing nothing.

Finally, taxes again: governments instantly become addicted to new taxes and can never learn to do without them once they're in place. Yet the whole point of this tax is to drive down consumption of the taxed resource, which will inevitably cause revenues to dwindle. This will lead to calls for additional taxes, perhaps on other energy sources, perhaps on unrelated items, in order to maintain government's insatiable appetite for what it has become accustomed to.

Taxation doesn't drive the free market in this case; it introduces large distortions to it.

If you want to play with taxes, consider another approach - reduce my taxes if I buy a high mileage car, or reduce my gasoline consumption, or lower my natural gas usage. Use taxes as a reward instead of a bludgeon.

198 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:51:27pm

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I'm glad you brought it up, because it's something I've not bothered to mention in all this hullabulloo over Van Jones. We are already on our way to incorporating more green energy sources into the grid. With the improved technology of batteries- these renewable sources will help bridge the gap to nuclear- and there isn't any projected decrease in energy demands anyways. More renewable energy sources will only help at this point. However- it's infrastructure where we're really behind. The grid needs upgrades besides just building wind and solar farms, or nuclear plants. These are things that now might get neglected. I certainly hope they don't.

199 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:51:47pm

re: #183 BignJames

So it's not all bad.

Yeah. Ha-ha. NY is flooded. Millions displaced. Funny. But it's NY, right?

Sheesh.

200 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:51:54pm

re: #193 Izzyboy

That would require a major infrastructure overhaul, no?

Nope. Just a lot of solar panels on rooftops.

201 Simple Voice  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:52:08pm

The issue is not whether the earth is in a warming period or cooling period.
The issue is is humanity causing the earth to warm to such a degree that we need to totally alter our economic systems?
Is it even a bad thing that the globe is warming?

Everything I have read shows that if we act now and institute methods to stop, or reverse CO2 emissions, it will have negligible impact, at best.

I still am not convinced in anthropomorphic global warming.

202 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:52:22pm

re: #146 jantjepietje

The problem with increasing gasoline taxes is that it hits the people who can least afford it, even if more efficient cars are produced quickly (and I doubt there is anything simple out there, or the Japanese or Europeans would have already done it.)
The problem is, many people cannot afford new cars, and often, they live a distance from where they work where housing is cheaper. Increasing taxes would make it so their standard of living would decline, maybe to where they could no longer afford to commute to where jobs are.

This is one of the problems with trying to decrease transportation fuel use in the US. We are geographically spread out to take advantage of cheaper land. This spread reduces the efficiency of mass transit, which requires a high density of people traveling on the same line. If you don't have people commuting between the same two points (roughly), the efficiency is terrible. A bus or train is only more efficient if it is carrying many people. An SUV with 10 people is more efficient than a bus with 2.

Add to that the fact that in the US work hours vary, and the problem gets bigger.

Increasing transportation costs will drive up living costs near work (supply and demand) while decreasing the value of real estate further out. Imagine the outer suburb belt (like the 495 belt around Boston) suddenly losing most of its value because people cannot commute to work, and get an idea of the problem.

Of course, the 495 belt is populated because there are a lot of jobs there; companies took advantage of cheaper land. But they'd have to move as well, increasing business costs. The housing and businesses are too spread out for efficient mass transit.

But there is an interesting possibility, and that is the direct production of fuels using biosolar. Basically, organisms in solar panels that produce molecules that can be used as fuel. These take up as much carbon dioxide as they release (more actually). And several companies are working on them now. This would allow us to continue with our spread out development, while decreasing our "carbon footprint". And the fuels could be made to work in existing cars, or only require minor changes.

203 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:52:25pm

re: #195 Shug


Perhaps a nuclear jet?
Sweet


It was researched at one time.

Air transportation will likely remain fueled by the C-H bonds in liquids.

However, for ground transportation that is not necessary, and by the 22nd century using gasoline for transportation will be rare.

204 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:52:33pm

re: #195 Shug

Until they make a battery powered 737, I'll hold my breath on battery powered travel.

Perhaps a nuclear jet?
Sweet

Not allowed to go there. The NIMBYS and radical environmentalists won't hear of it

205 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:53:08pm

re: #192 sattv4u2

Recently I had a whim and checked to see if anyone was making a serious outboard electric motor for boating. Nope. The ones I found could only run for like 4 hours or so and required 600-700 pounds of batteries.

206 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:53:45pm

re: #138 Edgesitter

and that is exactly my point. It won't happen overnight, and there will be plenty of ways to take advantage of AGW. The chicken littles are nuts.

What about the millions of people who don't have the money to relocate. Refugees are expensive and very destabilizing, even to healthy states - politics aside, the Palestinian problem costs Israel a ton of money and a lot of internal strife. Ecological issues have destabilized much of Africa (Rwanda is, among other things, a large fight over water) and is currently causing Australia a lot of money in firefighting and lost agriculture profits - again I go back to wine, because it's the agriculture I'm most familiar with on both a practical and a business level - the current release of Australian wine is bad. Producer Molly Dooker, one of the highest-scoring and high-grossing wineries, did not produce several of their top-end lables in 2007 (that's the current release-year of their wines) because grape quality was so bad. They instead put all their grapes in to their mid- and low-range wines. That's a loss of ~$40US per bottle in revenue for the company as well as in export duties for the government. I tasted through the new releases 2 weeks ago, and while I'll admint I'm not a fan of the Molly Dooker style, I know what they're going for and it's not nearly as good as what they used to produce. You can taste the fire and you can taste the over-extracted sugars and tannis from the drought conditions. It is, as an agricultural product, inferior and that's 100% related to environmental conditions.

207 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:53:55pm

re: #194 LudwigVanQuixote
I know you don't agree with this guy, but what he says about how data is tweaked and the inconsistency of methods in the way it is reported has some merit.
It reminds me of a photo I saw of a temperature recording station that was less than two feet from a trash burner.
[Link: www.pbs.org...]

208 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:54:16pm

re: #205 Killgore Trout

Recently I had a whim and checked to see if anyone was making a serious outboard electric motor for boating. Nope. The ones I found could only run for like 4 hours or so and required 600-700 pounds of batteries.


Its a battery

No ,, it's a BOAT Anchor

It's two, TWO uses in one!

209 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:54:23pm

re: #203 freetoken

It was researched at one time.

Air transportation will likely remain fueled by the C-H bonds in liquids.

However, for ground transportation that is not necessary, and by the 22nd century using gasoline for transportation will be rare.


Coal powered electric or nuclear powered electric cars?

anyway, in 2300 they can power the cars any way they see fit as far as I am concerned

210 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:54:53pm

re: #199 Bloodnok

Yeah. Ha-ha. NY is flooded. Millions displaced. Funny. But it's NY, right?

Sheesh.


Lighten up, Francis.

211 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:04pm

re: #176 Thanos

Energy needs to be clean, but it also must remain cheap or people die from starvation.


Yes but you can't have it all and you can't create things from thin air
You (rightly)feel that cap and trade doesn't go far enough but you are afraid to do anything else

And I'm not advocating that we simply tax 10$ to the gallon over night or anything that drastic
we can use gradual increases to let solutions evolve

btw
this just came to me, you can compensate the poorest by paying them from the extra tax revenue you collect

212 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:04pm

re: #205 Killgore Trout

Recently I had a whim and checked to see if anyone was making a serious outboard electric motor for boating. Nope. The ones I found could only run for like 4 hours or so and required 600-700 pounds of batteries.

Has anyone thought of putting windmills on boats to power their propellors? Or is it less efficient than just using sails?

213 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:05pm

re: #209 Shug

Coal powered electric or nuclear powered electric cars?

anyway, in 2300 they can power the cars any way they see fit as far as I am concerned

I plan on being around

I plan on living forever

So Far ,, So Good!

214 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:09pm

re: #191 transient

Climate science isn't medicine. The analogy isn't necessarily a poor one, but it's not entirely applicable either. It's one thing to say that a life of smoking will result in a potentially early death. It's quite another to say that we're partly responsible for destroying our civilization and, assuming no external influence over the next century, we've got to do something about it or else!

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to help elevate the argument beyond rhetoric and hyperbole.

215 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:25pm

re: #210 BignJames

Lighten up, Francis.

upding for a Sgt Hulka Reference

216 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:54pm

re: #207 tradewind

Fred Singer is one of the most clearly discredited people in this whole issue. He lied about tobacco, and he is lying about AGW.

217 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:55:59pm

re: #198 Sharmuta

Much of the feared stimulus package went to green jobs. They are working on it. Things like solar panels are getting better and cheaper. I'm sure there are battery innovations being worked on. There are also a lot of do-it-yourselfers out there making backyard wind turbines and stuff like that.

218 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:56:07pm

re: #212 Salamantis

Has anyone thought of putting windmills on boats to power their propellors? Or is it less efficient than just using sails?

Think of the seagulls, man!!

219 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:56:10pm

re: #213 sattv4u2

I plan on being around

I plan on living forever

So Far ,, So Good!


I go in for minor ulcer surgery nad the next thing I know I'm public enemy number one

--Woody Allen
Sleeper

220 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:56:28pm

BIAB

221 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:56:35pm

re: #183 BignJames

You can see why the Dems are so hot to trot on the climate change thing. If NY and Miami flood, they lose half their voting base...
///

222 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:58:18pm

re: #150 HebrewToYou

LVQ, there is no "truth" when predicting exactly what's going to happen in the future. Do you not understand that simple fact? Unless you have a time machine you're still guessing.

That's how we make future decisions all the time. I don't know what my salary will be next year, but I know what my raises were for the past 4, so I can guess that I'll get a raise, and it will be about this much.

My company knows about how much they can expect to make in about the same way.

Insurance companies guess how many claims will pay out based on what's happened in the past.

Hotels and restaurants and retail shops do their staffing based on how much money in sales they've done on that day in the past year.

Sometimes we're all wrong. Most of the time, we're not.

223 Izzyboy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:58:26pm

re: #221 tradewind

That's funny and creepy at the same time.

Be back later.

224 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:58:48pm

re: #206 ~Fianna

You bring up some great points. Grapes are particularly sensitive little fruits. There is such a huge difference in a French Chard vs a California- all from the soil. Having worked years for a French wine connoisseur, I recall the years of flooding in France, and how the vintages were impacted. Poor grapes make poor wine, and that leads to less money.

And these are just wine grapes. Imagine how the rest of agriculture will be impacted if growing regions are drastically altered.

225 avanti  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:59:07pm

re: #212 Salamantis

Has anyone thought of putting windmills on boats to power their propellors? Or is it less efficient than just using sails?

Here's but one, there are other designs.

link

226 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:59:13pm

re: #198 Sharmuta

I'm glad you brought it up, because it's something I've not bothered to mention in all this hullabulloo over Van Jones. We are already on our way to incorporating more green energy sources into the grid. With the improved technology of batteries- these renewable sources will help bridge the gap to nuclear- and there isn't any projected decrease in energy demands anyways. More renewable energy sources will only help at this point. However- it's infrastructure where we're really behind. The grid needs upgrades besides just building wind and solar farms, or nuclear plants. These are things that now might get neglected. I certainly hope they don't.

Very true, covering AZ wall to wall with solar panels, or jacking up a sort of maginot line of ugly bird killing windmills accross the country does not begin to address the transmission and storage issues. This is a long, long term enterprise with nuclear and coal/gas the bridge for as long as you or your kids can project.

The rest is a tax your ass pipe dream put forward by people either with a vested interest or just out of plain politically driven ignorance.

227 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:59:35pm

re: #217 Killgore Trout

Much of the feared stimulus package went to green jobs. They are working on it. Things like solar panels are getting better and cheaper. I'm sure there are battery innovations being worked on. There are also a lot of do-it-yourselfers out there making backyard wind turbines and stuff like that.


Its not all doom and gloom. Some really good articles here:

CNET Green News

228 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:59:39pm

re: #180 Pianobuff

Is there any data on permafrost loss that you are aware of? I'm still in the mushy middle on this... believe that there is AGW but rate/extent I'm not so certain about.

Hopefully some of your points will be discussed.

Well the biggest permafrost issue is the Canadian and Siberian icefields and the massive feedback that will be caused by trapped gases from the now thawed bog.

First of all it is a lot of methane and carbon trapped there.

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

And the effect is very bad. It frankly could double the present levels of carbon in the atmosphere and accelerate the warming into the worst case scenario projections. We simply do not know how bad, this very bad contribution will be yet.


[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

[Link: www.nature.com...]

Abstract:

Large uncertainties in the budget of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, limit the accuracy of climate change projections1, 2. Thaw lakes in North Siberia are known to emit methane3, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. Here we report a new method of measuring ebullition and use it to quantify methane emissions from two thaw lakes in North Siberia. We show that ebullition accounts for 95 per cent of methane emissions from these lakes, and that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times higher than previously estimated3. Extrapolation of these fluxes indicates that thaw lakes in North Siberia emit 3.8 teragrams of methane per year, which increases present estimates of methane emissions from northern wetlands (< 6–40 teragrams per year; refs 1, 2, 4–6) by between 10 and 63 per cent. We find that thawing permafrost along lake margins accounts for most of the methane released from the lakes, and estimate that an expansion of thaw lakes between 1974 and 2000, which was concurrent with regional warming, increased methane emissions in our study region by 58 per cent. Furthermore, the Pleistocene age (35,260–42,900 years) of methane emitted from hotspots along thawing lake margins indicates that this positive feedback to climate warming has led to the release of old carbon stocks previously stored in permafrost.

229 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 4:59:55pm

While watching the video I found myself looking at all those people in the audience, nicely dressed for an evening out, and I would guess having paid more than a few dollars for the privilege of being there. I suppose the expert whathisname was paid a few bucks to be there too.

I can just imagine getting something in the mail that offered this evening of entertainment for only a few hundred per head, and what I would do with it.

Hell, I would do the same if the other argument sent me a solicitation. I have Google and LGF, and my own food and drink.

I don't get it. Who are these people and why don't they have a life?

230 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:00:03pm

re: #212 Salamantis

There are some interesting prototypes around...
Windmill Sailboat
Photoshop?

231 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:00:12pm

re: #224 Sharmuta

For another probably more obscure one, follow the hay exports. It's a little hobby of mine.

232 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:00:13pm

OT

Anyone in/ around Columbus Ohio?
Police stand off,,, officer shot

God be with him!

233 lincolntf  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:01:36pm

re: #186 jantjepietje

They didn't get crushed (though many suffered) because it was a temporary market spike. Taxes last forever. If individuals losing more of their income doesn't bother you, at least consider the institutions. The same oil/gas that you want to "mega-tax" heats and runs schools, hospitals, busses, ambulances,etc. All of those bills will soar. Therefore other taxes will soar to make up for the shortfalls. Happens every time.
Every shelter, every assistance program, every public service agency will all see their fuel bills skyrocket. What gain can we expect from subjecting our economy (and our neediest citizens) to this absurdity? A half-degree projected temp. drop over 50 years? An extra mating pair of polar bears in Al Gore's next film? Count me out of that scheme.

234 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:01:40pm

re: #230 Killgore Trout

There are some interesting prototypes around...
Windmill Sailboat
Photoshop?

If not, you better to remember to duck every three seconds!

235 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:01:48pm

re: #214 HebrewToYou

Climate science isn't medicine. The analogy isn't necessarily a poor one, but it's not entirely applicable either. It's one thing to say that a life of smoking will result in a potentially early death. It's quite another to say that we're partly responsible for destroying our civilization and, assuming no external influence over the next century, we've got to do something about it or else!

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to help elevate the argument beyond rhetoric and hyperbole.

Oh bullshit! You have no idea if what LVQ is saying is hyperbolic until you read the science. You want to help "elevate the argument"? Start with knowing something about the topic and spare me your "no dog in the fight" canard.

236 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:01:59pm

re: #224 Sharmuta

You bring up some great points. Grapes are particularly sensitive little fruits. There is such a huge difference in a French Chard vs a California- all from the soil. Having worked years for a French wine connoisseur, I recall the years of flooding in France, and how the vintages were impacted. Poor grapes make poor wine, and that leads to less money.

And these are just wine grapes. Imagine how the rest of agriculture will be impacted if growing regions are drastically altered.

Canadians will make a fine wine and Californians will grow sugar beets.

237 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:02:14pm

Charles,

Every time I click on someone's avatar when using Safari for Windows, it puts their website in as mine on the post form. My post #2 above has Bubbaman's website on my blue nic rather than the URL on my user profile. I noticed the same thing happened last night with some other posters as well.

Is this a Safari bug or something specific to LGF? LGF is the only site I use Safari on, I just started playing around with it a couple days ago and I'm not sure if I like it enough to ditch Chrome completely.

238 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:02:16pm

re: #138 Edgesitter

and that is exactly my point. It won't happen overnight, and there will be plenty of ways to take advantage of AGW. The chicken littles are nuts.

That is a combination of wishful thinking and willful blindness.

If I said you had contracted some fatal disease, and that it would take some years to kill you, would you argue about how it is chicken little to start treatment?

239 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:02:17pm

re: #153 Emmmieg

Anyone who thinks that the "traditional" ways of living were so great ought to live that ways for five years and report back to us. No:

electricity
antibiotics (they might not report back)
central heating
synthetic fibers
labor saving devices
and so on.

I understand what you're saying, but there is a cultural ideal of the "Noble Savage" that's been present since Europeans encountered more primitive peoples... In fact, the term "Noble Savage" is from the writings of Englightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Also, a great many things on your list have existed for quite a long time in varying degrees. Romans had central heat, hot and cold running water and flush toilets in apartment buildings.

240 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:02:25pm

re: #229 Naso Tang

It's like any other group, even a garden club. They all have an agenda, and they feel like they're participating.

241 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:02:40pm

re: #222 ~Fianna

There's nothing wrong with making a prediction, ~Fianna. The problem is when you apply a high degree of certainty to a prediction. And, in this case, LVQ is doing just that -- and employing a great deal of hyperbole in the process.

I don't disagree with the science LVQ presents as I simply don't have the standing to do so. But I'm very concerned with the manner in which it is presented as that has enormous impact on the way it is received.

242 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:02:45pm

re: #228 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the biggest permafrost issue is the Canadian and Siberian icefields and the massive feedback that will be caused by trapped gases from the now thawed bog.

First of all it is a lot of methane and carbon trapped there.

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

And the effect is very bad. It frankly could double the present levels of carbon in the atmosphere and accelerate the warming into the worst case scenario projections. We simply do not know how bad, this very bad contribution will be yet.

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

[Link: www.nature.com...]

Abstract:

Large uncertainties in the budget of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, limit the accuracy of climate change projections1, 2. Thaw lakes in North Siberia are known to emit methane3, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. Here we report a new method of measuring ebullition and use it to quantify methane emissions from two thaw lakes in North Siberia. We show that ebullition accounts for 95 per cent of methane emissions from these lakes, and that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times higher than previously estimated3. Extrapolation of these fluxes indicates that thaw lakes in North Siberia emit 3.8 teragrams of methane per year, which increases present estimates of methane emissions from northern wetlands (< 6–40 teragrams per year; refs 1, 2, 4–6) by between 10 and 63 per cent. We find that thawing permafrost along lake margins accounts for most of the methane released from the lakes, and estimate that an expansion of thaw lakes between 1974 and 2000, which was concurrent with regional warming, increased methane emissions in our study region by 58 per cent. Furthermore, the Pleistocene age (35,260–42,900 years) of methane emitted from hotspots along thawing lake margins indicates that this positive feedback to climate warming has led to the release of old carbon stocks previously stored in permafrost.

Thanks. I'll check these out. Up-dinged you and Pythagoras as the general topic ([non]linearity) gets to the heart of many of my own personal questions. I don't contribute much to these discussions, but I do listen and read. Thanks again.

243 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:03:02pm

re: #224 Sharmuta

You bring up some great points. Grapes are particularly sensitive little fruits. There is such a huge difference in a French Chard vs a California- all from the soil. Having worked years for a French wine connoisseur, I recall the years of flooding in France, and how the vintages were impacted. Poor grapes make poor wine, and that leads to less money.

And these are just wine grapes. Imagine how the rest of agriculture will be impacted if growing regions are drastically altered.

Then you will hate the projections for France, California and Australia.

244 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:03:39pm

re: #217 Killgore Trout

Much of the feared stimulus package went to green jobs. They are working on it. Things like solar panels are getting better and cheaper. I'm sure there are battery innovations being worked on. There are also a lot of do-it-yourselfers out there making backyard wind turbines and stuff like that.

It's very important we deal with the infrastructure issues now, so we're prepared to quickly get new sources of energy online when they become available. Like I said- demand isn't decreasing, nor is it projected to. Might as well go green to fill the gap while working towards other, better solutions.

245 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:03:57pm

re: #236 The Shadow Do

Canadians will make a fine wine and Californians will grow sugar beets.

And Americans will eat? What will Americans eat?

What happens when Iowa doesn't grow enough food anymore?

246 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:04:26pm

re: #243 LudwigVanQuixote

Then you will hate the projections for France, California and Australia.

It will be sad to lose French wine. May I never live to see the day.

247 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:04:42pm

re: #205 Killgore Trout

Recently I had a whim and checked to see if anyone was making a serious outboard electric motor for boating. Nope. The ones I found could only run for like 4 hours or so and required 600-700 pounds of batteries.

The next big issue confronting us will be new regulations on shipping diesel. It's no small issue, and people need to start paying attention now. The regs take effect 2012 - 2016 iirc. Nuclear powered freighters are going to become a bit more feasible over the next few years.

248 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:04:57pm

re: #239 ~Fianna

I understand what you're saying, but there is a cultural ideal of the "Noble Savage" that's been present since Europeans encountered more primitive peoples... In fact, the term "Noble Savage" is from the writings of Englightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Also, a great many things on your list have existed for quite a long time in varying degrees. Romans had central heat, hot and cold running water and flush toilets in apartment buildings.

Other such memes include the Blank Slate and the Ghost in the Machine:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]

249 avanti  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:05:08pm

re: #230 Killgore Trout

There are some interesting prototypes around...
Windmill Sailboat
Photoshop?

Yep, my link was a photoshop, but there is some work being done on other designs.

250 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:05:11pm

re: #235 Sharmuta

Sharmuta, stay classy.

Nobody knows what this planet is going to look like 100-150 years from now. Anyone claiming otherwise is relying solely on conjecture. And to use that conjecture to invoke fear is not a good way to make a point.

It gives the impression that the messenger is an apocryphal preacher.

251 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:05:38pm

re: #230 Killgore Trout

re: #234 sattv4u2

If not, you better to remember to duck every three seconds!

In a tragic boating accident, an environmentally considerate boater was guillotined to death in what seems to be bowing bad bowing timing

//

252 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:05:46pm

re: #201 Simple Voice

The issue is not whether the earth is in a warming period or cooling period.
The issue is is humanity causing the earth to warm to such a degree that we need to totally alter our economic systems?
Is it even a bad thing that the globe is warming?

Everything I have read shows that if we act now and institute methods to stop, or reverse CO2 emissions, it will have negligible impact, at best.

I still am not convinced in anthropomorphic global warming.

If you thought about it just a teeny little bit you would realize that while global warming could be a good thing for some people, most would be badly harmed by any significant change in the climate they have come to terms with over generations.

As to being convinced, it is clear that you have nothing but questions that you could have answers to if you looked for them.

Clearly you are intellectually lazy.

253 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:05:47pm

re: #242 Pianobuff

thank you for reading. If you really want to get at the heart of the non-linearities though, as a primer, try this:


[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

254 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:06:52pm

The problem is political tyranny.

We democracies are required to spend fortunes on defense against the psychotic few who misrule their little parcel of their bizzarre state of nature and can only remain in power by antagonizing the more prosperous and advanced nations.

Clean power? Made in the USA?

Its a layup if we can just concentrate on it.

255 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:07:23pm

re: #241 HebrewToYou

There's nothing wrong with making a prediction, ~Fianna. The problem is when you apply a high degree of certainty to a prediction. And, in this case, LVQ is doing just that -- and employing a great deal of hyperbole in the process.

I don't disagree with the science LVQ presents as I simply don't have the standing to do so. But I'm very concerned with the manner in which it is presented as that has enormous impact on the way it is received.

If you look at the science you will find that I am being very restrained. How much of a hit would loosing NY be on America?

OK add Boston...

OK add Baltimore and DC

get my point?

It doesn't stop there.

256 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:07:50pm

re: #240 theheat

It's like any other group, even a garden club. They all have an agenda, and they feel like they're participating.

Oh, kind of like going to church?

257 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:07:59pm

Batteries? We don't need no stinking batteries!

PG&E to compress air to store wind power

Despite all the talk about needed breakthroughs in batteries, Pacific Gas & Electric is pursuing a less high-tech approach to store wind power: underground compressed air.

The utility on Wednesday said that it is seeking $25 million in smart-grid stimulus funds to build an underground compressed-air storage facility that would be able to deliver as much electricity as a medium-size power plant for about 10 hours.

With compressed-air energy storage (CAES), air is compressed and then pumped in natural underground reservoirs. The air is released later and converted into electricity.

There are currently two compressed-air energy storage facilities in operation--one in Alabama and one in Germany--but the technique has been getting more attention because it is a relatively cheap approach to storage.

258 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:08:03pm

re: #255 LudwigVanQuixote

It doesn't stop there.


And something tells me it never will...

The beauty of hyperbole.

259 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:08:48pm

re: #255 LudwigVanQuixote

If you look at the science you will find that I am being very restrained. How much of a hit would loosing NY be on America?

OK add Boston...

OK add Baltimore and DC

get my point?

It doesn't stop there.

Once again, New York City wouldn't flood out, but it would have to contend with some difficulties:

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

260 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:09:01pm

re: #250 HebrewToYou

Actually- predictions can be made about the future of this planet, and no one denies they are true.

Also- you haven't seen me be rude yet, but keep it up and you will.

261 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:09:46pm

re: #197 SixDegrees


First, taxes are difficult to raise for political reasons.


It's unpopular sure but I'm just philosophizing about the best solutions and a good politican must be able to sell unpopular solutions too they don't have to be so blunt as I am


Second, you're taxing gasoline.


Only as an example I suggest we tax the carbon output of industry too and much more things


Which will drive consumers to do two things: use less gasoline, and use alternatives. If the alternatives - electric cars, for example - are ultimately powered by another carbon source, like coal or natural gas, you're simply shifting carbon emissions from one source to another, accomplishing nothing.


Yes you are prodcuing energy in one place is
a)much more efficient than and less emitting any car engine
b)doesn't pollute with the air with fine particles etc (Witch is amajor environmental problem too and is responsible for 4% of deaths in the USA and 3 million deaths/year world wide)
c)New technology can be much easier implemented when centralized than in a decentralised system of energy production


Finally, taxes again: governments instantly become addicted to new taxes and can never learn to do without them once they're in place. Yet the whole point of this tax is to drive down consumption of the taxed resource, which will inevitably cause revenues to dwindle. This will lead to calls for additional taxes, perhaps on other energy sources, perhaps on unrelated items, in order to maintain government's insatiable appetite for what it has become accustomed to.


This is true for every taxes yet we don't see taxes going up every 10 seconds because it's politcally hard to do


Taxation doesn't drive the free market in this case; it introduces large distortions to it.


The free market must be distorted because it doesn't account for the hidden cost to society. I maintain that taxes are the cleanest and least bureaucratic way correct the free market.


If you want to play with taxes, consider another approach - reduce my taxes if I buy a high mileage car, or reduce my gasoline consumption, or lower my natural gas usage. Use taxes as a reward instead of a bludgeon.


The effects would be marginal because the rewards will never be as great the the cost in a tax system also you would drive up the deficit enormously

262 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:10:17pm

re: #190 Pianobuff

LVQ - Thoughts on #137?

It's the fine structure constant. :)

I couldn't resist the pun.

263 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:10:53pm

re: #260 Sharmuta

Actually- predictions can be made about the future of this planet, and no one denies they are true.


I think your definition of "no one" differs from mine...

264 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:11:07pm

re: #258 HebrewToYou

Have you read any actual science on this issue? Or is this more of your idea to "elevate the argument "?

265 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:11:35pm

re: #256 Naso Tang

Well, that wasn't what I said, but I suppose you could interpret it that way.

Any club I belong to is composed of a bunch of people with similar interests. When it gets political, then they're promoting their own flavor of politics. Both garden clubs and churches - I've seen plenty of politics in both. Someone always wants to be the boss of some damned thing, and convince the others to follow.

266 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:11:38pm

re: #257 Racer X


That's interesting.

267 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:12:01pm

re: #263 HebrewToYou

I think your definition of "no one" differs from mine...

The sun is going to run out of fuel, expand into a giant and destroy this plant.

Please find me some one who disagrees.

268 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:12:33pm

re: #267 Sharmuta

The sun is going to run out of fuel, expand into a giant and destroy this plant.

Please find me some one who disagrees.

That sounds like hyperbole, Sharm. /

269 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:12:35pm

re: #250 HebrewToYou


Nobody knows what this planet is going to look like 100-150 years from now. Anyone claiming otherwise is relying solely on conjecture. And to use that conjecture to invoke fear is not a good way to make a point.

It gives the impression that the messenger is an apocryphal preacher.

You give the impression of someone who prefers to put his hand over his ears and chant "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". You're dismissing LVQ's claims, and those of others, as 'hyperbole' and unfounded and apocalyptic (you do not mean 'apocryphal', the point is that you wish the science were merely 'apocryphal') for no reason other than that you find the claims devastating and frightening.

They are. That's the point.
And you have no justification for dismissing them solely because "they say scary stuff" without looking at the links you've been provided and the data.

270 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:12:48pm

Evening all. I see we have another run of the mill boring, noncontroversial thread is in progress here.

271 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:12:57pm

Predictions

272 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:13:15pm

Err- planet, not plant. lol @ me.

273 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:13:20pm

re: #264 Sharmuta

Again, Sharmuta, I'm simply pointing out that LVQ isn't helping to rebut critics of the science in question. You can continue on your course if you like, but I suggest you relax.

Less hyperbole will make for a greater argument.

274 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:13:32pm

re: #224 Sharmuta

You bring up some great points. Grapes are particularly sensitive little fruits. There is such a huge difference in a French Chard vs a California- all from the soil. Having worked years for a French wine connoisseur, I recall the years of flooding in France, and how the vintages were impacted. Poor grapes make poor wine, and that leads to less money.

And these are just wine grapes. Imagine how the rest of agriculture will be impacted if growing regions are drastically altered.

Grapes are little canaries in the coal mines.

Australia's big debate right now is sheep - they're not native, and they've caused a lot of erosion and loss of trees. The loss of trees impacts the water cycle, which reduces rainfall, which reduces tress, which cause erosion which makes sub-surface water silt up, which increases the dr... you get the point.

Some places may see an increased growing season (like Canada and other extreme northern and southern countries) but overall, most of the grain belt that feeds the world is going to suffer seriously in production. Hungry populations are really hard to control. What could happen makes what's going on in the Middle East right now look like political stability.

I don't see the benefit of waiting to see if this problem gets worse before we try and fix something. I think the costs of inaction are likely to be signifigantly higher than the costs of making change.

275 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:13:54pm

re: #273 HebrewToYou

I suggest you not tell me what to do again.

276 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:13:56pm

re: #271 Shug

Predictions

That was media fired and not backed by the scientists of the time. Hashed over here in LGF multiple times.

277 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:15:48pm

re: #250 HebrewToYou

Sharmuta, stay classy.

Nobody knows what this planet is going to look like 100-150 years from now. Anyone claiming otherwise is relying solely on conjecture. And to use that conjecture to invoke fear is not a good way to make a point.

It gives the impression that the messenger is an apocryphal preacher.

It is not solely conjecture. It is not all hyperbole.

So I have claimed repeatedly that we are heading in a certain direction.

The IPCC claim is that it is likely that sea levels will rise by about 1 meter in 100-150 years.

Many, including me think this is a very lowball estimate.

I think that in 100-150 years it could get as high as 3 meters - and I think it is certain to hit at least 3 meters by 200 years.

Now these are claims with some substance.

What would that do?

Further, what do you have to discount the claim? What science do you bring?

278 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:16:06pm

re: #276 Coracle

That was media fired and not backed by the scientists of the time. Hashed over here in LGF multiple times.

30 some years from now I'd love to look at some of the hysteria of today and see how it all panned out.
I plan on being around.

279 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:16:34pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

It's the fine structure constant. :)

I couldn't resist the pun.

Are you trying to be an alpha male?

280 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:16:47pm

re: #263 HebrewToYou

I think your definition of "no one" differs from mine...

I think that I can predict solar eclipses pretty well for the next 2,000,000 years. What do you think?

281 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:16:49pm

re: #245 LudwigVanQuixote

And Americans will eat? What will Americans eat?

What happens when Iowa doesn't grow enough food anymore?

Such a pessimist. Do Israelis eat? Are Iowan's too stupid to find another crop, or are they sure to become 22nd century bedoins or somesuch?

People are smart, change is incremental, it is wrong to think folks will fold their tent and go all dustbowl or somesuch. That kind of thinking is alarmist and extreme. Why, I wouldn't be surprised to find some smart agriculturist come up with a corn type that would thrive in half the water used today. But that is just ever old optimistic me I guess.

282 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:16:57pm

re: #273 HebrewToYou

Again, Sharmuta, I'm simply pointing out that LVQ isn't helping to rebut critics of the science in question. You can continue on your course if you like, but I suggest you relax.

Less hyperbole will make for a greater argument.

Then refute his arguments instead of just saying "it sounds icky". It's a shame reality frightens you so much.

283 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:07pm

re: #216 freetoken
Hell of a resume for a lying SOB.
[Link: www.sepp.org...]

284 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:09pm

re: #246 Sharmuta

It will be sad to lose French wine. May I never live to see the day.

That's how I feel. We're losing a huge part of our cultural heritage.

285 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:09pm

OT:

Oliver Stone is a disgraceful fool.

286 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:10pm

re: #278 Shug

30 some years from now I'd love to look at some of the hysteria of today and see how it all panned out.
I plan on being around.

Happy to talk with you about it in 30 years. I have the same deal with sattv4u.

287 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:12pm

re: #279 Pianobuff

Are you trying to be an alpha male?

Damn look at the big brain on you! :) :)

288 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:36pm

re: #273 HebrewToYou

I'm simply pointing out that LVQ isn't helping to rebut critics of the science in question.

What you're doing is dismissing Ludwig's science completely, and my hypothesis is you haven't read any of his science links. If you don't like what Ludwig is saying- bring your own science and debunk him, but don't look to the rest of us to ignore him when he's the one with the evidence on his side.

289 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:37pm

re: #267 Sharmuta

The sun is going to run out of fuel, expand into a giant and destroy this plant.

Please find me some one who disagrees.

If you preface your statement with "probably" I won't disagree. The point isn't that you can predict the future, for you probably can't, but rather that you can see high probability trends, and take precautions for high risks.

290 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:43pm

re: #267 Sharmuta

You're making a comparison between the well-understood physics of Sol and the climate system of Earth? And that's supposed to rebut my suggestion that LVQ refrain from hyperbole when debating? Right...

re: #269 iceweasel

I'm not dismissing any claims, iceweasel. In fact, I've openly admitted to not having the standing to discuss the science with LVQ. I'm simply trying to offer advice on the best way to present the material without coming off as a, for lack of a better word, nutball.

291 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:17:49pm

re: #280 LudwigVanQuixote

I think that I can predict solar eclipses pretty well for the next 2,000,000 years. What do you think?

Unless an asteroid collides with the moon

292 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:18:26pm

re: #250 HebrewToYou

Sharmuta, stay classy.

Nobody knows what this planet is going to look like 100-150 years from now. Anyone claiming otherwise is relying solely on conjecture. And to use that conjecture to invoke fear is not a good way to make a point.

It gives the impression that the messenger is an apocryphal preacher.

Didn't some other troll used to say "stay classy" before s/he was banned?

I'm starting to think it's time to call sockpuppet.

293 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:18:29pm

re: #281 The Shadow Do

Such a pessimist. Do Israelis eat? Are Iowan's too stupid to find another crop, or are they sure to become 22nd century bedoins or somesuch?

People are smart, change is incremental, it is wrong to think folks will fold their tent and go all dustbowl or somesuch. That kind of thinking is alarmist and extreme. Why, I wouldn't be surprised to find some smart agriculturist come up with a corn type that would thrive in half the water used today. But that is just ever old optimistic me I guess.

NOt if there isn't enough to go around. This is a global problem and we are the world's bread basket. Taking us out is real real bad - for everyone.

How can you be so blinded by wishful thinking?

294 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:18:36pm

re: #285 experiencedtraveller

OT:

Oliver Stone is a disgraceful fool.

Throw in Michael Moore and make it a TwoFer

295 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:18:49pm

re: #286 Coracle

Happy to talk with you about it in 30 years. I have the same deal with sattv4u.

Meet me in South Beach for mimosas.
Unless Chicago is the new South Beach. Then meet me in Chicago.

296 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:18:58pm
297 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:18:59pm

re: #280 LudwigVanQuixote

Forget the eclipses... track the asteroid that'll blow us to hell a few years from now, and figure out a way to nuke it before it does.
///

298 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:19:00pm

The possibility of the sun getting consumed by a passing black hole is not zero as just one example.

299 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:19:04pm

re: #282 Bloodnok

Then refute his arguments instead of just saying "it sounds icky". It's a shame reality frightens you so much.

But Nok- it's easier to discredit it by calling it hyperbole.

300 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:20:01pm

re: #291 Shug

Unless an asteroid collides with the moon

There's nothing beg enough in the solar system in an earth crossing orbit to make that threat anything near viable. You'd have to have an asteroid on the order of the size of Vesta or larger to even come close.

301 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:20:06pm

re: #286 Coracle

Happy to talk with you about it in 30 years. I have the same deal with sattv4u.

:).. I'll be the 87 year old sitting on the beach at Pawleys island South Carolina sipping a Vodka and Geritol

302 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:20:08pm

re: #202 Kosh's Shadow

The problem with increasing gasoline taxes is that it hits the people who can least afford it, [...] Increasing taxes would make it so their standard of living would decline, [...]


Of course it would but any measure will
Subsiding? adds to the the deficit, witch is paid for by who exactly?
You can't have something for nothing if you accept that we must do something that will cost money and we can't spend that money on something else so our standard of living goes down. It's the result of any action taken no matter what it is


re: #233 lincolntf

An extra mating pair of polar bears in Al Gore's next film? Count me out of that scheme.


If you choose to simply deny the effect of global warming then why bother even posting?

303 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:20:10pm

re: #298 Thanos

Thanks a lot. As if there weren't enough things to keep you awake at night as it is...

304 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:20:54pm

re: #288 Sharmuta

I'm not dismissing any of LVQ's science, Sharmuta. Not one iota. Only the manner in which it is being presented to a layperson such as myself. What may turn out to be truth appears to me as hyperbole simply due to the style of presentation. Its a simple point I'm making...

I'm not trying to discredit LVQ -- in fact, what I'm hoping is that the science being presented will be made more accessible to people without LVQ's background.

305 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:20:58pm

re: #295 Shug

Meet me in South Beach for mimosas.
Unless Chicago is the new South Beach. Then meet me in Chicago.

South beach will not be very hospitable for it in 30 years unless they start building a sea wall soon.

306 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:21:26pm

re: #237 ArchangelMichael

Charles,

Every time I click on someone's avatar when using Safari for Windows, it puts their website in as mine on the post form. My post #2 above has Bubbaman's website on my blue nic rather than the URL on my user profile. I noticed the same thing happened last night with some other posters as well.

Is this a Safari bug or something specific to LGF? LGF is the only site I use Safari on, I just started playing around with it a couple days ago and I'm not sure if I like it enough to ditch Chrome completely.

Hmm. Safari for Windows, eh? I'll check it.

307 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:21:58pm

re: #304 HebrewToYou

Sure you're not.

308 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:22:11pm

re: #271 Shug

Predictions

And the first appearance of the there was an ice age predicted hoax talking point.

The idea is geeze didn't Time magazine report this and then since it ewas wrong all the other science is wrong?

This is silly because:

1. Time is not a peer reviewed science journal.
2. There was never a consensus or reliable data for this in the 70's
3. There is consensus and reliable data now.

309 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:22:13pm

re: #292 ~Fianna

It's a line from Anchorman, ~Fianna. I've been registered since June of 2006. A sockpuppet I am not.

310 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:22:20pm

re: #306 Charles

Hmm. Safari for Windows, eh? I'll check it.

It does not happen every single time, but enough for me to have noticed and to be a problem when I click on a flouncer or a maniac.

311 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:22:22pm

re: #305 Coracle

South beach will not be very hospitable for it in 30 years unless they start building a sea wall soon.


we will see.
South Beach--the tab is on you
Chicago--I buy

312 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:22:42pm

re: #273 HebrewToYou

Again, Sharmuta, I'm simply pointing out that LVQ isn't helping to rebut critics of the science in question. You can continue on your course if you like, but I suggest you relax.

Less hyperbole will make for a greater argument.

Still waiting to hear one from you...

313 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:22:52pm
314 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:23:31pm

re: #296 buzzsawmonkey

Ludwig: you claim to believe in G-d, and the Torah.

G-d has said that he has fixed the Earth so that it will not falter.

You claim otherwise, vis a vis "anthropogenic global warming." In other words, you claim that Man is stronger than G-d, and has set the Earth on a course which will cause disaster unless Man--not G-d--alters that course.

So, which do you believe in? Man or G-d? If you believe in G-d, you believe that the self-correcting Earth will adjust to accommodate whatever crap Man has thrown at it. If you believe in Man, you believe that Man's pollutions trump the Word of G-d.

I am not arguing with what you believe. I only want to know which one.

Why can't it be both? G-d didn't say anything about fixing humans on the Earth. In fact, G-d gave the Earth in to our keeping, according to Torah, and I kinda wonder if He isn't a bit annoyed at how much we've mucked up the place.

315 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:23:35pm

re: #306 Charles

Hmm. Safari for Windows, eh? I'll check it.

As long as you're looking into it, the same thing happens to me all the time using Firefox on Windows.

316 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:23:35pm

re: #308 LudwigVanQuixote

And the first appearance of the there was an ice age predicted hoax talking point.

The idea is geeze didn't Time magazine report this and then since it ewas wrong all the other science is wrong?

This is silly because:

1. Time is not a peer reviewed science journal.
2. There was never a consensus or reliable data for this in the 70's
3. There is consensus and reliable data now.

I like that article because of the hysteria. Reminds me of nowadays.
I'm not buying it

317 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:24:04pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

It is not solely conjecture. It is not all hyperbole.

So I have claimed repeatedly that we are heading in a certain direction.

The IPCC claim is that it is likely that sea levels will rise by about 1 meter in 100-150 years.

Many, including me think this is a very lowball estimate.

I think that in 100-150 years it could get as high as 3 meters - and I think it is certain to hit at least 3 meters by 200 years.

Now these are claims with some substance.

What would that do?

Further, what do you have to discount the claim? What science do you bring?

This claim is a bit more reasonable than before, although current climatological science still considers it to be high:

[Link: www.nature.com...]

But you already know that. And have acknowledged same.
Good for you.

318 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:24:09pm

re: #305 Coracle

South beach will not be very hospitable for it in 30 years unless they start building a sea wall soon.

The Cuban refugee issue should be resolved by then. Castro can't live FOREVER!

oh ,, wait ,,nevermind!

319 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:24:14pm

re: #312 Naso Tang

Naso Tang, I am giving a critique of LVQ's style of presentation -- not of the materials contained therein. Why you expect some sort of argument to be put forward is beyond me...

320 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:24:21pm

re: #296 buzzsawmonkey

Ludwig: you claim to believe in G-d, and the Torah.

G-d has said that he has fixed the Earth so that it will not falter.

You claim otherwise, vis a vis "anthropogenic global warming." In other words, you claim that Man is stronger than G-d, and has set the Earth on a course which will cause disaster unless Man--not G-d--alters that course.

So, which do you believe in? Man or G-d? If you believe in G-d, you believe that the self-correcting Earth will adjust to accommodate whatever crap Man has thrown at it. If you believe in Man, you believe that Man's pollutions trump the Word of G-d.

I am not arguing with what you believe. I only want to know which one.

That is a curious question.

The Earth is not in danger at all. It will not falter. We, on the other hand are in danger. Further, I consider any speculation after two world wars about the limits of what G-d is or is not willing to let humans do to each other, is deeply wishful thinking at best.

321 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:24:37pm

re: #303 tradewind

Something that scared the crap out of me as a child:
[Link: www.webscription.net...]

322 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:24:41pm

re: #287 LudwigVanQuixote

Damn look at the big brain on you! :) :)

And you're a fine man.

(long as we're still doing puns)

323 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:25:32pm

re: #301 sattv4u2

I'll put sunscreen on your nose. I'll be the hot 68 year old with the pomegranate margarita on the rocks along with the great big bar of dark chocolate.

324 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:25:42pm

I think I'm going to invest in a rain barrel this week to collect water for my hydroponic garden. Not so much for the environment but the municipal water supply here sucks. PH well over 8.

325 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:12pm

re: #307 Sharmuta

Did you see the recent comments from Thanos? The point about predicting the future is a good one.

326 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:20pm

re: #301 sattv4u2

:).. I'll be the 87 year old sitting on the beach at Pawleys island South Carolina sipping a Vodka and Geritol

You wish. I have serious doubts about the barrier islands over the next 50 years.

327 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:24pm

re: #304 HebrewToYou

I'm not dismissing any of LVQ's science, Sharmuta. Not one iota. Only the manner in which it is being presented to a layperson such as myself. What may turn out to be truth appears to me as hyperbole simply due to the style of presentation. Its a simple point I'm making...

I'm not trying to discredit LVQ -- in fact, what I'm hoping is that the science being presented will be made more accessible to people without LVQ's background.

Then please please check out this link: It was made for lay people by scientists at UCSD. It is a good primer.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

328 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:39pm

re: #308 LudwigVanQuixote

And the first appearance of the there was an ice age predicted hoax talking point.

The idea is geeze didn't Time magazine report this and then since it ewas wrong all the other science is wrong?

This is silly because:

1. Time is not a peer reviewed science journal.
2. There was never a consensus or reliable data for this in the 70's
3. There is consensus and reliable data now.

You left one off - Science journalism in the mainstream press usually emphasizes the most extreme, bizarre, or hysterical angle.

329 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:50pm

re: #304 HebrewToYou

in fact, what I'm hoping is that the science being presented will be made more accessible to people without LVQ's background.

Then I'm not sure what you're waiting for. Numerous links to actual science has been presented in this thread- some of it by me, so I know it's quite readable for the lay person. That you would say something like this, despite the availability of readable science, tells me you're not an honest broker in this discussion.

330 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:52pm

re: #322 Pianobuff

And you're a fine man.

(long as we're still doing puns)

Actually for this it's hyperfine :)

331 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:26:58pm

re: #324 Killgore Trout

I think I'm going to invest in a rain barrel this week to collect water for my hydroponic garden. Not so much for the environment but the municipal water supply here sucks. PH well over 8.


ick.
For all it's problems Detroit City water is the best I've ever drank.
Was in Dallas this past weekend and the water tasted like alka seltzer mixed with mule piss

332 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:27:08pm

re: #323 ArmyWife

I'll put sunscreen on your nose. I'll be the hot 68 year old with the pomegranate margarita on the rocks along with the great big bar of dark chocolate.

If I'm there, can somebody change my catheter please? I may be mumbling too much to make a coherent request.

333 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:27:32pm

re: #323 ArmyWife

I'll put sunscreen on your nose. I'll be the hot 68 year old with the pomegranate margarita on the rocks along with the great big bar of dark chocolate.

Nahhh ,, no sunscreen ,, If I'm going to die from Global Warming, I may as well be tanned and have a nice case of melanoma!

334 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:27:39pm

re: #296 buzzsawmonkey

Buzz, isn't that sort of like asking how someone could call themselves a Christian, but not buy Genesis word-for-word?

Many Indians believe the Ganges to the Mother; eternal, impervious... Yet they suffer illness and die from their own pollution because they deny there's a problem with pollution, since the river is supermagically supposed to be able to overcome whatever shit - literally - they throw at her. Obviously, that's not true, no matter how much they'd like to believe it.

335 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:28:14pm

Ok, Ok, Ok, Global Warming is real. We are the cause. So, who amongst the wise will enlighten us about what to do about it? Charles posted up thread that Cap and Trade does not go far enough.

Today only, I will grant unlimited power to anyone willing to step up and solve this problem. Ok, starting now, you have unlimited power, what will you do to solve this problem?

This is an actual question, not a joke. Please give us the scientific plans to solve this problem.

336 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:28:53pm

re: #180 Pianobuff

Is there any data on permafrost loss that you are aware of? I'm still in the mushy middle on this... believe that there is AGW but rate/extent I'm not so certain about.

Hopefully some of your points will be discussed.

I have read stories from sites where they are seeing/detecting the methane release (sorry, no link).

LVQ, Coracle and I had a good discussion on this the last time around. We're not miles apart.

337 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:28:57pm

re: #293 LudwigVanQuixote

NOt if there isn't enough to go around. This is a global problem and we are the world's bread basket. Taking us out is real real bad - for everyone.

How can you be so blinded by wishful thinking?

No, not wishful thinking at all. Growing zones move north in the global warm up. Correct? Iowa or Nebraska may lose its place as a breadbasket, though technology will work hard to avert that, instead Winnipeg and Saskatchewan may become just that. Why do you think technology and innovation is necessarily a disaster? I foresee irrigation, Ag science, etc. staying well ahead of the disaster you and others predict. People will work hard and with a great deal of imagination when threatened by change. That is the history of us homo types I do believe.

338 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:28:59pm

re: #310 ArchangelMichael

It does not happen every single time, but enough for me to have noticed and to be a problem when I click on a flouncer or a maniac.

Hmmpf. Can't get it to happen here. This is a strange intermittent bug that others have reported, but I've never been able to duplicate. If you find a way to make it happen reliably, please let me know. I'd love to find out what's causing it.

339 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:29:01pm

re: #317 Salamantis

This claim is a bit more reasonable than before, although current climatological science still considers it to be high:

[Link: www.nature.com...]

But you already know that. And have acknowledged same.
Good for you.

Sal, Don't you dare lecture me on what is and is not current climatological science or the state of the field. That is a mid range estimate and it has not changed.

340 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:29:20pm

re: #316 Shug

I like that article because of the hysteria. Reminds me of nowadays.
I'm not buying it

The problem is that article was informed by a complete misreading of the science. Todays concerns are not. Though some may go overboard, the foundation of science is quite solid and there for anyone to read.

341 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:29:58pm

re: #327 LudwigVanQuixote

Then please please check out this link: It was made for lay people by scientists at UCSD. It is a good primer.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

He's not here to read your science- just here to harass you.

342 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:30:04pm

re: #324 Killgore Trout

I think I'm going to invest in a rain barrel this week to collect water for my hydroponic garden. Not so much for the environment but the municipal water supply here sucks. PH well over 8.

Did you know that that is technically illegal since rain water is public property? Never heard of anyone ever getting prosecuted over it though.

343 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:30:19pm

re: #333 sattv4u2

As you wish. Not a big "man made global warming we are all gonna die" kinda girl, as most of you know, but I do think we ought to wear sunscreen to avoid unsightly wrinkles. Unless you simply aren't as shallow as me, and that's OK, too!

BTW, just because I'm not jumping on the Hysteria Express doesn't mean I advocate being irresponsible with our planet. For Pete's sake, pick up your trash and don't dump crap in the water!

344 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:30:27pm

re: #335 Desert Dog

Ok, Ok, Ok, Global Warming is real. We are the cause. So, who amongst the wise will enlighten us about what to do about it? Charles posted up thread that Cap and Trade does not go far enough.

Today only, I will grant unlimited power to anyone willing to step up and solve this problem. Ok, starting now, you have unlimited power, what will you do to solve this problem?

This is an actual question, not a joke. Please give us the scientific plans to solve this problem.

I'd start issuing permits to build nuclear power plants and transition vehicle transportation to battery powered electric. All the electric powered cars in the world don't help if they're recharging off a fossil fuel powered electrical grid.

345 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:30:28pm
346 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:02pm

re: #335 Desert Dog

Cap and trade puts me, and thousands like me, out of work. That is not a positive in my book.

347 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:09pm

re: #296 buzzsawmonkey

Ludwig: you claim to believe in G-d, and the Torah.

G-d has said that he has fixed the Earth so that it will not falter.

You claim otherwise, vis a vis "anthropogenic global warming." In other words, you claim that Man is stronger than G-d, and has set the Earth on a course which will cause disaster unless Man--not G-d--alters that course.

So, which do you believe in? Man or G-d? If you believe in G-d, you believe that the self-correcting Earth will adjust to accommodate whatever crap Man has thrown at it. If you believe in Man, you believe that Man's pollutions trump the Word of G-d.

I am not arguing with what you believe. I only want to know which one.

What?

I'm sitting with my jaw dropped. I can't believe you wrote that.

348 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:12pm

re: #335 Desert Dog

I would invest in more nuclear plants, water conservation, and more agricultural research to better prepare our food supply for climate changes.

349 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:21pm

re: #296 buzzsawmonkey

G-d has said that he has fixed the Earth so that it will not falter.

I suspect that you are just being argumentative, but that particular "quote" I have heard too many times on the preacher channels to let pass. It was a favorite of Jerry Falwell explaining why it didn't matter a damn, so to speak, what people did because God wouldn't let anything bad come of it.

And, not meaning to be rude to anyone, but I still don't know where this spelling G-d comes from.

350 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:33pm

re: #338 Charles

OK I'll keep an eye out for it and see if I can reproduce it again.

351 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:39pm

re: #329 Sharmuta

Yet LVQ still continues to post here -- a site that can hardly be considered to be solely focused on matters of science -- in a style that is better suited for a different audience. In any case, I think my point has been made even if LVQ (and yourself) perhaps wish not to entertain it.

352 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:31:48pm

re: #337 The Shadow Do

People will work hard and with a great deal of imagination when threatened by change.

They tend not to do this when they're denying there's a problem needing fixing.

353 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:07pm

re: #331 Shug

I don't understand it. Here in Portland we have plenty of rain but for some reason the city water is awful, smells bad, tastes bad and doesn't wash soap off your hands. I have no idea why.

354 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:20pm

re: #343 ArmyWife

As you wish. Not a big "man made global warming we are all gonna die" kinda girl, as most of you know, but I do think we ought to wear sunscreen to avoid unsightly wrinkles. Unless you simply aren't as shallow as me, and that's OK, too!

BTW, just because I'm not jumping on the Hysteria Express doesn't mean I advocate being irresponsible with our planet. For Pete's sake, pick up your trash and don't dump crap in the water!

Does that mean I can't swim when I'm at the beach?

355 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:27pm

re: #339 LudwigVanQuixote

Sal, Don't you dare lecture me on what is and is not current climatological science or the state of the field. That is a mid range estimate and it has not changed.

Actually, according to the link, a meter rise in the next century is the consensus Bristol/IPCC upper range; the lower range is a fraction of that.

356 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:43pm
357 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:46pm

re: #351 HebrewToYou

Yet LVQ still continues to post here -- a site that can hardly be considered to be solely focused on matters of science -- in a style that is better suited for a different audience. In any case, I think my point has been made even if LVQ (and yourself) perhaps wish not to entertain it.

I don't know who the hell you think you are to suggest Ludwig and his comments don't belong here.

358 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:50pm

re: #343 ArmyWife

((( ditto ,, btw)))

359 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:32:54pm
360 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:11pm

re: #353 Killgore Trout

I don't understand it. Here in Portland we have plenty of rain but for some reason the city water is awful, smells bad, tastes bad and doesn't wash soap off your hands. I have no idea why.


anything to do with the volcanic soil?

assuming there is volcanic soil

361 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:28pm

re: #357 Sharmuta

I don't buy the 'style critique' argument.

362 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:28pm

re: #342 jantjepietje

They actually encourage it out here. They even give you a discount on your water bill for disconnecting your downspouts from the sewer system.

363 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:41pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Actually, according to the link, a meter rise in the next century is the consensus Bristol/IPCC upper range; the lower range is a fraction of that.

But don't you "dare" lecture !!

{sigh}

364 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:42pm

re: #341 Sharmuta

Right...

365 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:50pm

This video doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I't just show's El Nino's effect on temp. Nothing mote.

366 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:53pm

re: #361 jaunte

I don't buy the 'style critique' argument.

Me neither.

367 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:33:54pm

re: #354 sattv4u2

Sure - just visit the restroom prior, ok?

(let me just apologize now for posting that. Sorry, everyone!)

368 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:34:27pm

re: #347 Charles

The Almighty will not allow his greatest creation to die from global warming.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He's going to kill us all Himself.

[scary movie warning]

369 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:34:32pm

re: #349 Naso Tang

I suspect that you are just being argumentative, but that particular "quote" I have heard too many times on the preacher channels to let pass. It was a favorite of Jerry Falwell explaining why it didn't matter a damn, so to speak, what people did because God wouldn't let anything bad come of it.

Exactly right. Some fundamentalists take a slightly different view and say that even if climate change does end up in catastrophe, that's fine, because it will bring about the End Times.

370 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:34:35pm

re: #351 HebrewToYou

Yet LVQ still continues to post here -- a site that can hardly be considered to be solely focused on matters of science -- in a style that is better suited for a different audience. In any case, I think my point has been made even if LVQ (and yourself) perhaps wish not to entertain it.

What was your point again?

371 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:34:37pm

re: #320 LudwigVanQuixote

That is a curious question.

The Earth is not in danger at all. It will not falter. We, on the other hand are in danger. Further, I consider any speculation after two world wars about the limits of what G-d is or is not willing to let humans do to each other, is deeply wishful thinking at best.

I believe I mentioned a little while back that some religious types are dead set against the whole idea of AGW for fundamentally non-scientific reasons relating to their faith. The idea, specifically, that the earth was made perfect for man to expoit as he wished, an idea that AGW contradicts.

372 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:34:56pm

re: #361 jaunte

I don't buy the 'style critique' argument.

He's not here to critique- he's here to discredit.

373 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:34:56pm

re: #360 Shug

Could be.

374 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:35:11pm

re: #370 Racer X

I think he's sad because he doesn't have a dog?

375 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:35:28pm

re: #345 buzzsawmonkey

First, I cannot imagine that the Psalmist was suggesting "the Earth will not falter, but we will" when he penned that G-d has fixed the Earth so that it will not falter.

Second, what G-d is "willing to let humans do to each other" is beside the point. One mitzvah, as you surely know, drags another after it; so does one aveirah.

The atrocities of the last World War were not like Athena; they did not spring fully armed from even Hitler's head. They were, rather, a willing acquiesence by the perpetrators, bit by bit, in the slow downward spiral to subhuman depravity. What G-d is "willing to let" humans do to each other is not the issue; it is not in Heaven.

The issue is what humans are willing to do to each other--but that has nothing to do with "global warming."

wow there are a couple of dozen theological discussion on this buzzy that we could get into, however, you know full way that the prophets predict all manner of nasty as potential events.

If you want to get Talmudic, and you think we are close, the the Sages described the times around the coming of Moshiach as so terrible as that they thanked Hashem for not living in them.

We can go round and round on Torah. I can't prove a damn thing about it though in terms of taking this commentary over the other.

However, I know my science is correct.

376 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:35:28pm

re: #359 buzzsawmonkey

I'm sorry to surprise you, Charles. What is it you find so shocking?

Do you seriously mean to argue that we shouldn't be concerned about climate change because God won't let it happen?

377 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:35:30pm

re: #368 Slumbering Behemoth

The Almighty will not allow his greatest creation to die from global warming.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He's going to kill us all Himself.

[scary movie warning]

"The planet is doing fine. The humans, on the other hand, are screwed"
-George Carlin

378 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:35:33pm

re: #351 HebrewToYou

Yet LVQ still continues to post here -- a site that can hardly be considered to be solely focused on matters of science -- in a style that is better suited for a different audience. In any case, I think my point has been made even if LVQ (and yourself) perhaps wish not to entertain it.

Did whatever you call your point have anything to do with the argument at hand?

379 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:35:55pm

re: #372 Sharmuta

He's not here to critique- he's here to discredit.

That's why I was suspecting a sock. It doesn't seem like an honest argument - it seems like a continuation of a long-running argument.

380 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:03pm

re: #374 Thanos

I think he's sad because he doesn't have a dog?

ROFLMAO!

381 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:16pm

re: #351 HebrewToYou

Yet LVQ still continues to post here -- a site that can hardly be considered to be solely focused on matters of science -- in a style that is better suited for a different audience. In any case, I think my point has been made even if LVQ (and yourself) perhaps wish not to entertain it.

Dude, do you think you could address me with some actual science?

382 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:20pm

re: #335 Desert Dog

Ok, Ok, Ok, Global Warming is real. We are the cause. So, who amongst the wise will enlighten us about what to do about it? Charles posted up thread that Cap and Trade does not go far enough.

Today only, I will grant unlimited power to anyone willing to step up and solve this problem. Ok, starting now, you have unlimited power, what will you do to solve this problem?

This is an actual question, not a joke. Please give us the scientific plans to solve this problem.

Implement a solar+wind+battery program, power grid upgrade and trunk system starting now. Within 30 years and $400 Billion it will take care of ~60% of the total US power needs. The rest should be taken by building in new nuclear and phasing out coal, keeping a few distributed modern coal plants on standby for emergencies and excessive peak needs.

383 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:29pm

re: #330 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually for this it's hyperfine :)

Ouch.

An oldie but a goodie (supposedly true story):

Outside of Munich, Heisenberg went for a drive and got stopped by a traffic cop. The cop asked, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am."

384 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:31pm

re: #335 Desert Dog

Ok, Ok, Ok, Global Warming is real. We are the cause. So, who amongst the wise will enlighten us about what to do about it? Charles posted up thread that Cap and Trade does not go far enough.

Today only, I will grant unlimited power to anyone willing to step up and solve this problem. Ok, starting now, you have unlimited power, what will you do to solve this problem?

This is an actual question, not a joke. Please give us the scientific plans to solve this problem.

So far, nuclear energy and a transition to electric cars.

That's it?

385 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:40pm

re: #365 ted

This video doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I't just show's El Nino's effect on temp. Nothing mote.

It also mentions solar activity and Volcanic activity

386 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:46pm

re: #357 Sharmuta

I never suggested they didn't belong here. I suggested that LVQ be aware of intended audiences and adjust the language to match. But that would make no sense at all!

No, what I'm really here to do is shrewdly sow dissent on the subject of climate change. I'm a sleeper cell in the vast "Climate Denier" conspiracy -- and I'm coming after all of you!

Seriously. That's what I'm doing.

387 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:36:47pm

re: #371 Jimmah

I believe I mentioned a little while back that some religious types are dead set against the whole idea of AGW for fundamentally non-scientific reasons relating to their faith. The idea, specifically, that the earth was made perfect for man to expoit as he wished, an idea that AGW contradicts.

I should add that I'm astonished that anyone would seriously advance this as an argument in this debate, as buzzsawmonkey has done here.

388 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:37:11pm

re: #370 Racer X

What was your point again?

His point is Ludwig might lead us to judge this issue based on science and that somehow he doesn't belong here because Lizards are incapable of understanding science.

389 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:37:17pm

re: #362 Killgore Trout

They actually encourage it out here. They even give you a discount on your water bill for disconnecting your downspouts from the sewer system.

I have mine (downspouts) dumping into 55 gallon plastic drums instead of how they were going (into a flower beds,,, my lawn(s))
I then take that water to garden and lawn. THAT escess goes into the sewers!!

hey ,, I'm trying!

390 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:37:31pm

re: #324 Killgore Trout

I think I'm going to invest in a rain barrel this week to collect water for my hydroponic garden. Not so much for the environment but the municipal water supply here sucks. PH well over 8.

Build it yourself, craftman. Is coopering dead?

391 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:37:48pm

re: #381 LudwigVanQuixote

Dude, do you think you could address me with some actual science?

That would imply that s/he's read some, no?

392 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:37:48pm

re: #382 Coracle

Thank you...

Do you think that solar/wind technology will become cost effective? Right now, it is not, correct?

393 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:37:55pm

re: #389 sattv4u2

Good for you! The HOA here won't allow such things.

394 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:26pm

BBIAW

395 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:30pm

re: #336 Pythagoras

I have read stories from sites where they are seeing/detecting the methane release (sorry, no link).

LVQ, Coracle and I had a good discussion on this the last time around. We're not miles apart.

Yes I remember. I enjoyed the posts.

396 avanti  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:33pm

More on the tea party madness.
"But the New Boston Tea Party hardly offers the kind of reasoned, respectable opposition that the Tea Party Patriots attempt to embody. Currently, the site's lead item -- about the president's planned speech to school kids next week -- is entitled "Dr. Barack Goebbels Obama, Chief Reichmaster Tuesday September 8, 2009." Another recent post, based on the false "death panel" rumor, discusses Nazi doctor Josef Megele's human experiments on concentration camp inmates, before declaring: "WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER DR. MENGELE, AKA BARACK HUSSEING (sic) BARACK MENGELE."

link...

397 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:35pm

re: #386 HebrewToYou

So you're saying Lizards are too stupid to understand Ludwig?

Maybe you should quit while you are behind.

398 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:39pm

re: #390 experiencedtraveller

Is coopering dead?


Yes.

399 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:40pm

re: #388 Sharmuta

Oh, for heavens sake. That's just ridiculous.

400 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:38:43pm

re: #335 Desert Dog

Ok, Ok, Ok, Global Warming is real. We are the cause. So, who amongst the wise will enlighten us about what to do about it? Charles posted up thread that Cap and Trade does not go far enough.

Today only, I will grant unlimited power to anyone willing to step up and solve this problem. Ok, starting now, you have unlimited power, what will you do to solve this problem?

This is an actual question, not a joke. Please give us the scientific plans to solve this problem.

Do you want a science solution or a policy solution?
My policy solution is higher up this thread, In what direction I would like to see technology develop/ in what technologies do I see the most potential in at the moment I'll need to think about.

401 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:39:06pm

re: #384 Desert Dog

So far, nuclear energy and a transition to electric cars.

That's it?

No, actually there's a whole progression we could go through.
Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal, Ocean thermal for now as stopgap, Solar power satellites, Fusion in the longer term, and a Dyson Sphere for the very long term.

402 Danny  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:39:16pm

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

403 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:39:19pm
404 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:39:33pm

re: #385 Shug

It also mentions solar activity and Volcanic activity

I'ts shocking for what what it omits...I'ts neither scientific or academic.

405 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:39:57pm

re: #402 Danny

Salt, lemon juice.

406 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:03pm

re: #397 Sharmuta

So you're saying Lizards are too stupid to understand Ludwig?

Maybe you should quit while you are behind.

I'm sorry, Sharm, but I was wondering if you could use smaller words. Lizard brains are very small, you know.

407 Danny  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:14pm

Salt, pepper, parsley butter...That's all I got so far.

408 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:19pm

re: #393 ArmyWife

Good for you! The HOA here won't allow such things.

On what grounds ?

((kinda pun intended))

409 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:28pm

re: #402 Danny

Rosemary, Mrs. Dash, fresh lemon.

410 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:35pm

re: #392 Desert Dog

Thank you...

Do you think that solar/wind technology will become cost effective? Right now, it is not, correct?

Don't think so...and won't unless carbon based energy is taxed/regulated to make it so.

411 Danny  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:35pm

re: #405 Killgore Trout

OK cool, I have lemon.

412 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:36pm

re: #402 Danny

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

marinade:
soy sauce
honey
garlic
vinegar.

then buy some grilling planks. Yummy!
try [Link: www.allrecipes.com...] for lots of good recipes.

413 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:37pm
414 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:47pm

re: #392 Desert Dog

Thank you...

Do you think that solar/wind technology will become cost effective? Right now, it is not, correct?

Right now it is, on a large scale and in the right places. Hell the panels on my own roof in the mid atlantic will pay for themselves in 6 or so years, and I've only got 14 of them.

415 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:40:58pm

re: #401 Thanos

No, actually there's a whole progression we could go through.
Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal, Ocean thermal for now as stopgap, Solar power satellites, Fusion in the longer term, and a Dyson Sphere for the very long term.

Upding for Dyson Spheres.

I love how generally well-informed and intellectually curious Lizards are.

416 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:41:00pm

HEZBOLLAH & HAMASre: #296 busmen

WELL he is totally inconsistent in his theology i guess mit ain touckas eir tanzen twzi chashans

417 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:41:12pm

re: #404 ted

I'ts shocking for what what it omits...I'ts neither scientific or academic.

What does it omit?

418 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:41:24pm

re: #405 Killgore Trout

Killgore, here's a dessert recipe I thought you might be interested in trying:
[Link: www.evilmadscientist.com...]

419 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:42:01pm

re: #402 Danny

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

Just a tiny dash of Mrs Dash ,, pepper,, a hint of lemon

Anything more and you won;'t taste the salmon

420 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:42:23pm

re: #413 taxfreekiller

This

drill for natural gas,
but that is scary talk
the environmental ones
freak out over the word

"drill for oil and gas"

refine oil and gas
heads explode

using what works
is not even on the table

Uh, how is that a policy change which will mitigate AGW?

421 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:42:24pm

re: #402 Danny

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

Now you're in my territory. The other night I broiled some salmon with a light marinade of olive oil, salt and pepper (marinate for 30 minutes or more), then topped with some fresh crushed garlic and a bit more salt. It was pretty awesome.

422 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:42:26pm

re: #386 HebrewToYou

I never suggested they didn't belong here. I suggested that LVQ be aware of intended audiences and adjust the language to match. But that would make no sense at all!

No, what I'm really here to do is shrewdly sow dissent on the subject of climate change. I'm a sleeper cell in the vast "Climate Denier" conspiracy -- and I'm coming after all of you!

Seriously. That's what I'm doing.

Still waiting to hear anything other than a supposed critique of other people's styles...

423 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:42:33pm

re: #352 Sharmuta

They tend not to do this when they're denying there's a problem needing fixing.

I trust you don't think that describes me. That should be clear. I do object to the doomsayers though. The weakest arguments appeal to emotion and not reason.

424 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:42:54pm

re: #402 Danny

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

Hot iron skillet. Add:
table salt,
cayenne pepper,
black pepper,
onion powder,
garlic powder,
chili powder,
thyme,
sweet basil,
bay leaf.

Cajun baby...

425 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:43:19pm

re: #402 Danny

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

I like to mix allspice, clove, salt, pepper,nutmeg, cayenne. make a rub out of that.
Sorry no proportions. I just throw it together

Grill that bad boy and top it with some mango salsa
mango
Lime juice
red onion
cilantro
honey if not sweet enough
apple cider vinegar if you want a little extra punch

426 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:43:33pm

Here's more solution: Carbon tax.

When a business uses someone else’s property for its own purposes, it ought to pay the owner. Especially when permission was not secured ahead of time.

Which is why industries ought to pay for disposing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and why the revenues ought to come back to you and me.

The sky is mine. And it’s yours too. Those who use the sky to dispose of their refuse ought to pay for the privilege. It doesn’t matter whether the payments come from auctioning emissions allowances or levying a carbon tax. Either way, it’s a user fee.

427 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:43:45pm

re: #402 Danny

OT: need some good grilled salmon seasoning ideas.

Two weeks ago I grilled a nice piece of wild Alaskan salmon on a cedar plank. Slathered on some honey, garlic salt, and olive oil.

It was delicious!

428 Danny  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:43:53pm

re: #412 rwdflynavy

Oooh looks good. Might try it, thanks.re: #421 Charles

Great, thanks.

429 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:44:01pm

re: #403 buzzsawmonkey

I am merely trying to calibrate.

I have seen Ludwig argue, most convincingly, as to the science of global warming.

I have also seen him argue, most passionately, from a theological perspective.

I am trying to reconcile the two, and seeking a template for doing so.

I'm not getting what it is you're trying to calibrate. Do you believe climate change is no problem because God won't let it happen ... yourself?

430 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:44:29pm

re: #425 Shug

I like to mix allspice, clove, salt, pepper,nutmeg, cayenne. make a rub out of that.
Sorry no proportions. I just throw it together

Grill that bad boy and top it with some mango salsa
mango
Lime juice
red onion
cilantro
honey if not sweet enough
apple cider vinegar if you want a little extra punch

Mango salsa and salmon is a kick-butt combination.

If you have Herbs de Provence or thyme and lavender, that seasons salmon nicely as well.

431 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:44:38pm

re: #421 Charles

Now you're in my territory. The other night I broiled some salmon with a light marinade of olive oil, salt and pepper (marinate for 30 minutes or more), then topped with some fresh crushed garlic and a bit more salt. It was pretty awesome.

Try throwing in some Wasabi powder for some zing next time, you will either love it or hate it. (of course KT's going to tell you that you need fresh ground, not the powder)

432 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:44:49pm
433 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:44:51pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Actually, according to the link, a meter rise in the next century is the consensus Bristol/IPCC upper range; the lower range is a fraction of that.

You have some balls, when you tried this before I posted about five links to you showing different predictions all over a meter. Please don't bring this here Sal.

I am writing for the range of 100-150 years.


This calls for, in 100 years, 1.4 meters as the upper range.

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

A semi-empirical relation is presented that connects global sea-level rise to global mean surface temperature. It is proposed that, for time scales relevant to anthropogenic warming, the rate of sea-level rise is roughly proportional to the magnitude of warming above the temperatures of the pre–Industrial Age. This holds to good approximation for temperature and sea-level changes during the 20th century, with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year per °C. When applied to future warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level.

However, this is complicated by accelerated melts:

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

and see above.

434 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:45:19pm

re: #353 Killgore Trout

I knew it wasn't just me! It does suck.
But run it through Stumptown, and I forgive everything.

435 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:45:22pm

re: #421 Charles

Now you're in my territory. The other night I broiled some salmon with a light marinade of olive oil, salt and pepper (marinate for 30 minutes or more), then topped with some fresh crushed garlic and a bit more salt. It was pretty awesome.

Have you tried my, somewhat different, salmon approach in the cookbook?

Come to think of it, has anyone?

(BUY the book from Reine)

436 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:45:43pm

re: #432 taxfreekiller

natural gas is very clean
new refinery's are much cleaner
oil can be made much cleaner

cars can be made cleaner

throwing the baby out with the bath water
so to goes the soap

What happens when we run out of oil? Or when the cost of reaching the supplies makes oil to expensive for the uses to which we're putting it currently?

437 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:45:43pm

re: #426 Coracle

Here's more solution: Carbon tax.

Those who use the sky to dispose of their refuse ought to pay for the privilege

You mean pay even MORE than they are already paying in all the accumulated city/ county/ state/ fed taxes ?

438 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:45:58pm

My favorite part of LGF.
Lizards hash out the issues. Occasional Pissing contests. It's a tough room

but in the end it's all about a good Belgian Beer and the right piece of fish or steak.

gotta love it

439 jantjepietje  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:45:59pm

re: #401 Thanos

Dyson Sphere for the very long term.

If we could build a Dyson Sphere it would be a waste to not just build a ringworld while we're at it. It would be really awesome if technology would come that far.

440 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:46:22pm

re: #423 The Shadow Do

I trust you don't think that describes me. That should be clear. I do object to the doomsayers though. The weakest arguments appeal to emotion and not reason.

From what I've read- there is nothing hyperbolic in what Ludwig is saying. Even on the low end of the potential scale- this could be a disaster.

441 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:46:27pm

re: #435 Naso Tang

Have you tried my, somewhat different, salmon approach in the cookbook?

Come to think of it, has anyone?

(BUY the book from Reine)

I keep meaning to try it, but haven't gotten to it yet.

442 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:46:29pm

re: #426 Coracle

re: #437 sattv4u2

Those who use the sky to dispose of their refuse ought to pay for the privilege

You mean pay even MORE than they are already paying in all the accumulated city/ county/ state/ fed taxes ?

Not to mmention all the licensing fees and extra costs of doing business

443 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:46:43pm

re: #430 ~Fianna

Mango salsa and salmon is a kick-butt combination.

If you have Herbs de Provence or thyme and lavender, that seasons salmon nicely as well.


thanks. I 'll try it. Don't think I've cooked with lavender before

444 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:46:45pm

re: #432 taxfreekiller

natural gas is very clean
new refinery's are much cleaner
oil can be made much cleaner

cars can be made cleaner

throwing the baby out with the bath water
so to goes the soap

All fossil fuels. All finite. All produce CO2 no matter how clean they are. Use more, produce more, use up the resource that could be better used for other things - petroleum in particular has incredible value when not burned but used for other production. Not a solution.

445 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:46:56pm

Many variables:

Wind, Currents Sunspot Activity etc.

446 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:47:21pm

I linked this upthread, it's a very short short story that is guaranteed to whip your mind into alternate space if you haven't read it before. Take about ten minutes here and give it a read.

A Pail of Air

447 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:47:26pm

re: #437 sattv4u2

Those who use the sky to dispose of their refuse ought to pay for the privilege

You mean pay even MORE than they are already paying in all the accumulated city/ county/ state/ fed taxes ?

Absolutely.

448 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:47:33pm

re: #431 Thanos

Try throwing in some Wasabi powder for some zing next time, you will either love it or hate it. (of course KT's going to tell you that you need fresh ground, not the powder)

Yeah, I've done the wasabi thing too. I love wasabi. It's not my favorite thing on salmon, though, although it's nice for a change of pace.

449 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:47:44pm

re: #443 Shug

thanks. I 'll try it. Don't think I've cooked with lavender before

I love the way lavender tastes, but I'm not fond of the way it smells. I use eco-friendly products for cleaning and the ones that are scented are often scented with lavender. It drives me crazy.

450 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:02pm

re: #414 Coracle

Right now it is, on a large scale and in the right places. Hell the panels on my own roof in the mid atlantic will pay for themselves in 6 or so years, and I've only got 14 of them.


nay, nay...cost effective...most businesses consider a 30 month payback to be cost effective in terms of energy related investments (capital).

451 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:26pm

Have Salmon Steaks jumped the shark?

452 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:28pm
453 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:31pm

re: #445 ted

Many variables:

Wind, Currents Sunspot Activity etc.

Yes- all aspects scientists looked at in order to rule out man made causes. They couldn't rule out man's role. For more, See here:

[Link: www.aip.org...]

454 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:32pm

re: #401 Thanos

No, actually there's a whole progression we could go through.
Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal, Ocean thermal for now as stopgap, Solar power satellites, Fusion in the longer term, and a Dyson Sphere for the very long term.

Not such a Dyson sphere (or more likely, shell or ring) fan myself. Great for sci-fi stories, but I think that it would be more realistic to just go elsewhere. Our sun is not going to last forever and a project of that magnitude would eventually go to waste. It's like building a house on the shore when you are reasonable sure the land will end up underwater in the near future.

Even if no manner of manipulating space-time to create non-local FTL effects is ever discovered, nuclear powered generation-ships could make 1-way journeys to spread humanity and keep up from having the whole "all eggs in one basket" single point of failure problem. I think there's enough hydrogen isotopes for fusion to remain our primary source of power indefinitely once we figure out how to do it correctly.

455 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:37pm

re: #402 Danny

quarter cup each soy sauce and olive oil, (not extra virgin, the pale stuff), grated ginger (tbsp), and the key... two or three ounces of bourbon, and a few smashed garlic cloves. Ziploc it or put in a covered glass dish for an hour or so. Baste the salmon with it halfway through.

456 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:43pm

re: #450 BignJames

nay, nay...cost effective...most businesses consider a 30 month payback to be cost effective in terms of energy related investments (capital).

Most businesses have a criminally short time horizon for cost effectiveness calculations. That is a fundamental problem.

457 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:48pm

re: #314 ~Fianna

Why can't it be both? G-d didn't say anything about fixing humans on the Earth. In fact, G-d gave the Earth in to our keeping, according to Torah, and I kinda wonder if He isn't a bit annoyed at how much we've mucked up the place.

And on that note - Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip - Letter from God to Man

Youtube Video
458 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:48pm

re: #445 ted

Many variables:

Wind, Currents Sunspot Activity etc.

Aside from sunspot activity, how do you see wind and currents playing a role - and are those a producer of the climate or are they a result of the climate?

459 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:48:55pm

Fancy bumping in to you here

460 Danny  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:49:09pm

Alright, salmon on the grill brushed with olive oil and seasoned with a touch of salt, garlic, and pepper. Lemon and butter ready for the table. I'll let y'all know how it tastes! Thanks!!!

461 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:49:31pm
462 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:49:46pm

re: #455 tradewind

quarter cup each soy sauce and olive oil, (not extra virgin, the pale stuff), grated ginger (tbsp), and the key... two or three ounces of bourbon, and a few smashed garlic cloves. Ziploc it or put in a covered glass dish for an hour or so. Baste the salmon with it halfway through.

*drool*

463 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:49:58pm

re: #453 Sharmuta

Yes- all aspects scientists looked at in order to rule out man made causes. They couldn't rule out man's role. For more, See here:

[Link: www.aip.org...]

Man may have role...not proven...yet.

464 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:09pm

re: #371 Jimmah

I believe I mentioned a little while back that some religious types are dead set against the whole idea of AGW for fundamentally non-scientific reasons relating to their faith. The idea, specifically, that the earth was made perfect for man to expoit as he wished, an idea that AGW contradicts.

Absolutely. And there is the correlation with the fundamentalist types who think we need to speed up the process of using up the earth, because it will hasten the endtimes. As already noted.

It's reminiscent of creationists and their dogma as well, in that science is perceived to be a threat to their faith, somehow. Hence the level of irrational hatred directed at science, and the endorsement of false dichotomies like "Science OR religion" -- when in fact the Catholic Church provides at least one very good model for why this is not a dichotomy.

465 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:18pm

re: #355 Salamantis

re: #433 LudwigVanQuixote

You have some balls

AND here we go again. Can someone disagree with you without being disagreeable? I saw nothing in any of Sals posts that was disrespectful. Does that mean you can't respond in kind!

466 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:25pm

re: #463 ted

You obviously didn't read any of that.

467 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:28pm

re: #397 Sharmuta

While you're obviously trying to spin my words, I'll still attempt to address your point...

When attempting to make a point without sounding shrill or apocryphal it is best to examine one's audience. And as much as you may want to believe that Lizards have highly scientific backgrounds, I would lean towards believing that such people are in the minority here. My background, for instance, is in computer science -- yet I consider myself to be very limited in my understanding of the natural sciences.

Now, my experience has been that when I hear people telling me that they have a firm grasp on what the future holds that I should regard it with a certain amount of skepticism. Your experience may differ. But the skepticism can be entirely avoided by using more carefully-crafted language! That's my point, take it or leave it.

But, please, don't attempt to claim that I'm denying science. I've been quite clear that I've no standing to question LVQ's facts. I'm only giving advice aimed at improving the delivery. And that advice can be easily dismissed without acting like I'm a climate-denier.

Just sayin'...

468 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:40pm

Watched the whole clip. It was very well done and thought provoking. However why, after coming across as learned and reasonable does Peter Sinclair:
A. Have to title this "Crock" of the week.
B. Out of now where and after supporting the man, apropos of nothing Sinclair hints that Dr. Michael's has secret corporate sponsors.

Both of these are unnecessary to the good debate.

469 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:45pm

Gotta run! Take care all!

470 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:50:54pm

re: #452 taxfreekiller

Harry Reid and the kook Democrats like Dennis Kinsinitch / Henry Wackman can not rule forever.

Nuke's will come once they get out of the way via un-election.

Harry Reid is a no good crook.

We're starting to agree in Nevada. It looks like some challengers are starting to step up for the 2010 race.

I'm a Democrat and I hate Harry Reid. He's a snake. Always has been, always will be.

Nevadans really shouldn't vote for anyone - we've been plagued with some real winners lately - our governor is probably a rapist, Harry Reid is a choad and Ensign had to get his mommy to pay off his girlfriend. Oy!

471 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:51:10pm

re: #250 HebrewToYou

Nobody knows what this planet is going to look like 100-150 years from now. Anyone claiming otherwise is relying solely on conjecture. And to use that conjecture to invoke fear is not a good way to make a point.

It gives the impression that the messenger is an apocryphal preacher.

your statement is a conjecture as well

472 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:51:22pm

re: #446 Thanos

I linked this upthread, it's a very short short story that is guaranteed to whip your mind into alternate space if you haven't read it before. Take about ten minutes here and give it a read.

A Pail of Air

I read that many many years ago. How you pulled it out of thin air like that is weird.

473 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:51:35pm

Now that the cooks have come out of the woodwork, has anybody tried cooking Sous-vide?

I see the folks on Top Chief using this technique, always to rave reviews but in trying to read about it , sounds complicated

474 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:51:41pm

re: #447 Coracle

Absolutely.

Do you think there'll be unintended consequences?

475 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:51:50pm

re: #466 Sharmuta

You obviously didn't read any of that.

I don't need too...I've read extensively...

476 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:52:05pm

re: #454 ArchangelMichael

Not such a Dyson sphere (or more likely, shell or ring) fan myself. Great for sci-fi stories, but I think that it would be more realistic to just go elsewhere. Our sun is not going to last forever and a project of that magnitude would eventually go to waste. It's like building a house on the shore when you are reasonable sure the land will end up underwater in the near future.

Even if no manner of manipulating space-time to create non-local FTL effects is ever discovered, nuclear powered generation-ships could make 1-way journeys to spread humanity and keep up from having the whole "all eggs in one basket" single point of failure problem. I think there's enough hydrogen isotopes for fusion to remain our primary source of power indefinitely once we figure out how to do it correctly.

The problem with "go elsewhere" is that we are finding that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. By time we get the tech to go elsewhere we will likely be in a state where at least a semi-Dyson will be needed. Our Kardashev ranking needs to increase.

477 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:52:10pm

re: #467 HebrewToYou

When attempting to make a point without sounding shrill or apocryphal it is best to examine one's audience. And as much as you may want to believe that Lizards have highly scientific backgrounds, I would lean towards believing that such people are in the minority here.

I assume people here are intelligent, and capable of understanding what they read. You seem to think we're what? Too stupid to understand science?

478 crosspatch  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:52:19pm

Sea level rise stopped in 2006 too.

479 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:52:29pm

re: #475 ted

I don't need too...I've read extensively...

Sounds like you've read bullshit.

480 mikalm  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:18pm

re: #470 ~Fianna

We're starting to agree in Nevada. It looks like some challengers are starting to step up for the 2010 race.

I'm a Democrat and I hate Harry Reid. He's a snake. Always has been, always will be.

Nevadans really shouldn't vote for anyone - we've been plagued with some real winners lately - our governor is probably a rapist, Harry Reid is a choad and Ensign had to get his mommy to pay off his girlfriend. Oy!

Doesn't Nevada have a "None of the Above" option on its ballot? I wish Cali had one as well!

481 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:18pm

re: #468 Big Steve

Watched the whole clip. It was very well done and thought provoking. However why, after coming across as learned and reasonable does Peter Sinclair:
A. Have to title this "Crock" of the week.
B. Out of now where and after supporting the man, apropos of nothing Sinclair hints that Dr. Michael's has secret corporate sponsors.

Both of these are unnecessary to the good debate.

Bingo...The video is not science.

482 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:20pm

re: #473 Shug

Now that the cooks have come out of the woodwork, has anybody tried cooking Sous-vide?

I see the folks on Top Chief using this technique, always to rave reviews but in trying to read about it , sounds complicated

Souse? Is that the one with a pig's head?

483 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:30pm
484 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:36pm

re: #474 sattv4u2

Do you think there'll be unintended consequences?

There are always unintended consequences.

485 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:41pm

re: #400 jantjepietje

Do you want a science solution or a policy solution?
My policy solution is higher up this thread, In what direction I would like to see technology develop/ in what technologies do I see the most potential in at the moment I'll need to think about.

I read your posts. You seem to favor raising the cost of carbon based fuel to the point that is it cheaper than the present alternatives. This is where I run into trouble with the plans to fix this problem.

When gas did go up to $4 a gallon it hurt the economy more than it may have appeared at the time. I am in the transportation business and it nearly killed me. When everything you use comes in on a truck and you double the cost to get it from point A to point B, you are looking at a large increase in cost. You can only raise your rates so high before you price yourself out of the market. So, the only place to cut costs is reduce labor, equipment and/or profit margins. You stop hiring or even layoff, you stop buying/leasing new vehicles, you make less money. This exercise is repeated across virtually every segment of private enterprise.

To institute a massive increase in fuel would be quite painful for the population here in the USA and across the world. And, it appears there is not a viable alternative available at the moment as well.

Another problem with a unilateral increase in energy here is the developing world will not alter their behavior. China and India are growing and are already catching and passing us up on the polluter list. They are both unwilling to curb their appetites and their consumption. The third world is also thirsting for carbon based energy and all the benefits it provides.

Is there another way to reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels without slamming on the brakes of our already hurting economy?

486 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:53:52pm

re: #479 Sharmuta

Sounds like you've read bullshit.

So be it...

487 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:13pm

re: #461 buzzsawmonkey

You can't be saying science and faith aren't reconcilable, can you?

488 Racer X  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:26pm

Fine.

I'm gonna go grill up a couple of burgers. No salmon.

*pouts*

489 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:31pm

re: #440 Sharmuta

From what I've read- there is nothing hyperbolic in what Ludwig is saying. Even on the low end of the potential scale- this could be a disaster.

1. Changes in growing patterns and weather lead to massive food and clean water shortages in many parts of the world, leading to massive starvation.

2. Coastal cities flood, leading to the loss of trillions of dollars in capital and millions of homes world wide.

3. Millions of hungry homeless desperate people get cranky.

4. The economy as we know it crashes.

5. Millions die.

Not hyperbole? Will you concede an incredible level of pessimism? No?

Or is this sort of an Al Gore bolt from the blue. Humans never saw it coming, they never reacted being the simple animals they are? One day here, the next day gone. Where were the agriculture scientists damn it! Clairvoyance or alarmism?

I fear for the sudden flooding of my favorite deli in NY and for the sudden dessication of all living things in Kansas.

490 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:32pm

re: #456 Coracle

Most businesses have a criminally short time horizon for cost effectiveness calculations. That is a fundamental problem.

Be that as it may...they're writing the checks.

491 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:33pm

re: #478 crosspatch

Sea level rise stopped in 2006 too.

That's not even what that data is showing.

492 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:41pm

re: #481 ted

Bingo...The video is not science.

You play with semantics and think you made an argument.

The video is about the science.

493 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:54:54pm

re: #471 mt3_1234

Nobody knows what this planet is going to look like 100-150 years from now.


Not really. There's a long-running assumption that time travel will never allow us to look into the future -- and that any sight into the past must occur after time-travel has been invented. ;)

494 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:55:05pm

re: #457 Jimmah

And on that note - Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip - Letter from God to Man


I like. That fits in pretty neatly with my view of Deity.

495 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:55:26pm

re: #473 Shug

It's just a fancy name for boil-in bags...
:)

496 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:55:27pm

re: #479 Sharmuta

Sounds like you've read bullshit.

With respect to the video...it's garbage.

497 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:55:44pm
498 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:55:51pm

re: #433 LudwigVanQuixote

You have some balls, when you tried this before I posted about five links to you showing different predictions all over a meter. Please don't bring this here Sal.

I am writing for the range of 100-150 years.

This calls for, in 100 years, 1.4 meters as the upper range.

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

It's upper edge is less than half your estimate, which means that in the next 50 years after 2100 the previous century's rise would have to more than double.

A semi-empirical relation is presented that connects global sea-level rise to global mean surface temperature. It is proposed that, for time scales relevant to anthropogenic warming, the rate of sea-level rise is roughly proportional to the magnitude of warming above the temperatures of the pre–Industrial Age. This holds to good approximation for temperature and sea-level changes during the 20th century, with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year per °C. When applied to future warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level.

However, this is complicated by accelerated melts:

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

and see above.

I also note that both of your links are older than both the IPCC estimate and the July 2009 Bristol estimate (and your second link is 5 years old), and that since the Bristol study correlates temperatures with sea levels over the past 22000 years regardless of the cause of the temperature level, it, in the words of the Bristol paper itself:

...implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice.

.

499 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:55:53pm

re: #490 BignJames

Be that as it may...they're writing the checks.

The longer view is part of what needs to change in American business. Conservatives should be leaders in this effort, but they are not taking it up.

500 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:56:09pm

re: #290 HebrewToYou

I'm not dismissing any claims, iceweasel. In fact, I've openly admitted to not having the standing to discuss the science with LVQ. I'm simply trying to offer advice on the best way to present the material without coming off as a, for lack of a better word, nutball.

i suggest you take your own advice

501 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:56:18pm

re: #496 ted

With respect to the video...it's garbage.

Give us the science, not verbiage.

502 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:56:33pm

re: #492 Naso Tang

You play with semantics and think you made an argument.

The video is about the science.

Not even remotely.

503 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:56:34pm

re: #497 buzzsawmonkey

Of course not.

Then why would there be loggerheads?

504 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:56:43pm

re: #468 Big Steve

Watched the whole clip. It was very well done and thought provoking. However why, after coming across as learned and reasonable does Peter Sinclair:
A. Have to title this "Crock" of the week.

Because this particular argument really is a crock of scheisse. It's false, and it was spun out of nothing by people who were deliberately distorting the data. That qualifies as a "crock" to me. He's been doing a series of these videos, dealing with distortions and falsehoods -- hence, Crock of the Week.

But of now where and after supporting the man, apropos of nothing Sinclair hints that Dr. Michael's has secret corporate sponsors.

Not secret at all -- you see their name right behind him in his speech. The Heartland Institute, shills for the tobacco industry and the energy industries.

505 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:57:16pm

re: #496 ted

With respect to the video...it's garbage.

Which part?

Do you realize that your kind of commentary never makes an argument?

506 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:57:19pm

re: #484 Coracle

There are always unintended consequences.

What I mean is, all the fees/ taxes/ et al are already strangling American businesses. Part of THOSE fees should be going to what you're talking about
Do some polute shamelessly?
YES,, and when they get caught , they get wahcked (and when they get caught again, they get whacked harder, and rightfully so)
But for every one that skirts the laws., weather they get caught or not, there are THOUSANDS of responsible businesses that are at the financial line now, and any more "taxes" would put them out, and their employeess out

507 crosspatch  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:57:26pm

re: #491 Coracle

Yes it is. Sea level trend has been flat since 2006.

Try this version with the seasonal signal removed. Sea level is no higher now than it was in January 2006.

Or maybe this one that compensates for barometric pressure.

508 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:57:43pm

re: #477 Sharmuta

Take my words as you will. The LGF audience is most likely not dominated by those with a background in the natural sciences. Crafting your words for your audience is usually a good practice when attempting to be seen as a reliable source.

That's it.

509 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:57:54pm

re: #502 ted

Not even remotely.

re: #501 Coracle

Give us the science, not verbiage.

Go read the Journals.

510 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:57:58pm

re: #480 mikalm

Doesn't Nevada have a "None of the Above" option on its ballot? I wish Cali had one as well!

Local races only. We can't for Federal races.

I don't think it's ever gotten a majority of the vote.

511 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:58:21pm

re: #418 jaunte

Very interesting. I'm not much of a sweets eater though.

512 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:58:29pm

I know that taxfreekiller, other lizards (and myself) have worked in the 'energy production' markets for a long time.

I can assure you we are nowhere close to running out of energy.

Coal gasification technology itself would power the USA independently for a looong time.

Energy technology is constantly improving within the demands of a competitive market environment.

We will constantly strive to provide cleaner energy for a growing human population. And we will succeed! Be confident. We will succeed in clean energy.

513 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:58:32pm

re: #500 mt3_1234

So pithy.

514 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:58:35pm

re: #506 sattv4u2

What I mean is, all the fees/ taxes/ et al are already strangling American businesses. Part of THOSE fees should be going to what you're talking about
Do some polute shamelessly?
YES,, and when they get caught , they get wahcked (and when they get caught again, they get whacked harder, and rightfully so)
But for every one that skirts the laws., weather they get caught or not, there are THOUSANDS of responsible businesses that are at the financial line now, and any more "taxes" would put them out, and their employeess out

Then they'll adapt, improve or die. That's the way it works.

By the way, that quote came from here "Charge Companies for Releaseing Carbon Dioxide", an arrticle by Jim Dipeso, a VP of Republicans for Environmental Protection

515 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:59:04pm

re: #508 HebrewToYou

I hate to disappoint you- you will have to tilt at other windmills now, as I have a BBQ to attend. Please be advised- not many here are buying your schtick.

516 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:59:14pm

re: #503 Sharmuta

Then why would there be loggerheads?

Youtube Video
518 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:59:28pm

re: #505 Naso Tang

Which part?

Do you realize that your kind of commentary never makes an argument?

It has no scientific grounding.

519 HebrewToYou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:59:41pm

re: #515 Sharmuta

Then it's a good thing I'm not in sales...

520 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:59:50pm

re: #511 Killgore Trout

Yes, I'm not much on sweets, either. The dumping press was pretty cool though.

521 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 5:59:53pm

re: #507 crosspatch

Yes it is. Sea level trend has been flat since 2006.

Try this version with the seasonal signal removed. Sea level is no higher now than it was in January 2006.

Or maybe this one that compensates for barometric pressure.

All still going up.

522 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:00:07pm

re: #499 Coracle

The longer view is part of what needs to change in American business. Conservatives should be leaders in this effort, but they are not taking it up.


Conservatives, Liberals...feh...we're talking politicians...and I don't believe a single one would put the welfare of the American people ahead of their careers...which means takings money from special interests...which are funded mainly by business.

523 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:00:13pm

re: #421 Charles

bbq'ed pickled sal.

524 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:00:30pm

re: #509 ted

Go read the Journals.

I have. Give me the articles you're basing your opinion on.

525 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:00:41pm

re: #518 ted

It has no scientific grounding.

The video doesn't merit.

526 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:01:15pm

re: #473 Shug

Now that the cooks have come out of the woodwork, has anybody tried cooking Sous-vide?

I see the folks on Top Chief using this technique, always to rave reviews but in trying to read about it , sounds complicated

Yeah, looks a little too complicated for my taste. I like to keep things as simple as possible.

527 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:01:52pm

re: #491 Coracle

That's not even what that data is showing.

Nope. It's hard to read the graph out of context but it looks like the graph is stating that sea level changes are consistent with the predicted mean, and that predicted mean has a positive slope.

Where is it illustrated that sea-level rise stopped?

528 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:01:56pm

re: #524 Coracle

I have. Give me the articles you're basing your opinion on.

Please...The video proves nothing.

529 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:01:59pm

re: #520 jaunte

Yes, I'm not much on sweets, either. The dumping press was pretty cool though.

Could make some nice perogies with that thing.

530 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:02:00pm

re: #433 LudwigVanQuixote

With formatting (I hope) repaired:

You have some balls, when you tried this before I posted about five links to you showing different predictions all over a meter. Please don't bring this here Sal.

I am writing for the range of 100-150 years.

This calls for, in 100 years, 1.4 meters as the upper range.

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

A semi-empirical relation is presented that connects global sea-level rise to global mean surface temperature. It is proposed that, for time scales relevant to anthropogenic warming, the rate of sea-level rise is roughly proportional to the magnitude of warming above the temperatures of the pre–Industrial Age. This holds to good approximation for temperature and sea-level changes during the 20th century, with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year per °C. When applied to future warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level.

It's upper edge is less than half your estimate, which means that in the next 50 years after 2100 the previous century's rise would have to more than double. And all of tjhose links were older than mine. Mine represent the current climatological consensus. Feel free to find newer ones that support a different scenario.

However, this is complicated by accelerated melts:

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

and see above.

I also note that both of your links in this post are older than both the IPCC estimate and the July 2009 Bristol estimate (and your second link is 5 years old), and that since the Bristol study correlates temperatures with sea levels over the past 22000 years regardless of the cause of the temperature level, it, in the words of the Bristol paper itself:

...implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice.

531 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:02:11pm

re: #504 Charles

Not secret at all -- you see their name right behind him in his speech. The Heartland Institute, shills for the tobacco industry and the energy industries.

So if Dr. Michael's clients are not secret, why does Sinclair comment that he has a "secret list of clients" thereby implying something is wrong. This is unnecessary to the debate. And while I cannot speak for the tobacco industry, I can for the energy industries and I believe that automatically thinking that everyone who does scientific work for the energy industry is a "shill", is unfair and not true.

532 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:03:06pm

re: #528 ted

Please...The video proves nothing.

Give me the articles you are basing your opinion on. All I see is from you is empty, possibly vacuous denial.

533 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:03:18pm

The home plate umpire in the current Yankees/Tampa Bay game has the loudest voice I've ever heard. It's like a bloody foghorn. I pity the catcher and the batter.

534 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:04:01pm

re: #531 Big Steve

So if Dr. Michael's clients are not secret, why does Sinclair comment that he has a "secret list of clients" thereby implying something is wrong. This is unnecessary to the debate. And while I cannot speak for the tobacco industry, I can for the energy industries and I believe that automatically thinking that everyone who does scientific work for the energy industry is a "shill", is unfair and not true.

Correct...It's unprofessional

535 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:04:14pm

re: #365 ted

This video doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I't just show's El Nino's effect on temp. Nothing mote.

what scrutiny?

536 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:04:33pm

re: #518 ted

It has no scientific grounding.

Again, you say nothing except your personal opinion and I have my doubts about the sincerity of that also.

537 crosspatch  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:04:55pm

re: #527 ~Fianna

What shows sea level stopped rising in 2006 is that prior to 2006, each year peaked higher in a fairly linear fashion. In 2006 the graph started going sideways. The "trend line" that starts at the beginning shows a rise. A trend line that starts in 2006 would show flat.

A trend line that starts 5000 years ago would show a decline of about 2 meters.

538 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:04:59pm

re: #508 HebrewToYou

Take my words as you will. The LGF audience is most likely not dominated by those with a background in the natural sciences. Crafting your words for your audience is usually a good practice when attempting to be seen as a reliable source.

That's it.


My background is thermodynamics...does that count?

539 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:05:19pm

Since we are talking cooking, here's what I smoked for five hours today.

Image: ribs-and-corn.jpg

540 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:05:24pm

re: #507 crosspatch

Yes it is. Sea level trend has been flat since 2006.

Try this version with the seasonal signal removed. Sea level is no higher now than it was in January 2006.

Or maybe this one that compensates for barometric pressure.

That's not what the graph shows.

541 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:05:39pm

re: #532 Coracle

Give me the articles you are basing your opinion on. All I see is from you is empty, possibly vacuous denial.

In my circles a video like this would be shredded...

542 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:05:58pm

re: #538 BignJames

My background is thermodynamics...does that count?

You have my enthalpy

543 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:06:32pm

re: #508 HebrewToYou

Take my words as you will. The LGF audience is most likely not dominated by those with a background in the natural sciences. Crafting your words for your audience is usually a good practice when attempting to be seen as a reliable source.

That's it.

Actually, providing cites works best for me... and LVQ has more than done that. Repeatedly.

544 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:06:45pm

re: #538 BignJames

Sure, but you're one person out of how many registered users? Out of how many absolute unique visitors Charles gets on a monthly basis? Knowing your audience is a big part of establishing (and maintaining) credibility.

545 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:06:50pm

re: #514 Coracle

Then they'll adapt, improve or die. That's the way it works.

By the way, that quote came from here "Charge Companies for Releaseing Carbon Dioxide", an arrticle by Jim Dipeso, a VP of Republicans for Environmental Protection


And that means I should reflexively agree with him? I'm a pragmatist, and the "just tax them more" attitude doesn't work for me. I was a small business owner back in MAssachusetts during the Dukakis years. Year after year, the state would seek funds by imposing new fees, higher taxes on the businesses like mine. THE famous one was the luxury tax. Massachusetts had a thriving Custom Yacht industry. Dozens of companies either built them or sold the finery for them there. After the luxury tax took affect, that industry perished in state. Hundreds of jobs lost, millions and millions of tax revenues that used to flow into the state treasury year after year, GONE

546 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:06:57pm

re: #537 crosspatch

What shows sea level stopped rising in 2006 is that prior to 2006, each year peaked higher in a fairly linear fashion. In 2006 the graph started going sideways. The "trend line" that starts at the beginning shows a rise. A trend line that starts in 2006 would show flat.

A trend line that starts 5000 years ago would show a decline of about 2 meters.

This is demonstrably false. A trend line along the '06 '07 '08 averages would increase.

547 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:07:02pm

re: #476 Thanos

The problem with "go elsewhere" is that we are finding that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. By time we get the tech to go elsewhere we will likely be in a state where at least a semi-Dyson will be needed. Our Kardashev ranking needs to increase.

But I think a semi-Dyson sphere would work better around a red dwarf since it will last far longer on the Main sequence than our sun will, or maybe even a white dwarf since they will last probably hundreds of billions of years before turning into a black dwarf. Assuming the radius of such a structure would be adequate for life and energy generation without cooking said life with radiation other than visible light.

As for going elsewhere, if you lower "Star Trek" type expectations, and send a small group, minimum sized to keep a population going like 25 couples, on a one way trip to start a world "from scratch", it could be done within the next few centuries with Nuclear pulse propulsion following a concerted effort with improved space based detection of terrestrial worlds.

The technology to use a fission based NPP drive to accelerate a spacecraft to about 5-10% of the speed of light exists now, it's just "nuclear" therefore "scary" and over-the-top expensive. We don't know where to go and seem to not have the pressing need that I believe we do.

548 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:07:11pm

re: #542 Big Steve

You have my enthalpy

I have absolute(ly) zero against that.

549 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:07:20pm

re: #539 Thanos

Those look good. I haven't attempted ribs in years.

550 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:07:22pm

re: #526 Killgore Trout

Yeah, looks a little too complicated for my taste. I like to keep things as simple as possible.

Some of the best food I've ever eaten is the simplest.
Positano Italy. Rock Lobster. Fresh off the ocean floor. Lemon, salt. pepper. Perfect
Next night piece of fish. salt. Lemon.Several bottles of wine before and during dinner helped considerably

good food shouldn't be covered up with too many flavors. I like the flavors of Southern Italy.
I could slip into that lifestyle tomorrow.

551 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:07:27pm

re: #531 Big Steve

So if Dr. Michael's clients are not secret, why does Sinclair comment that he has a "secret list of clients" thereby implying something is wrong. This is unnecessary to the debate. And while I cannot speak for the tobacco industry, I can for the energy industries and I believe that automatically thinking that everyone who does scientific work for the energy industry is a "shill", is unfair and not true.

If you really want to know who's funding Dr. Patrick Michaels:

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

I didn't say "everyone who does scientific work for the energy industry is a shill." I said that the Heartland Institute is a well-known shill for the tobacco industry and the energy industries, and they specialize in falsehoods and distortions. I completely stand by this statement. I've been reading about them for years, and their history of acting as shills for industries who want to avoid consequences for bad behavior is long and legendary.

552 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:07:33pm
553 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:08:00pm

re: #538 BignJames

My background is thermodynamics...does that count?

eh... thermodynamics... You can't win. You can only break even... ;)

554 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:08:19pm

re: #541 ted

In my circles a video like this would be shredded...

I see how you are completely avoiding my question. You bring nothing but empty words of empty denials.

555 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:08:38pm

re: #508 HebrewToYou

Take my words as you will. The LGF audience is most likely not dominated by those with a background in the natural sciences. Crafting your words for your audience is usually a good practice when attempting to be seen as a reliable source.

That's it.

Is that what you think you are doing?

556 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:08:48pm

re: #544 hebrewtoyou


Are you talking science or entertainment?

557 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:08:57pm

re: #508 HebrewToYou

Take my words as you will. The LGF audience is most likely not dominated by those with a background in the natural sciences. Crafting your words for your audience is usually a good practice when attempting to be seen as a reliable source.

That's it.

That's ok, LVQ gets his science bits in and we correct his usually invalid political points, it's yin and yang.

558 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:09:04pm

This video really doesn't cover anything new. NOAA (NSDC) temp trends are not raw, but homogenized, adjusted and gridded. The colored dots are not actual temps but departures from a subjective 30 year mean. There are so many holes in the coverage that most of Africa, East and Central Asia, Australia and South America is extrapolated. Adjusted SSTs from the oceans are spliced onto the surface trends. The actual number of surface reporting stations worldwide is barely a thousand, of which 140 come from the US. There is no way, one can get a decent trend analysis from this data. Over 2/3rds of the reporting stations from 1960 have closed, and from what we know of the quality of US stations, the actual accuracy of the numbers is suspect. When compared to either the UAH or RSS satellite data, both NOAA and NASA's data are statistical outliers. Hadley's isn't much better. Also, both NASA and NOAA say that UHI does not exist, or it is so small that it has no effect on their trend analysis. Yet, the majority of the reporting stations used come from airfields (lots of concrete, suburban sprawl, etc...).

It is not the trend that has problems, but the magnitude. This video essentially commits the mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It builds on the assumption that what comes from NOAA and its network of co-opts is accurate. It also in the beginning highlights the trends of 2 months (something it doesn't dare do when cold anomalies occur) based upon data which skeptics have shown to be spurious.

Much of what these organizations do is to re-create the famed Hockey Stick by other means.

559 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:09:26pm

re: #543 ~Fianna

And, like BignJames, you're one person out of many. It's fairly safe to say that only a small percentage of readers ever click on citation links. Probably the same percentage of people who click on flash ads.

560 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:09:44pm

re: #550 Shug

Agreed. Julia Child gave the French a bad reputation with fancy sauces etc. The French do some really nice simple food. I doing a lot of Japanese cooking lately just to explore the simplicity of it.

561 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:09:46pm

Killgore, how did your tandoori Lamb turn out?

562 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:10:12pm

re: #537 crosspatch

What shows sea level stopped rising in 2006 is that prior to 2006, each year peaked higher in a fairly linear fashion. In 2006 the graph started going sideways. The "trend line" that starts at the beginning shows a rise. A trend line that starts in 2006 would show flat.

A trend line that starts 5000 years ago would show a decline of about 2 meters.

You could say the same about the patterns displayed from 95-96, and again from 2001-01. Overall, the graph isn't going sideways - the slope is still strongly positive.

563 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:10:51pm

re: #554 Coracle

I see how you are completely avoiding my question. You bring nothing but empty words of empty denials.

Like I said...I have 20 years research experience in science & medicine.

564 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:10:52pm

re: #545 sattv4u2

And that means I should reflexively agree with him? I'm a pragmatist, and the "just tax them more" attitude doesn't work for me. I was a small business owner back in MAssachusetts during the Dukakis years. Year after year, the state would seek funds by imposing new fees, higher taxes on the businesses like mine. THE famous one was the luxury tax. Massachusetts had a thriving Custom Yacht industry. Dozens of companies either built them or sold the finery for them there. After the luxury tax took affect, that industry perished in state. Hundreds of jobs lost, millions and millions of tax revenues that used to flow into the state treasury year after year, GONE

I get it. Taxes Baaad. "Just tax them more" is pragmatic if the "them" is the right "them". But I won't convince you. So I won't try.

565 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:10:55pm

re: #555 Naso Tang

What would I be a reliable source of if not annoyance? :)

I'm not an expert on anything nor have I ever claimed to be. I'm just a guy giving a critique.

566 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:11:00pm

re: #560 Killgore Trout

Agreed. Julia Child gave the French a bad reputation with fancy sauces etc. The French do some really nice simple food. I doing a lot of Japanese cooking lately just to explore the simplicity of it.


Fresh uncooked seafood. Wrap in rice

REPEAT

567 itellu3times  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:11:12pm

I expel global warming gasses in the general direction of anyone who uses the term "climate denier".

I'm all for minimizing greenhouse gases, if only for solid economic reasons. Selah. I hope I'm not the cause of a new ice age.

The president says we should wash our hands. That's solid science, and sufficient unto the day.

568 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:11:19pm

re: #559 hebrewtoyou

And, like BignJames, you're one person out of many. It's fairly safe to say that only a small percentage of readers ever click on citation links. Probably the same percentage of people who click on flash ads.

What is your educational background, H2U, if you don't mind me asking?

569 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:11pm

re: #552 buzzsawmonkey


Yet we have someone who argues one thing from the perspective of science, and another from the perspective of religion. That is not my problem; it is his. I merely asked him about the gap between the two.

Not my argument here, but I have to ask what the alleged contradiction of the day is?

Surely you don't mean it is the one between AGW and what Jerry Falwell used to preach?

570 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:19pm

re: #561 Shug

Killgore, how did your tandoori Lamb turn out?

Pretty good but the extra long cooking time (10 hours) and low heat (200 degrees) dried out the meat a little and it was still a little tough. I might make another attempt or two with a slightly higher temp but maybe lamb shanks are just meant to be braised.

571 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:21pm

re: #558 jpkoch

This video really doesn't cover anything new. NOAA (NSDC) temp trends are not raw, but homogenized, adjusted and gridded. The colored dots are not actual temps but departures from a subjective 30 year mean. There are so many holes in the coverage that most of Africa, East and Central Asia, Australia and South America is extrapolated. Adjusted SSTs from the oceans are spliced onto the surface trends. The actual number of surface reporting stations worldwide is barely a thousand, of which 140 come from the US. There is no way, one can get a decent trend analysis from this data. Over 2/3rds of the reporting stations from 1960 have closed, and from what we know of the quality of US stations, the actual accuracy of the numbers is suspect. When compared to either the UAH or RSS satellite data, both NOAA and NASA's data are statistical outliers. Hadley's isn't much better. Also, both NASA and NOAA say that UHI does not exist, or it is so small that it has no effect on their trend analysis. Yet, the majority of the reporting stations used come from airfields (lots of concrete, suburban sprawl, etc...).

It is not the trend that has problems, but the magnitude. This video essentially commits the mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It builds on the assumption that what comes from NOAA and its network of co-opts is accurate. It also in the beginning highlights the trends of 2 months (something it doesn't dare do when cold anomalies occur) based upon data which skeptics have shown to be spurious.

Much of what these organizations do is to re-create the famed Hockey Stick by other means.

Thats just the beginning...

572 crosspatch  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:24pm

What you are seeing is the result of the PDO going positive around 1976. The satellite data is only since 1979. The PDO has roughly a 60 year cycle. You need 60 years of data to show one cycle of the PDO (which warms Arctic waters).

On a longer time scale you are seeing the recover from the Little Ice Age. The LIA was the coldest period seen in the past several thousand years. We started recovering from it around 1850 or so. Temperatures have still not recovered to the levels they were before the LIA, and they might not.

Over the past 2000 years we have been in a general cooling trend. The Roman Warm Period was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the Modern Warm Period. The Modern Warm Period seems to have peaked in 1933.

But within those longer cycles is a shorter 60 year (roughly) PDO cycle. You can't learn anything from looking at only 30 years of data. It isn't even one full PDO cycle.

Simply speaking, the "global warming" we have been seeing is nothing unprecedented, unique, or alarming. It is pretty much the same warming we see coming out of every cold period and we just came out of the coldest one since the Younger Dryas. The overall trend of the past 2000 years is still one of cooling temperatures, not warming.

573 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:42pm

re: #559 hebrewtoyou

And, like BignJames, you're one person out of many. It's fairly safe to say that only a small percentage of readers ever click on citation links. Probably the same percentage of people who click on flash ads.

Charles could tell us how many people click on links, actually. I'd bet it's far higher than you think.

574 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:47pm

re: #472 Naso Tang

I read that many many years ago. How you pulled it out of thin air like that is weird.

It's one of my all time favorites so I have it bookmarked.

575 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:12:53pm

re: #551 Charles

One of the very big problems with most "think tanks" is that they are for sale. In a perfect world we would hope that all people would be fair and speak the truth 100% of the time... but we don't live in a perfect world.

Heritage is not the worst offender of the well known think tanks. Heartland takes that prize. However, both Heritage and Cato (Institute) have been active in dispensing partial-truths and obfuscations on this issue.

576 theheat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:13:09pm

re: #560 Killgore Trout

My Russian SIL thought meatloaf was the best food she'd ever had. Plain old American meatloaf, and she thought it was something uber fancy.

Now she loves this new gourmet food she's discovered. It still cracks me up.

577 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:13:14pm

re: #564 Coracle

I get it. Taxes Baaad. "Just tax them more" is pragmatic if the "them" is the right "them". But I won't convince you. So I won't try.

No ,,""Taxes BAAAD" ,,, NOT at all. I was then and am now more than willing to pay my fair share. But the attitude that a BUSINESS is an endless source of tax revenue , OVER AND ABOVE all the taxes and fees they already pay IS BAAAD

578 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:13:21pm
579 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:13:23pm

re: #563 ted

Like I said...I have 20 years research experience in science & medicine.

Then cite your sources. Argument from authority (in medicine?) doesn't work here.

580 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:13:32pm

re: #556 BignJames

Unfortunately, both. As science-based decisions are made by politicians -- who, in my estimate, act more like entertainers with each passing day -- it's probably not that unheard of to explain science with an entertainment pitch.

I mean, An Inconvenient Truth seemed to bring a lot of attention to the matter did it not?

581 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:13:51pm

I've been making a lot of red and green chili sauces lately.
So many chiles and each tastes a bit different.
Just soaking them in water, then blending them.
It's amazing how ancho chile tastes so much like tea.

I saw that Rick bayless spent 20 years getting his Mole sauce the way he wanted it, and he's a professional.
I find Mole to be one of the great mysteries of life.

Gonna try to get served at Frontera Grill this Saturday between the Cubs Game and U2 at Soldier Field. I hear the restaurant is packed since he won Top Chief Masters

582 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:14:13pm

re: #568 Desert Dog

B.S. in Computer Science.

583 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:14:39pm

re: #564 Coracle

re: #577 sattv4u2

No ,,""Taxes BAAAD" ,,, NOT at all. I was then and am now more than willing to pay my fair share. But the attitude that a BUSINESS is an endless source of tax revenue , OVER AND ABOVE all the taxes and fees they already pay IS BAAAD

And I'm talking across the board. Small business, Fortune 500 corporations, and all in between.

No "THEM" spared

584 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:14:44pm

re: #563 ted

Like I said...I have 20 years research experience in science & medicine.

As a lab gopher?

You cannot make a coherent logic argument, yet you expect that to be believed?

585 Wendya  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:14:54pm

re: #413 taxfreekiller

using what works
is not even on the table

Of course not.

586 itellu3times  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:15:24pm

re: #575 freetoken

One of the very big problems with most "think tanks" is that they are for sale. In a perfect world we would hope that all people would be fair and speak the truth 100% of the time... but we don't live in a perfect world.

Heritage is not the worst offender of the well known think tanks. Heartland takes that prize. However, both Heritage and Cato (Institute) have been active in dispensing partial-truths and obfuscations on this issue.

What ever happened to the Rand Corp, here in Santa Monica?

They're still there, but I never see them mentioned. Back in the day, their business model was often just that, take money and make the case. Maybe not always, but often enough. Maybe they eventually devalued their name.

587 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:15:27pm

re: #572 crosspatch

what is your background?
are you a scientist?

588 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:15:33pm

re: #570 Killgore Trout

Pretty good but the extra long cooking time (10 hours) and low heat (200 degrees) dried out the meat a little and it was still a little tough. I might make another attempt or two with a slightly higher temp but maybe lamb shanks are just meant to be braised.

slightly higher heat (225) shorter time (4-5 hours) and it seems counter-intuitive but most of the time it's smoking you want the bone side up. This will keep it moist and tender.

589 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:16:07pm

re: #573 ~Fianna

I don't think you'd have a very accurate metric. What would you be comparing?

If Charles could determine the number of people who read a comment and then clicked a link contained therein it would be a valid metric. But I'm fairly certain that he cannot discern if people actually read a comment -- only that they were on a page that displayed comments and then clicked a link.

590 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:16:38pm
591 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:16:47pm

re: #513 HebrewToYou

So pithy.

is this irony?

592 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:16:54pm

re: #582 hebrewtoyou

B.S. in Computer Science.

Do you understand all of the items that some of our more "scientific" lizards are tossing up here?

I do some, others I do not. My background is a BA in History and Political Science and about 2 years on my Masters in Education. But, I have been a business owner/manager for 26 years.

593 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:16:59pm

re: #564 Coracle

re: #583 sattv4u2

re: #577 sattv4u2


And I'm talking across the board. Small business, Fortune 500 corporations, and all in between.

No "THEM" spared

Coracle ,, a question, please

Why does one company pull up stakes and move their corporate headquarters from one state to another? Climate? Better fruit?

594 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:16:59pm

re: #578 taxfreekiller

well, uneducated wacko's from entertainment (hollie weird) bank roll
lots of the Man Made Global Climate Change stuff...


100% pure crap. The science that supports AGW is not media funded.

595 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:17:08pm

re: #591 mt3_1234

An attempt at humor, actually. :)

596 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:17:12pm

re: #575 freetoken

One of the very big problems with most "think tanks" is that they are for sale. In a perfect world we would hope that all people would be fair and speak the truth 100% of the time... but we don't live in a perfect world.

Heritage is not the worst offender of the well known think tanks. Heartland takes that prize. However, both Heritage and Cato (Institute) have been active in dispensing partial-truths and obfuscations on this issue.

Yeesh. I'm trying to do several things at once and typed "Heritage" when I meant Heartland. Substitute "Heartland Institute" for "Heritage Foundation" in my comments above.

597 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:17:24pm

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.

598 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:18:00pm

re: #589 hebrewtoyou

I don't think you'd have a very accurate metric. What would you be comparing?

If Charles could determine the number of people who read a comment and then clicked a link contained therein it would be a valid metric. But I'm fairly certain that he cannot discern if people actually read a comment -- only that they were on a page that displayed comments and then clicked a link.

Since the links are in the comments, if people are clicking the link, it's pretty safe to assume that they are clicking the link either from the comment page or from the spinoff page.

599 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:18:59pm

re: #583 sattv4u2

re: #577 sattv4u2

And I'm talking across the board. Small business, Fortune 500 corporations, and all in between.

No "THEM" spared

Carbon taxes are for carbon producers. Your business doesn't produce, you don't get taxed. It's the stick incentive for green buildings, green power co-ops, green industry.

600 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:19:10pm

re: #194 LudwigVanQuixote

Good links. The first is about annual acceleration in the summer followed by deceleration in the winter. No argument there. The second shows long term acceleration from 1996 to 2000. I have seen reports of recent deceleration (at least showing the melt edge receding -- but can't remember where. The third shows ice sheet thickening from 1992 to 2003 -- a counter-trend.

All great stuff but the sum of them all is in balance.

601 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:19:28pm

re: #597 ted

then your comments about it are kindergarten.

602 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:19:29pm

re: #597 ted

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.

It's a discussion of the science, not the science itself.

603 SteveC  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:19:48pm

re: #589 hebrewtoyou

If Charles could determine the number of people who read a comment and then clicked a link contained therein it would be a valid metric.

Off topic, you lizards that blog (any subject) - about how many readers click a link?

When I put a link in a post I write, I summarize what it says. You don't have to click the link to understand, but there is so much more information in the link. It's just a little disappointing.

604 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:00pm

re: #593 sattv4u2

re: #583 sattv4u2

Coracle ,, a question, please

Why does one company pull up stakes and move their corporate headquarters from one state to another? Climate? Better fruit?

Ask the company.

605 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:01pm

re: #586 itellu3times

What ever happened to the Rand Corp, here in Santa Monica?

Don't know what happened to them... they used to be involved in all sorts of issues (especially defense related), but I've not seen where they've stuck their toe in this little pond of issues.

606 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:20pm

re: #544 hebrewtoyou

Sure, but you're one person out of how many registered users? Out of how many absolute unique visitors Charles gets on a monthly basis? Knowing your audience is a big part of establishing (and maintaining) credibility.

sometimes you provide some excellent advice that you don't follow

607 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:48pm

re: #592 Desert Dog

Do you understand all of the items that some of our more "scientific" lizards are tossing up here?


Some, but not nearly all. I understand the general assumptions being made and the conclusions being drawn. I see no reason to dispute the evidence in most (if not all) of the arguments being made. But this is a highly politicized issue and, as a result, it should be approached as such. Just my $0.02.

608 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:51pm

re: #590 buzzsawmonkey

Since I don't follow the meanderings of the late Jerry Falwell, you have the advantage of me there.

I have merely asked our resident AGW discursor--who also has displayed a certain knowledge of, and belief in, Torah and Talmud--how he reconciles his rock-solid belief in AGW with the Torah assurances that this is nothing we need worry about.

It's a simple question--which, I notice, our interlocutor has been very, very silent on as regards an answer, even as many people have weighed in to challenge me for my temerity in asking him.

No reply yet? I have been in and out, watching Woody Allens' "Bananas." Not one of his best.

609 SteveC  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:58pm

re: #591 mt3_1234

is this irony?

*examines object* Actually this looks like Magnesium.

610 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:20:59pm

re: #597 ted

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.

Ah, the old Repeat Until True argument. Works every time.

611 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:21:55pm

Somebody mentioned Sous Vide upthread...

Youtube Video

Pretty crazy.

612 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:00pm

re: #598 ~Fianna

I think that would undercount the metric, actually.

613 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:08pm
614 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:19pm

re: #597 ted

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.

All I'm seeing from you is denial, denial, denial. You haven't made a single factual point to respond to the video, you're just dissing it without even trying to argue coherently.

I think we get it. You're not going to hear anything that challenges your preconceptions.

615 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:19pm

re: #599 Coracle

Carbon taxes are for carbon producers. Your business doesn't produce, you don't get taxed. It's the stick incentive for green buildings, green power co-ops, green industry.

If a company is charged this "carbon tax" does it simply absorb it or does it pass it on down the road to someone else?

616 TheMatrix31  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:27pm

Castro Tapped World Hero Of Solidarity By UN

617 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:57pm

re: #599 Coracle

Carbon taxes are for carbon producers. Your business doesn't produce, you don't get taxed. It's the stick incentive for green buildings, green power co-ops, green industry.


Every business produces carbon one way or another, so all would fall under the "tax"

Heck ,, me walking down the street produces it! So do you think the gov't would limit it to "carbon producwers"? Who would draw the line as to what industries do and which don't? Those that don't, can they be added later?

618 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:58pm

re: #572 crosspatch


Simply speaking, the "global warming" we have been seeing is nothing unprecedented, unique, or alarming.

No it is not. You are making this up. If you intend to make specific claims contradicting what the bulk of scientists say the evidence is, you should back it up.


It is pretty much the same warming we see coming out of every cold period and we just came out of the coldest one since the Younger Dryas. The overall trend of the past 2000 years is still one of cooling temperatures, not warming.


We are not talking of the trend over the past 2000 years. Multiplying the time scale by 10 to suite your argument doesn't make you seem very bright.

Just saying.

619 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:22:59pm
620 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:23:08pm

re: #584 Naso Tang

As a lab gopher?

You cannot make a coherent logic argument, yet you expect that to be believed?

B.S.-Biochemisty

M.S.-Biophysics

M.D.

Specialty-Neuro+ Child Psych

Faculty-Columbia Presbyterian Med Ctr. College of Physicians and Surgeons

621 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:23:10pm

re: #563 ted

Like I said...I have 20 years research experience in science & medicine.

i think LVQ said he has 22 years experience
i guess that makes him right

622 Ziggy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:23:47pm

Assuming global warming is real (and based solely on the temperatures this past year where I live, I'm not too worried), doesn't the fact that this planet has already had a couple of ice ages and a mini one, mean global warming happened a few times already? This leads me to believe that it is naturally cyclical. Of course we should be good stewards of the planet, but I believe people like Al Gore are either complete loons or charlatans (or maybe both). As much as I try and conserve resources, recycle, don't litter etc., when global warming fanatics get on their high, self righteous horses (thus adding to the green house gas problem with the hot air they're blowing) they make the contrarian in me want to light a Styrofoam bon fire and leave all my motors idling overnight.

623 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:23:54pm

re: #613 taxfreekiller

the "cap and trade " bill in D.C.

who funds those who voted for it?

does a lot of the re-election money for D's come from hollie weird?

We have cap and trade now, and it works, and it didn't kill any industry. SO2.

Conflating "re-election money for D's" and funding for climate study research would be bullshit.

624 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:24:15pm

re: #602 ~Fianna

It's a discussion of the science, not the science itself.

Can't seperate the 2.

625 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:24:58pm

re: #551 Charles

If you really want to know who's funding Dr. Patrick Michaels:

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

I didn't say "everyone who does scientific work for the energy industry is a shill." I said that the Heritage Foundation is a well-known shill for the tobacco industry and the energy industries, and they specialize in falsehoods and distortions. I completely stand by this statement. I've been reading about them for years, and their history of acting as shills for industries who want to avoid consequences for bad behavior is long and legendary.

I have actually found the Heritage Foundation (or at least their website) to be...yes very conservative, but not one of the frothing at the mouth type of think tanks. They were well regarded in the Reagan years. Also Source Watch is not exactly non-biased being they are the work of the Center for Media and Democracy, and at least the last time I looked, headed by Sheldon Rampton who is clearly an environmental crusader. Even so when I look at Source Watch's list of Michael's corporate sponsors there are a number of very reputable firms on the list but to be honest I know more about the Oil industry than coal.

Nonetheless, I am not wanting to engage in a duel of citations. I did say that I found Sinclairs video thought provoking. However I just thought that his dash Darth Vaderish comments about Michaels was totally unnecessary and at odds with his low keyed and well reasoned narration.

626 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:25:04pm

re: #615 Desert Dog

If a company is charged this "carbon tax" does it simply absorb it or does it pass it on down the road to someone else?

I don't know. Maybe instead it decides to pursue lower emission policies, or convert to different production practices. Or maybe it goes under because it can't make itself adapt.

627 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:25:07pm

re: #604 Coracle

Ask the company.

ANSER,, The new state gives them a TAX BREAK

WHY? The new state GAINS! They get taxes (even at a reduced rate) from the comapny. The company hires state residents. Those residents
A) get off the states unemployement/ state bennie rolls
B) those employees now pay INTO the state tax systejm

TAXES ,,, GOOODDD!!

628 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:25:29pm

re: #603 SteveC

The "entertainment network" I am responsible for gets over 3 million unique visitors every month. Our response rate on in-text links hovers between 0.5% and 2% of visitors to any given page. Our response rate for standard ad units (300x250, 160x600 and 728x90) hovers between 0.05% and 0.2%.

re: #606 mt3_1234

To be perfectly frank, I don't seek credibility. I don't need it. :)

629 Jim in Virginia  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:25:38pm

re: #597 ted

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.


Ted, I'm sympathetic to your point of view but is there more to your argument than "Based on my extensive scientific experience, this is a piece of crap" ?

630 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:25:50pm

re: #615 Desert Dog

If a company is charged this "carbon tax" does it simply absorb it or does it pass it on down the road to someone else?


hehehehehe

631 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:26:04pm

re: #622 Ziggy

Assuming global warming is real (and based solely on the temperatures this past year where I live, I'm not too worried),

Local weather is not climate. That is a bad reason not to be worried.

632 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:26:10pm

re: #625 Big Steve

I have actually found the Heritage Foundation (or at least their website) to be...yes very conservative, but not one of the frothing at the mouth type of think tanks.

I wrote "Heritage Foundation" when I meant "Heartland Institute."

633 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:26:28pm

re: #617 sattv4u2

Every business produces carbon one way or another, so all would fall under the "tax"

Heck ,, me walking down the street produces it! So do you think the gov't would limit it to "carbon producwers"? Who would draw the line as to what industries do and which don't? Those that don't, can they be added later?

Don't you think that if the the GOP made this their concern you'd have a lot less to be worried about in this area? They ceded the entire territory to the left, so this is the only way you seem to be able to look at it.

634 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:26:49pm

re: #228 LudwigVanQuixote

Excellent! The second and third links show that methane is currently being released. Thus, the current trends already reflect this feedback effect (though future releases, obviously, could be much greater). What can you find about the persistence of methane in the atmosphere? Does it quickly oxidize into CO2 & H2O (or CO2 & H2??) or does it linger?

635 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:26:59pm

re: #627 sattv4u2

ANSER,, The new state gives them a TAX BREAK

WHY? The new state GAINS! They get taxes (even at a reduced rate) from the comapny. The company hires state residents. Those residents
A) get off the states unemployement/ state bennie rolls
B) those employees now pay INTO the state tax systejm

TAXES ,,, GOOODDD!!

Hi Sattv4u2, still hanging in there, huh? Before I took my hike this afternoon along the Platte, I noticed that LVQ was trying to tear you a new one.

636 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:27:52pm

re: #631 iceweasel

You beat me to it. How are you Ice?

637 slokat  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:27:53pm

Charles - since people are talking bugs...

To get new comments:
a. I can click the button and wait forever for nothing to happen
b. I can check the auto box and sometimes it refreshes
c. or, I resort to reloading the whole page

this only started happening with the last few days.

I'm on current Firefox, (no upgrades during the time period in question).

638 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:28:25pm

OMG: RINO closet socialist reverts and betrays the konservative fight against socilistic fascisty Marxism!1!1!

Laura Bush praises Obama, bemoans excessive partisanship


The typically reserved former first lady defended Obama's decision to deliver a back-to-school speech to students, putting her at odds with many conservatives afraid that the president will use the opportunity to advance his political agenda.

"I think he is [doing a good job]," Bush said when asked to assess Obama's job performance. "I think he has got a lot on his plate, and he has tackled a lot to start with, and that has probably made it more difficult."

Michelle Obama is also "doing great," she said, in part by turning the White House into a comfortable home for her family.

639 crosspatch  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:28:33pm

Example:

Tebenkof Glacier in Alaska has been receding fairly rapidly. As it is receding, it is exposing tree trunks from a forest it advanced through in the cold period after the Roman Warm Period and trunks from another forest it advanced through during the Little Ice Age. During the Roman Warm Period, that glacier was smaller than it is today and it was that small long enough for a forest of 300 year old trees to become established before the glacier advanced through them between 430-670 AD and killed the trees. This period also corresponds to a massive climate change (drier) in the middle east and a huge drop in Dead Sea shorelines and glacial advance in the European Alps.

The glacier then advanced through another forest in the LIA between 1300 and 1630 AD with most of the trees being killed around 1430 AD. NO forests have yet reestablished in those areas since. It hasn't been warm enough for long enough.

In the relatively recent (in geological terms) time the Earth has been warmer for much longer than it is now. The LIA was the coldest period in at least 7000 years.

We are 150 years into this period of warming. These warm and cold periods tend to last about 250-300 years or so. The LIA was sort of a "double dip" period that lasted longer and got colder than previous ones. We are about 160 years into this warm period so if this one is like recent ones, we are probably already past the peak of this warm period. That 1933 was warmer than 1998 would seem to indicate that 1933 was the peak of the current warm period and we have a long period, about another 300 years or so, of cooling temperatures. During that time there will be periods of warming and cooling but the warm periods will be cooler and the cold periods colder. In other words, in this negative cycle of the PDO, I would expect to see temperatures cooler than they were in the late 1960's early 1970's but then it will warm again.

640 ted  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:28:34pm

re: #629 Jim in Virginia

Ted, I'm sympathetic to your point of view but is there more to your argument than "Based on my extensive scientific experience, this is a piece of crap" ?

No...its just interesting not scientific...its a nice video

641 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:28:40pm

re: #637 slokat

Charles - since people are talking bugs...

To get new comments:
a. I can click the button and wait forever for nothing to happen
b. I can check the auto box and sometimes it refreshes
c. or, I resort to reloading the whole page

this only started happening with the last few days.

I'm on current Firefox, (no upgrades during the time period in question).

Turn off NoScript.

642 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:28:46pm
643 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:28:53pm

re: #633 Coracle

Don't you think that if the the GOP made this their concern you'd have a lot less to be worried about in this area? They ceded the entire territory to the left, so this is the only way you seem to be able to look at it.

I think if the left had not hijacked this entire debate, politicized it, exaggerated the data, fanned the flames of hysteria, came up with idiotic political solutions that have to do more with redistribution of wealth than saving Gaia it might have been better too.

644 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:29:01pm

My problem with AGW is that it seems a lot of their 'base' is one small step away from the 'too many humans' monstrosity.

645 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:29:41pm

re: #633 Coracle

Don't you think that if the the GOP made this their concern you'd have a lot less to be worried about in this area? They ceded the entire territory to the left, so this is the only way you seem to be able to look at it.

I'm not looking at it from a left/ right ,, dem/ repub stance. I already stated that I DISAGREED with the Repub you cited.

As they say here ,, strawman

646 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:30:06pm

re: #622 Ziggy

al gore has made multi millions off of carbon credits

left the v.p. worth 1 mil now worth close to 100 mil.

global warming been very good for him.

647 SteveC  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:30:28pm

re: #628 hebrewtoyou

The "entertainment network" I am responsible for gets over 3 million unique visitors every month. Our response rate on in-text links hovers between 0.5% and 2% of visitors to any given page. Our response rate for standard ad units (300x250, 160x600 and 728x90) hovers between 0.05% and 0.2%.

Thanks! That's actually pretty close to what happens with me. (I use wordpress' free blogging platform, so no ads) Looks like I'm about average.

648 avanti  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:30:58pm

re: #638 Killgore Trout

OMG: RINO closet socialist reverts and betrays the konservative fight against socilistic fascisty Marxism!1!1!

Laura Bush praises Obama, bemoans excessive partisanship

Said it before, and I'll repeat it, Laura is a class act.

649 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:30:59pm

re: #586 itellu3times

What ever happened to the Rand Corp, here in Santa Monica?

See Bland Corporation on global warming

650 Irish Rose  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:02pm

Good evening, lizards.

651 Jim in Virginia  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:03pm

re: #615 Desert Dog

If a company is charged this "carbon tax" does it simply absorb it or does it pass it on down the road to someone else?

Rhetorical question, I know, but I'll answer.
Corporate taxes- sales, corporate income, anything- aren't an expense. They pass on the costs- lower dividends to shareholders (which often include government employees' pension funds), lower wages for employers, higher costs for customers.

652 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:15pm

re: #646 yochanan

al gore has made multi millions off of carbon credits

left the v.p. worth 1 mil now worth close to 100 mil.

global warming been very good for him.


Lots of Green in Green

653 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:27pm

re: #648 avanti

Said it before, and I'll repeat it, Laura is a class act.

Agreed.

654 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:28pm

re: #639 crosspatch

Example:

Tebenkof Glacier in Alaska has been receding fairly rapidly.

Where are you getting your information on this? I'm asking because I've seen this cited very often on sites that circulate false anti-AGW talking points.

655 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:45pm

re: #635 Walter L. Newton

Hi Sattv4u2, still hanging in there, huh? Before I took my hike this afternoon along the Platte, I noticed that LVQ was trying to tear you a new one.

If "tear me a new one" means he swore at and called me names and lost it, YUP (and did it to Sal on this thread, btw)

If you mean it any other way ,, not so much!

656 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:54pm

re: #623 Coracle

We have cap and trade now, and it works, and it didn't kill any industry. SO2.

Conflating "re-election money for D's" and funding for climate study research would be bullshit.

SO2 emissions are easily pinpointed and addressed. CO2 regulations would effect every living thing. Not a big difference, a huge difference. CO2 regs potentially impact everyone and everything from goat farmers to power plants. This brings every single human activity potentially under government control. SO2 is not an apt analogy.

Cap and trade on CO2 will absoloutely kill domestic industry. Thousands if not millions out of work. If you don't think steel production etc will not move off shore than you have drunk of the Koolaid, because it most certainly will happen.

657 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:31:56pm

re: #648 avanti

Said it before, and I'll repeat it, Laura is a class act.

When did you say it before?

658 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:07pm

re: #625 Big Steve

I have actually found the Heritage Foundation (or at least their website) to be...yes very conservative, but not one of the frothing at the mouth type of think tanks. They were well regarded in the Reagan years. Also Source Watch is not exactly non-biased being they are the work of the Center for Media and Democracy, and at least the last time I looked, headed by Sheldon Rampton who is clearly an environmental crusader. Even so when I look at Source Watch's list of Michael's corporate sponsors there are a number of very reputable firms on the list but to be honest I know more about the Oil industry than coal.

Heritage Foundation shilled for the tobacco industry and is currently shilling for big insurance companies against health reform. SourceWatch is nonpartisan, and the best site I know of to track these things. They are a project of the CMD:

The Center for Media and Democracy was founded by John Stauber in 1993 as an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization. CMD's mission is to promote transparency and an informed debate by exposing corporate spin and government propaganda and by engaging the public in collaborative, fair and accurate reporting.

To view the Center for Media and Democracy's most recent Annual Report, click here. (PDF download)

To see what journalists say about CMD, including the late Molly Ivins, Bill Moyers, Eric Schlosser, Amy Goodman and others, click here.

The Center for Media and Democracy is run by a Board of Directors whose current members are Deborah Bey, Ellen Braune, Joseph Mendelson, David Merritt, Jan Miyasaki, John Stauber, Inger Stole, and executive director Lisa Graves (in a non-voting capacity). The Center serves journalists, researchers, policymakers and citizens at large in the following ways:

* Countering propaganda by investigating and reporting on behind-the-scenes public relations campaigns by corporations, industries, governments and other powerful institutions.
* Informing and assisting grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights.
* Promoting media literacy to help the public recognize the forces shaping the information they receive about issues that affect their lives.
* Sponsoring "open content" media that enable citizens from all walks of life to "be the media" and to participate in creating media content.

SourceWatch is an excellent resource and highly reputable. Heritage Foundation is neither.

659 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:07pm

re: #639 crosspatch

Show me your data that shows 1933 warmer than 1998.

660 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:20pm

re: #622 Ziggy

Try this website for background:

The Discovery of Global Warming

There you will find answers to many questions.

661 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:21pm

re: #590 buzzsawmonkey

Since I don't follow the meanderings of the late Jerry Falwell, you have the advantage of me there.

I have merely asked our resident AGW discursor--who also has displayed a certain knowledge of, and belief in, Torah and Talmud--how he reconciles his rock-solid belief in AGW with the Torah assurances that this is nothing we need worry about.

It's a simple question--which, I notice, our interlocutor has been very, very silent on as regards an answer, even as many people have weighed in to challenge me for my temerity in asking him.

I presume you missed my earlier reference to the late Falwell. Suffice it to say that he did not believe that God would allow the earth's temperature, average, to change by one degree.

Of course a simple response to Falwell would be that the average temperature could very well stay constant, even while varying by 10s of degrees or more over a few hundred or thousand years. Presumably Falwell meant while he was alive, which I think was only for another year or two, so one could say he was right.

As to Ludwig, I haven't heard him say anything of the sort, but I'm prepared to be educated.

On the other hand, if you want to speak theologically, what will be will be. Why worry?

662 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:24pm

re: #647 SteveC

Our network is running on Wordpress MU, interestingly enough.

663 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:26pm

re: #648 avanti

Said it before, and I'll repeat it, Laura is a class act.

Man. How sad is it when Laura Bush has to try to talk the right wing down from the ledge?

664 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:37pm

re: #643 Desert Dog

I think if the left had not hijacked this entire debate, politicized it, exaggerated the data, fanned the flames of hysteria, came up with idiotic political solutions that have to do more with redistribution of wealth than saving Gaia it might have been better too.

On the other hand, the left doesn't control the right, so I'm not sure if they would be able to highjack the debate.

665 right_on_target  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:43pm

re: #646 yochanan

al gore has made multi millions off of carbon credits

left the v.p. worth 1 mil now worth close to 100 mil.

global warming been very good for him.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Really? I didn't know that.

666 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:32:54pm

re: #655 sattv4u2

If "tear me a new one" means he swore at and called me names and lost it, YUP (and did it to Sal on this thread, btw)

If you mean it any other way ,, not so much!

That's what I meant? I was watching off and on, not much different that usual. As always, Sal was cool.

667 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:33:13pm

re: #632 Charles

I wrote "Heritage Foundation" when I meant "Heartland Institute."

However the link you provided from sourcewatch on Dr. Michaels mentions his affiliation with the Heritage foundation but does not mention (at least I couldn't find it) a link to the Heartland institute. Is there somewhere else I can look to find out if indeed he is connected up with Heartland?

668 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:33:30pm

re: #658 iceweasel

SourceWatch is an excellent resource and highly reputable. Heritage Foundation is neither.

I can vouch for this too.

669 Wendya  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:33:32pm

re: #597 ted

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.

It's not meant to be a scientific study. The guy is a cartoonist, not a scientist.

670 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:33:37pm

re: #667 Big Steve

However the link you provided from sourcewatch on Dr. Michaels mentions his affiliation with the Heritage foundation but does not mention (at least I couldn't find it) a link to the Heartland institute. Is there somewhere else I can look to find out if indeed he is connected up with Heartland?

Uh ... the video I posted?

671 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:34:19pm

re: #643 Desert Dog

I think if the left had not hijacked this entire debate, politicized it, exaggerated the data, fanned the flames of hysteria, came up with idiotic political solutions that have to do more with redistribution of wealth than saving Gaia it might have been better too.

The Right abandoned it and is now rife with people who think creationism should be taught in science classes. The only way they can take it back is by paying rational attention to the science. But plugging one's ears and eyes and not looking at the data is not the way to do that.

672 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:34:53pm

re: #636 Flyers1974

You beat me to it. How are you Ice?

Howdy, Comrade Flyers! Just fine. How are you?

673 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:34:56pm

re: #305 Coracle

South beach will not be very hospitable for it in 30 years unless they start building a sea wall soon.

The IPCC prediction for sea level rise over the next 30 years is a few inches. Right?

674 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:35:03pm

re: #644 experiencedtraveller

My problem with AGW is that it seems a lot of their 'base' is one small step away from the 'too many humans' monstrosity.

Then don't listen to this imaginary "base" go read the science yourself.

675 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:35:04pm

re: #620 ted

B.S.-Biochemisty

M.S.-Biophysics

M.D.

Specialty-Neuro+ Child Psych

Faculty-Columbia Presbyterian Med Ctr. College of Physicians and Surgeons

Then either you have a psychological problem or you are just trolling; which implies the same.

Nobody with your supposed credentials would debase themselves with the type of debate, or lack thereof, that you express.

676 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:36:25pm

re: #654 Charles

I'd like to read the conclusions of the actual papers about this, but all the ones I've found are for pay...

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

677 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:36:26pm

re: #656 The Shadow Do

gmta (617)

678 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:36:46pm

re: #552 buzzsawmonkey

Precisely my question.

Yet we have someone who argues one thing from the perspective of science, and another from the perspective of religion. That is not my problem; it is his. I merely asked him about the gap between the two.

Not wishing to speak for anyone, but would it be outrageous to consider the not exactly monocle-popping possibility that LVQ is not a literal believer in every single word of scripture? I think you'll find that's pretty common among scientists of faith, and a reason why many people here found it odd that you should assume some great conflict here.

679 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:36:59pm

re: #664 Flyers1974

On the other hand, the left doesn't control the right, so I'm not sure if they would be able to highjack the debate.

I have no trouble believing scientific facts. I have lots of trouble with the solutions the left has so far proposed - those are flawed.

680 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:37:20pm

re: #670 Charles

Uh ... the video I posted?

doh...of course...I must be getting old. You are right.

681 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:37:21pm

re: #668 Walter L. Newton

The Heritage Foundation is honest about what they stand for, at least. They point out they are conservative - and as noted above, were quite reputable in the Reagan age. They have some pretty poignant articles. They wouldn't be my first stop for middle of the road, non-politicized "proof", but neither would be Source watch.

682 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:37:28pm

re: #666 Walter L. Newton

That's what I meant? I was watching off and on, not much different that usual. As always, Sal was cool.

I couldn't upding him fast enough

683 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:37:44pm

re: #665 right_on_target

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Really? I didn't know that.

You're also "Rent a Chicken," aren't you?

Man, I hate it when people try to get away with crap like this.

684 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:38:15pm
685 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:38:16pm
686 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:38:46pm

re: #656 The Shadow Do


Cap and trade on CO2 will absoloutely kill domestic industry.

I have heard that claim many times. I haven't seen any hard numbers brought backing it up.

687 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:38:49pm

re: #675 Naso Tang

Seriously? I'm surrounded by phD ChemEs and chemists who feel exactly as Ted does. I have some that feel as you do. Neither are stupid far as I can tell.

688 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:39:05pm

re: #608 Walter L. Newton

No reply yet? I have been in and out, watching Woody Allens' "Bananas." Not one of his best.

Hey Walter. LVQ already said he was out for the evening.

689 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:39:31pm

re: #681 ArmyWife

The Heritage Foundation is honest about what they stand for, at least. They point out they are conservative - and as noted above, were quite reputable in the Reagan age. They have some pretty poignant articles. They wouldn't be my first stop for middle of the road, non-politicized "proof", but neither would be Source watch.

what's wrong with Sourcewatch?

690 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:39:33pm

Rent a chicken

LOL.
Make mine extra crispy

691 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:39:59pm

re: #683 Charles

Rent A Chicken ??!?!?!


I live in the south and I didn;t even know that was possible!!!

//

692 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:40:05pm

Right wing blogger no longer check facts.
Instapundit sez

Here’s one data point that will be fuel for revolution when taxpayers discover it:

It is the average compensation of Federal civilian employees vs. average compensation in the private sector.

Used to be, government jobs paid LESS than comparable civilian ones, balanced by lavish benefits. But now, it seems, gummint workers make A LOT MORE than comparable civilian workers, and STILL get the lavish benefits (including lush health care plans).

Is the average Federal employee worth $30,000 a year more than the typical worker in the real world?

His chart say that the average Federal Employee makes almost $80,000 dollars a year! Astounding! Shocking! Outrageous!
Lie.

693 Wendya  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:40:15pm

re: #658 iceweasel

SourceWatch is an excellent resource and highly reputable. Heritage Foundation is neither.

Yes, sourcewatch and the CMD are highly reputable among the left wing. They are not non-partisan operations.

694 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:40:32pm

re: #643 Desert Dog

I think if the left had not hijacked this entire debate, politicized it, exaggerated the data, fanned the flames of hysteria, came up with idiotic political solutions that have to do more with redistribution of wealth than saving Gaia it might have been better too.

I'd also say the left hasn't won the debate, let alone highjacked same. I think a pretty high number of people don't believe in global warming.

695 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:40:33pm

Not just "Rent a Chicken" but several other sock puppet accounts as well.

696 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:40:36pm

re: #689 mt3_1234

You down ding me and then ask. Scroll up - it's been pointed out.

697 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:40:51pm

re: #685 buzzsawmonkey

Not wishing to speak for anyone? Yet you seem to be impelled to, don't you?

You are not the person from whom an answer was requested, but thank you for attempting to play.

Jimmah asked a legitimate question. Just as you asked a question of LVQ on this thread.

698 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:41:35pm

re: #696 ArmyWife

You down ding me and then ask. Scroll up - it's been pointed out.

updinged for balance!

699 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:41:45pm

re: #667 Big Steve

However the link you provided from sourcewatch on Dr. Michaels mentions his affiliation with the Heritage foundation but does not mention (at least I couldn't find it) a link to the Heartland institute. Is there somewhere else I can look to find out if indeed he is connected up with Heartland?

The Heartland Institute Global Warming Facts site links to his site in their "Best sites and Newsletters" list.

700 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:00pm

re: #693 Wendya

Yes, sourcewatch and the CMD are highly reputable among the left wing. They are not non-partisan operations.

They are nonpartisan.

701 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:09pm

re: #673 Pythagoras

The IPCC prediction for sea level rise over the next 30 years is a few inches. Right?

A meter over the century, so probably a foot or so. But I'm becoming convinced that's lowball. I really don't think I'd want to be be on South Beach or the barrier islands at high tide in a few decades. Of course, I'd love to be wrong on that.

702 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:26pm

re: #580 hebrewtoyou

Good point.

703 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:30pm

re: #574 Thanos

It's one of my all time favorites so I have it bookmarked.

Hey, I made pun there. Not often that happens and a little recognition would be appreciated.

704 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:32pm

Ok found a link the the latest Tebenoff glacier paper, reading now

[Link: web.cortland.edu...]

705 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:38pm

re: #692 Killgore Trout

"fuel for revolution?!!"

This is now what Instapundit is peddling?

Someone please pinch me. I'm having a nightmare.

706 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:42:45pm

re: #685 buzzsawmonkey

Not wishing to speak for anyone? Yet you seem to be impelled to, don't you?

You are not the person from whom an answer was requested, but thank you for attempting to play.

I'm sorry - I thought this was a forum for discussion here! And I thought I made a pretty reasonable point. If you can't handle replies, don't post in the first place.

707 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:43:07pm

re: #688 iceweasel

Hey Walter. LVQ already said he was out for the evening.

Okay, I've been in and out for the last 5 or so hours, took a 3 mile hike on the Platte, had some supper, watched "Bananas" so I've been lurking off and on.

708 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:43:17pm

Somebody ought to design a computer program that can detect sock puppets.
They ( the nics ) seem to share common themes.

709 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:43:18pm

re: #674 Coracle

Then don't listen to this imaginary "base" go read the science yourself.

I can build a 3 meter seawall wall around the entire USA right quick.

710 Big Steve  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:43:37pm

re: #695 Charles

Not just "Rent a Chicken" but several other sock puppet accounts as well.

When people do this I mean what is the point? Do they register several accounts and then have different persona for each one. Or do they just echo the same thing from several accounts and then upding themselves.

711 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:43:40pm

re: #705 Charles

"fuel for revolution?!!"

This is now what Instapundit is peddling?

Someone please pinch me. I'm having a nightmare.

If it's all the same to you, I'll let one of the Lizardettes do that

712 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:43:59pm
713 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:44:17pm

re: #698 sattv4u2

Avanti down dinged me, too. But thanks. I just can't get in to the silly down ding because I hate your point of view. It is RARE for me to down ding anyone, especially those who can state their views without being ugly. I guess tonight is my night for attack.

714 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:44:19pm

re: #708 Shug

Somebody ought to design a computer program that can detect sock puppets.

I have.

715 mikalm  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:44:40pm

re: #695 Charles

Not just "Rent a Chicken" but several other sock puppet accounts as well.

You can't buy beer a chicken -- you can only rent it.

716 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:44:47pm

re: #702 BignJames

Thanks. That's the gist of what I was trying to get at in my critique of LVQ's commentary. It's easy for an incredibly knowledgeable person to present facts; it's not-so-easy for those facts to be presented in a way that appears sincere.

717 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:45:19pm
718 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:45:26pm

re: #671 Coracle

The Right abandoned it and is now rife with people who think creationism should be taught in science classes. The only way they can take it back is by paying rational attention to the science. But plugging one's ears and eyes and not looking at the data is not the way to do that.

I am not a creationist and neither are 10's of millions of other's just like me. We listen to scientists. We hear that. It's when the solutions offered up come into play. You think that taxing the sh*t out of business is no big deal. Punitive taxes on energy will cost everyone in this country...and not just monetarily.

Don't confuse science with your politics. They are not one in the same. And, plugging up your ears and eyes to that fact will not make your solutions any better. I reject the idea that we must give up our prosperity to solve this problem.

719 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:45:46pm

re: #713 ArmyWife

Agreeed,,, but I gave you another just cause you're gonna put sunscreen on my lil nose.

I see my overnight relief is pulling in, so I get to go home

Be well

720 Shug  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:45:51pm

I beat him like a rented mule Rhode Island Red

721 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:46:01pm

re: #716 hebrewtoyou

Thanks. That's the gist of what I was trying to get at in my critique of LVQ's commentary. It's easy for an incredibly knowledgeable person to present facts; it's not-so-easy for those facts to be presented in a way that appears sincere.

Or in his case, that anyone cares about.

722 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:46:10pm

re: #713 ArmyWife

That's why I've turned off "dinging" since the option was made available. It's like voting for Prom King & Queen.

723 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:46:12pm
724 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:46:30pm

re: #714 Charles

they would have to come from the same computer i.p.

725 Bear  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:46:41pm

re: #701 Coracle

There are places where the coastal area is rising and where it is submerging. For example drive along the Northern California Coast and around Ft Ross there are wave cut terraces and former sea stacks some feet above the present sea level.

726 avanti  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:46:49pm

re: #663 Charles

Man. How sad is it when Laura Bush has to try to talk the right wing down from the ledge?

I have fantasies that Bush I or II will step up and steer the ship away from the rocks with a comment. Nothing like praising Obama, but asking for a more civil discourse from both sides. Maybe Bush I and Clinton could speak to the madness from the left and right sides, they are now friends.

727 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:47:00pm

re: #723 buzzsawmonkey

Night. I'm not far behind you.

728 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:47:02pm

re: #707 Walter L. Newton

Okay, I've been in and out for the last 5 or so hours, took a 3 mile hike on the Platte, had some supper, watched "Bananas" so I've been lurking off and on.

Sounds like a nice day! I'm glad. :)

729 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:47:08pm

re: #712 buzzsawmonkey

No, he did not ask a question, legitimate or otherwise. He attempted to horn in and speak for someone else.

He is welcome to do so, if he wishes, provided he is enough of a big boy to realize that he will be called on his attempt to speak for someone who has not spoken for himself.

Pathetic. I could not have made it clearer that I wasn't speaking for anyone, yet you have to try to twist it so that I was. Anything to avoid debating the substance of my post it would seem.

730 Ziggy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:47:16pm

re: #631 iceweasel

Local weather is not climate. That is a bad reason not to be worried.


True about the local weather vs. climate, but I just can't get all worked up over this debate. I guess it's because I think there is a much greater chance of the world ending in a nuclear holocaust than Colorado becoming beach front property. Besides, even if it is real the, US could go all green, institute cap and trade, destroy our economy
but how do you get China, India, Greece, New Zealand (with their sheep farts) to do anything? The US being broke won't solve anything.

731 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:47:38pm

re: #692 Killgore Trout

Except that Glenn didn't say that... it's from one of his readers, and he clearly says so.

732 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:47:41pm

re: #507 crosspatch

Yes it is. Sea level trend has been flat since 2006.

Try this version with the seasonal signal removed. Sea level is no higher now than it was in January 2006.

Or maybe this one that compensates for barometric pressure.

Good links! I wish they were over a longer time period though.

733 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:48:00pm

re: #718 Desert Dog

I am not a creationist and neither are 10's of millions of other's just like me. We listen to scientists. We hear that. It's when the solutions offered up come into play. You think that taxing the sh*t out of business is no big deal. Punitive taxes on energy will cost everyone in this country...and not just monetarily.

Don't confuse science with your politics. They are not one in the same. And, plugging up your ears and eyes to that fact will not make your solutions any better. I reject the idea that we must give up our prosperity to solve this problem.

So do I. Our prosperity could and should lie in solar and wind and storage tech - all exportable. It should lie in pocket nuke reactors. I don't believe the carrot works when the bottom line only looks 30 months out. Either the corporate time horizon for ROI must start looking 10 years and more out, or the stick needs to be brought into play.

734 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:48:49pm

re: #718 Desert Dog

It does not help the proponent's argument, when they are making a hefty some selling the indulgence of carbon credits either.

735 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:49:05pm

re: #687 ArmyWife

Seriously? I'm surrounded by phD ChemEs and chemists who feel exactly as Ted does. I have some that feel as you do. Neither are stupid far as I can tell.

What can I say? The phDs that look at the evidence and believe we have a problem far outnumber those who don't, unless of course you think it's a conspiracy by Al Gore to keep them quiet.

In ted's case, he makes no case and looks like a fool, so I'll go with walks like a duck, talks like a duck and so on.

Having said that, cognitive dissonance takes many forms, and even phDs can be lazy.

736 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:49:22pm

re: #705 Charles

"fuel for revolution?!!"

This is now what Instapundit is peddling?

Someone please pinch me. I'm having a nightmare.

It took me 5 seconds to google that. The bogus graph traces back to the Cato Institute. I have no clue how they arrived at that figure but it's almost certainly bogus.

737 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:49:35pm

re: #717 buzzsawmonkey

Gee, I didn't realize you were the designated driver, or spokesman, or blatherboy. Show your credentials next time, and I'll give you the proper respect.

Another old, tired bs monkey 'debating tactic' - when you are losing the argument, or cannot answer in any substantive way, resort to personal attacks.

738 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:49:55pm

re: #718 Desert Dog

Thanks for picking up the banner. I'm tired and heading home

739 Gus  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:11pm

re: #736 Killgore Trout

It took me 5 seconds to google that. The bogus graph traces back to the Cato Institute. I have no clue how they arrived at that figure but it's almost certainly bogus.

But it's from CATO. They don't have an agenda.

//

740 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:17pm

re: #521 Coracle

All still going up.

But is it accelerating?

741 yochanan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:27pm

papal indulgence vs carbon indulgence

742 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:37pm

re: #731 tradewind

It's his post. He put it on his front page. It's a lie. It's a bad lie at that. Disgraceful, sloppy and stupid.

743 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:45pm

re: #718 Desert Dog

I am not a creationist and neither are 10's of millions of other's just like me. We listen to scientists. We hear that. It's when the solutions offered up come into play. You think that taxing the sh*t out of business is no big deal. Punitive taxes on energy will cost everyone in this country...and not just monetarily.

Don't confuse science with your politics. They are not one in the same. And, plugging up your ears and eyes to that fact will not make your solutions any better. I reject the idea that we must give up our prosperity to solve this problem.

But, if you have turned this into a religion instead of science (and the fervor is evidently religious) then it becomes like a theology, complete with good and bad, rewards and penance. A lot of these AGW proponents have turned this into a religion, and paying fines and carbon credits are no better than tiding and indulgences.

The science is sound, the possible outcomes varied, too bad, in some cases the motives are very suspect.

744 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:51pm

From the Tebenkof paper conclusions, and probably why denialists are cherry picking data from conflicting papers on the Glacier:

Tidewater glacier fluctuations are asynchronous with
other termini because of factors such as iceberg-calving and fjord
geometry, and the typically long interval between successive advances
means that logs found in tidewater glacier deposits often have
significantly more rings than those found on terrestrial forefields
where terminus expansions have been more frequent. While these
factors make the histories of tidewater glaciers unsuitable for
interpretation as climate proxies, tree-ring collections from such
glaciers are essential for the development of long tree-ring chronologies
in the southern Alaskan region.

745 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:50:56pm

re: #712 buzzsawmonkey

No, he did not ask a question, legitimate or otherwise. He attempted to horn in and speak for someone else.

He is welcome to do so, if he wishes, provided he is enough of a big boy to realize that he will be called on his attempt to speak for someone who has not spoken for himself.

Buzz, you're the one who is incapable of acting like a big boy whenever you feel the slightest bit challenged or threatened. You have a tendency to lash out at other posters when you feel you've been bested in an argument-- often at completely different posters, usually of the liberal variety.

Jimmah asked a perfectly reasonable question in a very polite way, and you have 'responded' by lashing out at him and being nasty. And by projecting your own failings onto him.

746 TheMatrix31  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:51:01pm

Free Trial of NFL Sunday Ticket for Week 1 for those of you who have DirecTV...just a heads up

747 Ziggy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:51:53pm

re: #646 yochanan

al gore has made multi millions off of carbon credits

left the v.p. worth 1 mil now worth close to 100 mil.

global warming been very good for him.


I might believe it it more if I could get rich off of it too.

748 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:51:56pm

re: #734 formercorpsman

sum

749 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:52:15pm

re: #737 Jimmah

Another old, tired bs monkey 'debating tactic' - when you are losing the argument, or cannot answer in any substantive way, resort to personal attacks.

Followed closely by:

Youtube Video
750 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:52:50pm

re: #737 Jimmah

Glad to see some things never change ;)

751 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:52:53pm

re: #733 Coracle

So do I. Our prosperity could and should lie in solar and wind and storage tech - all exportable. It should lie in pocket nuke reactors. I don't believe the carrot works when the bottom line only looks 30 months out. Either the corporate time horizon for ROI must start looking 10 years and more out, or the stick needs to be brought into play.

So its the big bad energy companies to blame eh?

752 OldLineTexan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:52:53pm

re: #739 Gus 802

But it's from CATO. They don't have an agenda.

//

nobody does anymore

its depressing

753 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:52:56pm

re: #740 Pythagoras

But is it accelerating?

That's scale dependent. Compare 00-02 to 06-08, no. But is that a valid time scale? I'd have to look into it more thoroughly. Is the trend frokm 94 to '08 significantly different than, say, 74 to 88? The data is not shown in those plots.

754 Mich-again  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:53:11pm

re: #597 ted

The video does not pass even remotely minimun standards of a rigorous scientic study.
It's a 10th grade science project.

I think the impressive thing is the change in ocean temps. Its not easy to heat up that much water. It takes 1 btu to increase the temperature of a pound of water 1 deg F. And there are something like 10^26 pounds of water in the oceans. Sure, the surface temperature doesn't necessarily reflect the temperature throughout the depth, so take a guess at a percentage. Even at 1% its really an incredible amount of heat gain. Which I think its an easier problem than to deal with than losing the same amount of heat that rapidly. Heat is energy. Its easier to get rid of than collect.

755 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:53:18pm

re: #736 Killgore Trout

KT... they arrived at it from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, [Link: www.bea.gov...]
which I would imagine is as reliable as your source, SimplyHired.com (about us.. we're a new website to help you get hired).

756 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:53:36pm

re: #749 Bloodnok

You know, it very well could be he was really just signing off.

757 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:53:43pm

re: #737 Jimmah

Another old, tired bs monkey 'debating tactic' - when you are losing the argument, or cannot answer in any substantive way, resort to personal attacks.

The other tactic, of course, is running away. I see he's already calling you names again.

Brave Sir Buzzsaw ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Buzzsaw turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Buzzsaw!

758 Wendya  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:53:49pm

re: #686 Coracle

I have heard that claim many times. I haven't seen any hard numbers brought backing it up.

If businesses have to pay a fine for emitting CO2, what do you suspect that will do to energy prices, transportation costs, the price for goods and services? Wages aren't going to rise to compensate for the taxes on CO2 because profits will likely decline. You will pay more to heat and cool your home, buy groceries, drive your car, fly on an airliner, etc... everything will be more expensive. It will be particularly harmful for small businesses. Most of us can't pass a huge increase in operating costs on to our customers without losing many of those customers. The increase in gas prices last summer were devastating for many of us. I can't imagine how in the hell people can absorb a tax that hikes gas up to $5.00 per gallon (conservatively).

759 blangwort  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:53:54pm

We're missing so many points here that I don't know where to begin.

First, all of the models for climate and the economy are fraught with error. Read The Future of Everything by Dr. David Orrell. He shows with mathematical precision why this exercise is nearly useless. We can't calculate economic impacts of technologies we don't even have yet using climate models that can barely predict the past, let alone the future.

Second, no matter what climate change is happening, we can't conserve our way out of it. Now, I'm not going to suggest that we give up and stop trying to build better energy technologies. We need to do that anyway if we have any hope of growing our economy. But the warming may well continue for centuries after we stop putting excess carbon in to the atmosphere.

So we need to look at terraforming. We need to figure out how to regulate our climate. There are a few ideas on the subject already. It's time we looked at them and tried one.

760 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:54:03pm

re: #743 Walter L. Newton

But, if you have turned this into a religion instead of science (and the fervor is evidently religious) then it becomes like a theology, complete with good and bad, rewards and penance. A lot of these AGW proponents have turned this into a religion, and paying fines and carbon credits are no better than tiding and indulgences.

The science is sound, the possible outcomes varied, too bad, in some cases the motives are very suspect.

I think many have done just that. We need to reach out to the rational ones on both sides and come up with a better way to deal with this.

761 Gus  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:54:34pm

re: #752 OldLineTexan

nobody does anymore

its depressing

Yeah, I was just looking at their raw data. There would be a way to figure it out on one's own but I stopped looking. They used three sets of charts. So it didn't just say: the average federal salary is this.

762 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:54:40pm

re: #742 Killgore Trout

I don't think the discrepancy between military pay and private contractor pay doing support jobs, as just one example, bears out the idea that government jobs pay more than the private sector.

763 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:54:55pm

re: #743 Walter L. Newton

. A lot of these AGW proponents have turned this into a religion.

None of them are here. In fact the vast majority of scientists who do the research don't match that description. So why bring that up?

764 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:55:29pm

re: #744 Thanos

From the Tebenkof paper conclusions, and probably why denialists are cherry picking data from conflicting papers on the Glacier:

Good find. Yes, that's why they're trotting out that cherry-picked data. Over and over we see this kind of distortion -- they comb through the scientific literature looking for any little excuse they can portray as evidence that global warming isn't happening.

I've really been trying to avoid the creationist analogies, but this is exactly the same dishonest tactic creationists use.

765 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:55:37pm

re: #736 Killgore Trout

It took me 5 seconds to google that. The bogus graph traces back to the Cato Institute. I have no clue how they arrived at that figure but it's almost certainly bogus.

My kneejerk guess is that they've probably left the military out of that pay scale graph...

766 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:55:41pm

re: #763 Coracle

None of them are here. In fact the vast majority of scientists who do the research don't match that description. So why bring that up?

Er, because I can!

767 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:55:47pm

re: #751 experiencedtraveller

So its the big bad energy companies to blame eh?

They could be the good guys. They should be the leaders.

768 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:55:56pm

re: #757 iceweasel

That is rich of you.

I have a couple of times where I have put questions out to you in the mdist of a rolling thread, and you have shown up a day later to respond on a dead thread.

769 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:56:32pm

re: #755 tradewind

It's bullshit. Pure and simple. The guy found some numbers, did some questionable math and produced a completely fictional result to stoke resentment towards our government and the people who serve. It's easily debunked propaganda but don't let that stop you. This is what conservatism is all about these days, honesty be damned.

770 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:56:32pm

re: #749 Bloodnok

ha! We are two minds with but a single thought!

Youtube Video
771 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:56:36pm

re: #750 Basho

Glad to see some things never change ;)

Been away? Perhaps I have.

772 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:56:42pm

re: #750 Basho

Glad to see some things never change ;)

Hey Basho! Great to see you back round these parts :) Yep - some things just cannot change it seems - not a good strategy IMO ;-)

773 EndlessBob  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:56:58pm

The video is unpersuasive. It mocks the speakers at the Heartland conference, yet praises Dr. Michaels when he says the "right" things. Really, if the man's credibility is so damaged, why accept anything he says? This is the very definition of cherry picking, to say "yes" when one agrees with him and "no" when one doesn't.

As for global temps, the UAH satellite measurements don't agree with NASA's ground-based measurements, as you can see here:

UAH satellite measurements

The video still states as fact that human-produced CO2 plays a part in the warming that has been observed, but this is a product of the models, not of any observational or experimental data. In the GCMs, CO2 forcing on the models is merely a guess, because there is no real data from which a real number can be determined.

It's well-known that the Vostok ice cores showed an 800-year lag between the warming and the increase in CO2. I'd heard this had been debunked as well, so I went over to RealClimate to see what they had to say, and it was this: "Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release."

So an unknown process starts the warming (completely independent of any CO2), but then after 8 centuries the CO2 takes over and the next 4200 years' worth of warming is all CO2.

Sorry, no. Let's invoke Occam's Razor here: the warming had already started, which RealClimate admits raised the CO2 levels. So why not presume that the same "unknown process" continued warming the planet -- with CO2 levels trailing -- until the same "unknown process" reversed itself and the planet cooled, and CO2 levels diminished.

Worse, RealClimate doesn't even offer a mechanism that keeps the CO2 from causing runaway warming, which according to their scenario should have happened once the CO2 "took over" from the "unknown process" that caused the warming in the first place. But what did cause the cooling to occur, if the CO2 was driving the warming?

The Earth has warmed and cooled continually over its entire history without intervention from Man. To presume that this warming must be our fault is totally unsupported by any facts or observations from the geologic record. The Earth has warmed; we're still coming out of the last Ice Age, so it's not surprising that it is still doing so.

Those are the facts that we know; the rest is an attempt to seize control of the world's economies in the name of environmentalism.

774 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:57:05pm

re: #759 blangwort

We're missing so many points here that I don't know where to begin.

First, all of the models for climate and the economy are fraught with error. Read The Future of Everything by Dr. David Orrell. He shows with mathematical precision why this exercise is nearly useless. We can't calculate economic impacts of technologies we don't even have yet using climate models that can barely predict the past, let alone the future.

Second, no matter what climate change is happening, we can't conserve our way out of it. Now, I'm not going to suggest that we give up and stop trying to build better energy technologies. We need to do that anyway if we have any hope of growing our economy. But the warming may well continue for centuries after we stop putting excess carbon in to the atmosphere.

So we need to look at terraforming. We need to figure out how to regulate our climate. There are a few ideas on the subject already. It's time we looked at them and tried one.

If we can't predict as you've stated, how on earth or anywhere else does Geo engineering make sense?

775 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:57:23pm

re: #730 Ziggy

True about the local weather vs. climate, but I just can't get all worked up over this debate. I guess it's because I think there is a much greater chance of the world ending in a nuclear holocaust than Colorado becoming beach front property. Besides, even if it is real the, US could go all green, institute cap and trade, destroy our economy
but how do you get China, India, Greece, New Zealand (with their sheep farts) to do anything? The US being broke won't solve anything.

I assume you're joking about the Colorodo/beach front property thing. But aside from that, you're assuming that destroying the economy is essential to addressing global warming. And we won't get China and the rest to do anything if the US public is still debating the existance of global warming.

776 BignJames  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:57:26pm

re: #767 Coracle

They could be the good guys. They should be the leaders.


What? You haven't seen any BP commercials?

777 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:57:46pm

re: #686 Coracle

I have heard that claim many times. I haven't seen any hard numbers brought backing it up.

I ain't got a hard number. this is what I know. One of my clients with whom I met on Friday stated quite clearly they had provisional plans in the event of cap and trade. This would entail the elimination of their domestic work force. The only edge they have is proximity to the work and this would be lost (much has already been lost with the introduction of Chinese subsidized steel by the way). This company by the way is the biggest in N America in its field. Thousands of employees who are well paid and happy as hell too.

Cap and Trade? They are toast, and I really doubt this companies contingency plans are unique.

This shit hurts their employees and does no good for me either needless to say. So much well meaning, so much fucking damage to be done.

But go ahead and feel good about your green future, my friend.

778 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:58:07pm

re: #768 formercorpsman

That is rich of you.

I have a couple of times where I have put questions out to you in the mdist of a rolling thread, and you have shown up a day later to respond on a dead thread.

Yes, because it's utterly impossible for someone to ever miss a post, or be doing lots of things while posting here.

I see that your 'objection' isn't that I didn't answer you -- just that I didn't do it immediately! See the difference there?

779 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:58:18pm

re: #769 Killgore Trout

You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. and I would put the BEA's researchers up against the new kid, SimplyHired's.

780 Achilles Tang  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:59:39pm

Break time.

781 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 6:59:42pm

re: #758 Wendya

If businesses have to pay a fine for emitting CO2, what do you suspect that will do to energy prices, transportation costs, the price for goods and services? ...

Your scenario is based on quite a few assumptions. The foremost being that the only reaction to a carbon tax is to pass on the expense. Some companies will figure out ways to lower or eliminate their carbon profiles without causing such a big price hit. They will get more business and drive the competition to follow suit or die. Yes, my scenario is based on other assumptions. You show me how yours are more valid. Do you know exactly how a carbon tax would be applied? Could it not be applied in such a way to encourage my scenario?

782 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:00:04pm

re: #757 iceweasel

The other tactic, of course, is running away. I see he's already calling you names again.

Brave Sir Buzzsaw ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Buzzsaw turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Buzzsaw!

Tee hee. This is of course, a python moment:

Youtube Video
783 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:00:18pm

re: #767 Coracle

I like that you favor using nuclear energy to help stem the demand and need for carbon fuels. But, in the current political climate, it is very hard to even talk about expanding our nuclear energy capabilities, let alone actually start building reactors.

784 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:01:17pm

re: #767 Coracle

They could be the good guys. They should be the leaders.

You enjoy the cheapest, cleanest energy that any human has ever enjoyed yet you sit here and snipe at those that provide it to you.

785 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:01:21pm

re: #766 Walter L. Newton

Er, because I can!

'k

786 Bloodnok  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:01:24pm

re: #770 iceweasel

Ha! Endlessly more entertaining than the original video. Thanks!

787 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:01:56pm

re: #765 Thanos

He stopped tracing at the Cato Institute. The original was a government source, the BEA.

788 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:02:02pm

re: #783 Desert Dog

I like that you favor using nuclear energy to help stem the demand and need for carbon fuels. But, in the current political climate, it is very hard to even talk about expanding our nuclear energy capabilities, let alone actually start building reactors.

Not really, some are being built right now by adding reactors to existing sites. I know for certain that Sheffield's got a big order for turbines.

789 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:02:03pm

re: #774 Thanos

If we can't predict as you've stated, how on earth or anywhere else does Geo engineering make sense?

lol brilliant.

790 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:02:21pm

re: #778 iceweasel

No, not quite iceweasel. He posted he was heading out.

Obviously certain subjects lead to heated debate, and differences of opinion.

Moreover, ever since I have been here, Buzzsawmonkey has been one of the most rationale, consistent voices. His karma speaks for itself.

But, it is interesting you mention other folks might be doing other things while checking in and out while logged here.

I know I do. I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

791 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:02:45pm

re: #765 Thanos

My kneejerk guess is that they've probably left the military out of that pay scale graph...

Yes, the chart is labeled Federal Civilian vs. Private Industry, so low paying Federal jobs (military) are not included, and maybe "industry" doesn't include some of the highest paying civilian jobs, either.

792 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:03:04pm

re: #755 tradewind

Be very careful. I suspect Instaliarpundit is not comparing same occupations in same locales with same experience.

793 blangwort  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:03:24pm

re: #774 Thanos

There are many things we can do on the micro climatic scale including new forms of cloud seeding, carbon dioxide sequestration, and so forth.

The problem we have with the models is that they can't accurately deal with the effects of clouds. They estimate the effects based upon past performance and then throw in fudge factors based upon past climatic behavior. The problem with this approach is the same as with any least squares polynomial regression approach. Within the data set it works pretty well. Outside the data set it falls apart.

So as long as we're within known climate conditions, we can know what effect a terraforming effort will have. Once the climate changes significantly, we'll never be quite sure what will happen next.

794 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:03:45pm

re: #788 Thanos

Not really, some are being built right now by adding reactors to existing sites. I know for certain that Sheffield's got a big order for turbines.

We're getting more output from existing sites but not adding any new ones.

795 Desert Dog  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:03:45pm

re: #788 Thanos

Not really, some are being built right now by adding reactors to existing sites. I know for certain that Sheffield's got a big order for turbines.

Why are we not following France then and building nuclear plants like crazy? It would offer a real, tangible alternative to coal and diesel plants. Solar and wind are not ready to do that, are they?

796 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:05:24pm

re: #792 freetoken

Glenn Reynolds doesn't really deserve that cheap smear, token. But carry on.
Just make sure you ice that knee at the end of the day... the constant jerking is tough on the cartilage.

797 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:05:36pm

re: #793 blangwort

Sorry, can't agree. If we can't do the science well enough to know with reasonable certainty what's going on, we shouldn't be artificially jiggering dials.

798 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:05:44pm

re: #795 Desert Dog

That is where I see many folks on the right and the left, who could have a justifiable position where they meet in the middle of this subject.

I am totally for it.

799 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:06:12pm

re: #791 jaunte

Yes, the chart is labeled Federal Civilian vs. Private Industry, so low paying Federal jobs (military) are not included, and maybe "industry" doesn't include some of the highest paying civilian jobs, either.

Almost certainly. There are private sector guys pulling in millions per year. Nobody in the government makes that kind of money. The guy selected some unrelated numbers and did some questionable math.

800 Randall Gross  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:06:40pm

re: #795 Desert Dog

Why are we not following France then and building nuclear plants like crazy? It would offer a real, tangible alternative to coal and diesel plants. Solar and wind are not ready to do that, are they?

Dunno Friend, I"ve been calling for more nuclear energy for more than twenty years.

801 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:06:42pm

re: #764 Charles

Good find. Yes, that's why they're trotting out that cherry-picked data. Over and over we see this kind of distortion -- they comb through the scientific literature looking for any little excuse they can portray as evidence that global warming isn't happening.

I've really been trying to avoid the creationist analogies, but this is exactly the same dishonest tactic creationists use.

this is a common tactic used by ANYONE that has a vested interest in something

step 1. you have a conclusion
step 2. perform experiment and gather data that supports step 1

802 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:06:42pm

re: #791 jaunte

Yes, the chart is labeled Federal Civilian vs. Private Industry, so low paying Federal jobs (military) are not included, and maybe "industry" doesn't include some of the highest paying civilian jobs, either.

While some military jobs, primarily enlisted personnel, are low paying. I know from personal experience that officer pay is pretty good. A lot of my benefits are not taxed, BAH for example, and I have excellent medical coverage for myself and my family. According to MOAA, there is still roughly a 3.6% pay gap between military and civillian pay but Congress gives the military a 0.5% raise each year in addition to civillian raises to try and close that gap.

803 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:06:52pm

re: #790 formercorpsman

No, not quite iceweasel. He posted he was heading out.

Obviously certain subjects lead to heated debate, and differences of opinion.

Moreover, ever since I have been here, Buzzsawmonkey has been one of the most rationale, consistent voices. His karma speaks for itself.

But, it is interesting you mention other folks might be doing other things while checking in and out while logged here.

I know I do. I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough, and that's nice of you. But isn't it interesting that at least 3 individual posters in this thread spontaneously noted that it's a pattern?
I'm just saying there might be a reason why we did.

804 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:06:56pm

re: #773 EndlessBob

Same old recycled arguments. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned. It's basic physics and chemistry. More of it traps more heat. That in the past, other cycles (Milankovitch etc) drive cycles of warming and cooling is not in question either, and the response of additional CO2 release and additional warming from CO2 release is not new or surprising.

Today we have CO2 and other GHGs being produced by humanity adding a warming influence

on top of

natural cycles. It's really that simple in a nutshell, but if you want to get into the nitty gritty, the research is all there. Hundreds, thousands of papers of it.

805 freetoken  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:07:00pm

re: #796 tradewind

Glenn Reynolds has turned from one of the early innovators of the web into one of the better known propagandistson the web.

806 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:07:48pm

re: #776 BignJames

What? You haven't seen any BP commercials?

If only they hadn't abandoned "beyond petroleum".

807 Van Helsing  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:07:54pm

re: #718 Desert Dog

I am not a creationist and neither are 10's of millions of other's just like me. We listen to scientists. We hear that. It's when the solutions offered up come into play. You think that taxing the sh*t out of business is no big deal. Punitive taxes on energy will cost everyone in this country...and not just monetarily.

Desert Dog - this isn't really addressing your post. Sorry, I began to rant.

Don't confuse science with your politics. They are not one in the same. And, plugging up your ears and eyes to that fact will not make your solutions any better. I reject the idea that we must give up our prosperity to solve this problem.

Thus begins the difficulty - politics.
I see no sense in attempting to argue the science proving/disproving the anthropogenic aspect of climate change. Unlike dropping an apple and having it hit the ground we can't do any experiment that will point out the cause of climate change 100% certainty.

Punitive taxes are not going to do a damn thing for the planet. China and India don't f***in care what we think. Taxes on anything are passed to the consumer. Always impacting the poor disproportionately. You can only squeeze so much in taxes out of the rich before there ain't no rich no more (as the song goes).

That being said, continuing to dump large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere is probably a bad idea.

If the AGW crowd hadn't started off their campaign with hysteria and half-truths (I'm looking at you, Al Gore) we wouldn't be pissing our time away discussing this.

The solutions need to start now. Nuclear power is what we have that works. Get over the irrational fear and start getting the damn things on-line.

It will be an unknown number of years before solar, wind, and the storage technologies to make them viable are ready for large scale use.

Tidal generation is being neglected. Simpler technology and it provides 24/7 power close to the locations that need it.

We need to find alternatives to nuclear but in the meantime it is the best alternative to allow us the time to get other technologies in place.

Don't even start thinking about electric cars until you begin generating the electricity to support them.

808 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:07:56pm

re: #795 Desert Dog

Why are we not following France then and building nuclear plants like crazy? It would offer a real, tangible alternative to coal and diesel plants. Solar and wind are not ready to do that, are they?

Nuclear fear-mongering is high in this country. The French seem better educated in this area.

809 OldLineTexan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:08:20pm

re: #800 Thanos

Dunno Friend, I"ve been calling for more nuclear energy for more than twenty years.

You know why ... the anti-nuke folks won the media debate years ago by scaring the crap out of Joe Public.

810 tradewind  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:08:23pm

re: #805 freetoken

And here's your cracker, Polly.
We'll just have to disagree.

811 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:08:27pm

re: #792 freetoken

Be very careful. I suspect Instaliarpundit is not comparing same occupations in same locales with same experience.

Agreed. Instahack. Instaputz. He's earned those nicknames, sadly.

heh, indeed, as some would say...

812 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:08:32pm

re: #783 Desert Dog

I like that you favor using nuclear energy to help stem the demand and need for carbon fuels. But, in the current political climate, it is very hard to even talk about expanding our nuclear energy capabilities, let alone actually start building reactors.

I don't understand why the Dems are against nuclear energy. I assume its based on nothing more than that was the traditional plank back in the 1970's. I know the GOP is not against it, but nor have I seen them devote much effort into advocating for nuclear energy.

813 Mich-again  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:08:34pm

re: #799 Killgore Trout

questionable math.

Grasshopper, math is never questionable. It is either correct or incorrect. Assumptions and measurements on the other hand can be questionable.

814 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:08:45pm

re: #701 Coracle

A meter over the century, so probably a foot or so. But I'm becoming convinced that's lowball. I really don't think I'd want to be be on South Beach or the barrier islands at high tide in a few decades. Of course, I'd love to be wrong on that.

Yeah but isn't the IPCC prediction a curve, with most of the rise later in the century? So, a meter for the whole century might be 8 inches for the first 1/3, 13 inches for the second third and 18 inches for the last third for a total of 39 inches and an -- more or less -- constant second derivative of sea level.

By the way, their low end is 7 inches for the whole century, right? That's even lower than the current rate so I'm a bit surprised.

815 jaunte  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:09:52pm

re: #802 Jetpilot1101

Sure, I'm just pointing out that the charted average didn't include military at all.

816 Ziggy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:10:13pm

re: #775 Flyers1974

I assume you're joking about the Colorado/beach front property thing. But aside from that, you're assuming that destroying the economy is essential to addressing global warming. And we won't get China and the rest to do anything if the US public is still debating the existence of global warming.

Yes, I was joking about the Colorado beach front property and if there were ways to keep the environment healthy (and improve it) without wrecking the economy, great, I'm all for it. But china will never do anything different that doesn't benefit them financially, militarily, or increase their global power in anyway. The truth of the matter is, I'm a simpleton who doesn't know what to believe anymore. So I do my best to do my part and I don't worry about it. I just find it hard to believe that the crisis is that bad, or that there is a crisis at all. It reminds me of the George Carlin bit... when the earth is done with us, it will just shake us off.

817 blangwort  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:10:25pm

re: #797 Thanos

Your choice is to do nothing and whatever happens, happens. Or you can choose to try something and see what it does. Granted, we're talking about experimenting with our own living space --But we're doing that now anyway just by living on this planet.

We do have estimates of the amount of Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and CFCs we have let loose in to the atmosphere. Why not make an effort to neutralize those amounts?

818 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:10:27pm

re: #696 ArmyWife

the downding was for heritage foundation
sourcewatch i'm unfamiliar with

819 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:10:51pm

Looks like the Somali Al Qaeda franchise plotted to kill Hillary Clinton last month. Bombings targeting her were "foiled at the last minute".

RADICAL Islamist al-Shabaab militants linked to al-Qa'ida and based in Somalia plotted to kill US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her trip to Africa last month, it was disclosed yesterday.

A planned series of bomb attacks set to take place in Nairobi, the capital of neighbouring Kenya, while Mrs Clinton was there - one in the hotel where she was staying - was foiled at the last minute, media reports, citing senior security officials, said.

"Al-Qa'ida wanted to strike at the heart of Nairobi (while Mrs Clinton was here)," the senior security official was quoted as saying, adding that Kenyan authorities intercepted communications between the plotters in war-ravaged Somalia and their operatives in Nairobi, which has a large emigre Somali population.

Five suspected al-Shabaab terrorists were arrested, including a man believed to be a Somali carrying a Danish passport. The four other suspects seized, including a woman, had what appeared to be false Kenyan identity documents, according to the reports.

820 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:11:02pm

re: #805 freetoken

Glenn Reynolds has turned from one of the early innovators of the web into one of the better known propagandistson the web.

Completely true.
In fact, there are a few posters in the progosphere who share the nic "Malfunctioning Glenn Reynolds Robot" and post comments filled with "Heh indeed Read the whole thing Heh indeed (GOP talking point) Heh Indeed"

It still makes me laugh when I see it.

821 OldLineTexan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:12:09pm

re: #819 karmic_inquisitor

Was a snook mentioned?

/

822 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:12:14pm

re: #783 Desert Dog

I like that you favor using nuclear energy to help stem the demand and need for carbon fuels. But, in the current political climate, it is very hard to even talk about expanding our nuclear energy capabilities, let alone actually start building reactors.

Which is why I said wind and solar first. I truly believe the triumvirate needs to start moving simultaneously, but the wind and solar can get the popular backing faster. Nuclear will need intensive non-partisan education and a some years to win over enough support.

823 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:12:47pm

re: #803 iceweasel

Fair enough, and that's nice of you. But isn't it interesting that at least 3 individual posters in this thread spontaneously noted that it's a pattern?
I'm just saying there might be a reason why we did.

I can't include myself as one of those people. The only pattern I have notice between Buzzsawmankey and certain other Lizards is they can't hold a candle to his debating skills.

On any given topic, whether he is actually right, wrong or in between, he can "out logic" almost anyone here.

And, if you are missing that fact, than that is all the more proof that he is damn good at it.

That's the only reason why anyone would see Buzzsawmonkey's debating technique as problematic, they can't hold their own in the debate.

824 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:12:58pm

re: #753 Coracle

That's scale dependent. Compare 00-02 to 06-08, no. But is that a valid time scale? I'd have to look into it more thoroughly. Is the trend frokm 94 to '08 significantly different than, say, 74 to 88? The data is not shown in those plots.

Yes. This is important. Measuring sea level with precision is hugely tricky so I'm not sure we can get the data we'd like to have.

825 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:13:57pm

re: #822 Coracle

Which is why I said wind and solar first. I truly believe the triumvirate needs to start moving simultaneously, but the wind and solar can get the popular backing faster. Nuclear will need intensive non-partisan education and a some years to win over enough support.

Good answer. Basically what I was thinking but couldn't express.

826 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:15:01pm

re: #816 Ziggy

Yes, I was joking about the Colorado beach front property and if there were ways to keep the environment healthy (and improve it) without wrecking the economy, great, I'm all for it. But china will never do anything different that doesn't benefit them financially, militarily, or increase their global power in anyway. The truth of the matter is, I'm a simpleton who doesn't know what to believe anymore. So I do my best to do my part and I don't worry about it. I just find it hard to believe that the crisis is that bad, or that there is a crisis at all. It reminds me of the George Carlin bit... when the earth is done with us, it will just shake us off.

Its hard not to agree with that statement. I don't think the Chinese government denies global warming, in fact I believe they are concerned. Whether that would translate into actual action on their part, may well be a different story.

827 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:15:04pm

re: #784 experiencedtraveller

You enjoy the cheapest, cleanest energy that any human has ever enjoyed yet you sit here and snipe at those that provide it to you.

Cleanest my ass. And yes, I do snipe. They are cutting off their own futures and ours for their 30 month - or shorter - bottom lines. Exxon/BP/You name it, they should be the ones building the solar farms in NV and AZ. They should be the ones siting wind farms east of the rockies. But they've decided to go the other way instead.

828 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:15:44pm

re: #803 iceweasel

Yeah. It very well could be he recognized it was melting rather quickly, and decided to excuse himself instead of becoming a train wreck.

Buzz can handle himself, he does not need me to speak for him, nor am I really attempting to. But for a number of years now, there are people who I have come to respect. I freely admit, when I got here a while ago, I was mad as a brahma bull with his ass soaked in turpentine.

Watching other folks debate it out over the years has chilled that side of me. I have learned to sit back, and absorb with my emotions taking a back seat.

He is surely one of those people I credit with it.

829 OldLineTexan  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:16:56pm

re: #812 Flyers1974

I don't understand why the Dems are against nuclear energy. I assume its based on nothing more than that was the traditional plank back in the 1970's. I know the GOP is not against it, but nor have I seen them devote much effort into advocating for nuclear energy.

The Dems have strategists with websites like this.

The Repubs are no doubt scared it would blow up in their faces.

/

830 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:17:17pm

re: #823 Walter L. Newton


That's the only reason why anyone would see Buzzsawmonkey's debating technique as problematic, they can't hold their own in the debate.

That has not been my observation, and I am not alone in that. But I don't think it would be particularly nice or fair to him to continue to discuss him when he isn't here. I'd much rather do it when he is here and can defend himself.
Also, I don't see any reason why you and I have to agree on everything. ;)

831 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:18:14pm

re: #828 formercorpsman

instead of it becoming a train wreck.

done on the subject.

832 The Shadow Do  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:18:26pm

re: #822 Coracle

Which is why I said wind and solar first. I truly believe the triumvirate needs to start moving simultaneously, but the wind and solar can get the popular backing faster. Nuclear will need intensive non-partisan education and a some years to win over enough support.

Wind and solar are but a fart in the wind of the problem until some as yet unknown storage mechanism appears. The power production is fleeting and unpredictable. You can dump more coal in the burners on a hot day, while you must pray for wind or a nice sunny day otherwise. Isn't this obvious?

833 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:18:53pm

re: #830 iceweasel

That has not been my observation, and I am not alone in that. But I don't think it would be particularly nice or fair to him to continue to discuss him when he isn't here. I'd much rather do it when he is here and can defend himself.
Also, I don't see any reason why you and I have to agree on everything. ;)

You agree on my butt, after that, really, what is there, that's the world, why, that's the MOON (bad pun) :)

834 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:19:10pm

re: #814 Pythagoras

Yeah but isn't the IPCC prediction a curve, with most of the rise later in the century? So, a meter for the whole century might be 8 inches for the first 1/3, 13 inches for the second third and 18 inches for the last third for a total of 39 inches and an -- more or less -- constant second derivative of sea level.

By the way, their low end is 7 inches for the whole century, right? That's even lower than the current rate so I'm a bit surprised.

Error bars are significant factors. It is a recognition that models are imperfect. I know we disagree on this. From what I've been reading, I just don't have the confidence that the low end of the predictions is the correct end.

835 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:21:17pm

re: #833 Walter L. Newton

You agree on my butt, after that, really, what is there, that's the world, why, that's the MOON (bad pun) :)

You're cracked.

836 Van Helsing  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:21:26pm

re: #822 Coracle

Which is why I said wind and solar first. I truly believe the triumvirate needs to start moving simultaneously, but the wind and solar can get the popular backing faster. Nuclear will need intensive non-partisan education and a some years to win over enough support.

If the problem is as urgent as stated, we don't have 'some years' to educate people about nuclear.

Any more then we have an unknown number of years to develop wind, solar and storage technologies that will make them viable alternatives to support a constantly growing demand for power.

Nuclear energy works now.

837 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:21:29pm

re: #833 Walter L. Newton

You agree on my butt, after that, really, what is there, that's the world, why, that's the MOON (bad pun) :)

Exactly! We can agree on the important things! ;)

We need a clip of that scene from It's A Wonderful life about lassoing the moon... "You want the moon? I'll lasso the moon and give it to you Mary!"

838 Ziggy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:21:41pm

re: #826 Flyers1974

Its hard not to agree with that statement. I don't think the Chinese government denies global warming, in fact I believe they are concerned. Whether that would translate into actual action on their part, may well be a different story.


Beautiful, I'm glad we could agree in something before I sign off and hit the rack. This whole thing is over my head and I shouldn't have opened my big mouth in the first place. Have a great night and I think I've told you before, I loved the Broad Street Bullies back in the day. Dave "the Hammer" Schultz was the man!

839 EndlessBob  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:22:15pm

re: #804 Coracle

Same old recycled arguments. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned. It's basic physics and chemistry. More of it traps more heat. That in the past, other cycles (Milankovitch etc) drive cycles of warming and cooling is not in question either, and the response of additional CO2 release and additional warming from CO2 release is not new or surprising.

Today we have CO2 and other GHGs being produced by humanity adding a warming influence

natural cycles. It's really that simple in a nutshell, but if you want to get into the nitty gritty, the research is all there. Hundreds, thousands of papers of it.

Nobody is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's just that it's the weakest of the Big Three (H2O vapor, SO2 and CO2). CO2 is at 387 ppm, and the human-contributed part of that is about 5%, or about 19 ppm. The geologic record shows that there have times times when the Earth was cooler than it is now and the CO2 levels were much higher. How does one account for that? More handwaving away of the data?

I also noticed that you also had no mechanism for what turned around the Vostok warming cycles, if they were indeed CO2-magnified. One can't have it both ways: if the CO2 took over from the "unknown cause" that started the warming, why didn't the global temps run away?

The scientific answer to that question is "because the CO2 wasn't causing the warming."

It's ironic that you would post about "the same old recycled arguments," when your best argument is "That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned."

No, it hasn't been questioned. What has been questioned is "Is it causing the observed warming to date?"

That question is still unanswered, but all geologic indicators are that the answer is "no."

840 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:23:08pm

re: #832 The Shadow Do

Wind and solar are but a fart in the wind of the problem until some as yet unknown storage mechanism appears. The power production is fleeting and unpredictable. You can dump more coal in the burners on a hot day, while you must pray for wind or a nice sunny day otherwise. Isn't this obvious?

That is simply wrong. I've posted links several times in different threads here. We have the tech today to begin implementing a solar+wind+storage solution that will fulfill over 60% of the US total demand within 30 years - assuming no breakthroughs in any tech at all.

841 formercorpsman  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:24:26pm

Goodnight.

842 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:24:54pm

re: #836 Van Helsing

If the problem is as urgent as stated, we don't have 'some years' to educate people about nuclear.

Any more then we have an unknown number of years to develop wind, solar and storage technologies that will make them viable alternatives to support a constantly growing demand for power.

Nuclear energy works now.

What is your plan for ramming nuclear down the throat of a public that, rightly or wrongly is not ready for it, then? As for the rest of your post, see my #840.

843 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:25:10pm

re: #812 Flyers1974

I don't understand why the Dems are against nuclear energy. I assume its based on nothing more than that was the traditional plank back in the 1970's. I know the GOP is not against it, but nor have I seen them devote much effort into advocating for nuclear energy.

The GOP is as clueless on nuke science as any member of Friends of the Earth. Just as they seem to be clueless about any field of science.

844 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:26:05pm

re: #839 EndlessBob

Of course, you also seem to think Barack Obama was plotting to poison the minds of America's schoolchildren, so why in the world would your comments about the science of global warming be considered credible?

845 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:26:43pm

re: #838 Ziggy

Beautiful, I'm glad we could agree in something before I sign off and hit the rack. This whole thing is over my head and I shouldn't have opened my big mouth in the first place. Have a great night and I think I've told you before, I loved the Broad Street Bullies back in the day. Dave "the Hammer" Schultz was the man!

Notice that after they tradede him, the Flyers never won another cup.

846 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:27:18pm

re: #837 iceweasel

Exactly! We can agree on the important things! ;)

We need a clip of that scene from It's A Wonderful life about lassoing the moon... "You want the moon? I'll lasso the moon and give it to you Mary!"

That's our up coming Christmas show at the theatre "A Radio Wonderful Life" which is 5 actors and a sound effect guy on stage in a simulated 1940's radio studio doing 120 characters in the story.

They are going to pull me out of my control booth and throw me on stage to play the sound effects/stage manger part.

I'm gonna have to cut my hair back to 1940's business cut. It's down over my shoulders right now.

847 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:28:03pm

re: #844 Charles

Of course, you also seem to think Barack Obama was plotting to poison the minds of America's schoolchildren, so why in the world would your comments about the science of global warming be considered credible?

I'm sure he has a lot to offer on the subject of flouride in our tap water...

848 Van Helsing  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:28:08pm

re: #842 Coracle

What is your plan for ramming nuclear down the throat of a public that, rightly or wrongly is not ready for it, then? As for the rest of your post, see my #840.

I'd start by reminding the Californians of the rolling blackouts they had the happiness of experiencing. Then I believe some of the people that have been most outspoken regarding AGW should point out that for right now nuclear is the best solution and that the safety record of the industry in this and other countries is really quite good.

849 Ziggy  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:28:44pm

re: #845 Flyers1974

Notice that after they tradede him, the Flyers never won another cup.


That did not go un-noticed. I miss the old days (in many ways other than hockey)

850 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:29:34pm

re: #823 Walter L. Newton

I can't include myself as one of those people. The only pattern I have notice between Buzzsawmankey and certain other Lizards is they can't hold a candle to his debating skills.

On any given topic, whether he is actually right, wrong or in between, he can "out logic" almost anyone here.

And, if you are missing that fact, than that is all the more proof that he is damn good at it.

That's the only reason why anyone would see Buzzsawmonkey's debating technique as problematic, they can't hold their own in the debate.

Yes sure , Walter - that's the only reason anyone would have a problem with a debating technique that involves abandoning the argument and spewing a load of personal invective at the opposition. The fact is that buzzsaw does this on a regular basis - you may not have noticed but despite his verbose flourishes, he actually isn't that good at debating, especially it seems, where religion is involved, ironically enough.

851 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:30:49pm

re: #848 Van Helsing

I'd start by reminding the Californians of the rolling blackouts they had the happiness of experiencing. Then I believe some of the people that have been most outspoken regarding AGW should point out that for right now nuclear is the best solution and that the safety record of the industry in this and other countries is really quite good.

The decision making is going to be left up to the nonexperts, and they're not going to just take experts word on it that it's safe. These people need to get educated first.

852 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:30:51pm

re: #775 Flyers1974

I just left a business conference that included business people from China and India. They won't do anything regardless of what we do, and said as much. Why? Because they want their countries to make money. There is no fluff hidden in that message - NONE. They don't give a rat's patoot what we do - in fact, that is wrong. Let me self correct. They LOVE when we attack companies and impose this kind of stuff on them here - it makes the Chinese and Indian market shares go up. I almost forgot China was Communist, to be honest, what with their incredible desire to earn a ton of money.

853 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:31:39pm

re: #847 Basho

I'm sure he has a lot to offer on the subject of flouride in our tap water...

I bet it 'causes autism' according to someone out there...

854 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:32:07pm

re: #839 EndlessBob

Nobody is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's just that it's the weakest of the Big Three (H2O vapor, SO2 and CO2). CO2 is at 387 ppm, and the human-contributed part of that is about 5%, or about 19 ppm. The geologic record shows that there have times times when the Earth was cooler than it is now and the CO2 levels were much higher. How does one account for that? More handwaving away of the data?


Source for that 5% number, please.

I also noticed that you also had no mechanism for what turned around the Vostok warming cycles, if they were indeed CO2-magnified. One can't have it both ways: if the CO2 took over from the "unknown cause" that started the warming, why didn't the global temps run away?

Earth's climates have many buffers. It didn't run away in the Cretaceous, either, but we had inland seas in what would become continental US. I'd rather not, thank you.

The scientific answer to that question is "because the CO2 wasn't causing the warming."

No. CO2 may not have initiated ancient warming cycles. But that is not applicable to the case today, when it is providing a clear forcing factor.

That question is still unanswered, but all geologic indicators are that the answer is "no."

Simply false. The geologic and climate evidence does not support you.

855 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:32:54pm

re: #834 Coracle

Error bars are significant factors. It is a recognition that models are imperfect. I know we disagree on this. From what I've been reading, I just don't have the confidence that the low end of the predictions is the correct end.

Actually, I wouldn't say I disagree; I just don't know. But the Onus Probandi is on the folks who want to change our lives. They don't know either.

I'll admit right here that I'm starting to get a bit scared about something else I just don't know. What the heck is going on with the sun? NASA's decreasing magnetism chart is kinda creepy.

[Link: science.nasa.gov...]

I was at a conference recently where a senior NASA scientist gave a seminar on Space Weather. I talked to her afterwords and, while she was very careful with her public statements, she was not sanguine about the future of climate with respect to solar changes. She clearly believed that the sun is not a minor player in climate change.

OT but when you say "South Beach," which one?

856 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:36:04pm

re: #850 Jimmah

Yes sure , Walter - that's the only reason anyone would have a problem with a debating technique that involves abandoning the argument and spewing a load of personal invective at the opposition. The fact is that buzzsaw does this on a regular basis - you may not have noticed but despite his verbose flourishes, he actually isn't that good at debating, especially it seems, where religion is involved, ironically enough.

He knows more about Torah than most people on this blog, including myself. I said what I had to say about him, and I stick by what I said.

You don't like Buzzsawmonkey's style, his debating ability, his knowledge, that's fine.

857 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:37:49pm

re: #844 Charles

Of course, you also seem to think Barack Obama was plotting to poison the minds of America's schoolchildren, so why in the world would your comments about the science of global warming be considered credible?

Ah. Thanks Charles. I won't waste any more effort there.

858 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:39:24pm

re: #848 Van Helsing

I'd start by reminding the Californians of the rolling blackouts they had the happiness of experiencing. Then I believe some of the people that have been most outspoken regarding AGW should point out that for right now nuclear is the best solution and that the safety record of the industry in this and other countries is really quite good.

I think that might be a god start. I predict 5 years minimum to have any real impact.

859 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:39:56pm

re: #802 Jetpilot1101

Even Officer's pay isn't that fantastic, but it isn't poverty either. Neither is NCO pay (though less than officer). You can look up what my husband makes (E8, 19 years). With BAH, its about $78,000/yr. Not Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous, but livable. It is less (and I'd say a bit more than 3.5%) than the outside based on my career. I've only been working 10 years and I make a little over 2 times his salary (with BAH). I'd say the Army is a bit behind the payscale ball, there! ;)

860 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:41:15pm

re: #685 buzzsawmonkey

Not wishing to speak for anyone? Yet you seem to be impelled to, don't you?

You are not the person from whom an answer was requested, but thank you for attempting to play.

LVQ answered you in 320. It's not anyone else's fault that you don't like the answer.

Your question was very silly, and it also gets close to a topic that many of us here find incomprehensible. Essentially, you asked LVQ to either renounce his vocation or his faith as though it was some sort of zero-sum game.

861 meh130  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:42:51pm

Sorry. This guy loses it with his use of loaded language ("deniers" not "skeptics").

Climate Change Denier is a term specifically taken from the Holocaust Deniers, and portends a moral equivalence between climate change skeptics and Nazi sympathizers.

The use of the term is a form of Godwin's Law.

Sinclair may have facts on his side, but he is a Godwin's Lawer.

By the way, I love the way Sinclair uses Patrick Michaels speech at the Heartland Institute to prove his point. Michaels points out the reference year, 1998, was " ... a huge El-Nino year, and the sun was very active in 1998."

Really? You mean the heat in 1998 was caused in large part by the El-Nino and the sun? If so, what does that mean for all of the climate models which built their predictions based on the data in outlier year 1998 compared to earlier, cooler year.

Then Sinclair compares the NASA data to the El-Nino data and intentionally excludes the El-Nino impact on 2005, which he points out is the hottest year on record.

Finally Sinclair points to the 1991 anomaly, where Mt Pinatubo's cooling actually wiped out the El-Nino.

Okay, so we have a cooling anomaly in 1991, and a warming anomaly in 1998. Hockey stick, anyone? Scaremonger using two outlier data points, anyone? Attack using Godwin's Law anyone who dares to have a different opinion from canon, no matter how slight the difference?

Sinclair is anti nuclear energy (click here). It is simply impossible to generate enough low-carbon electrical power, even with aggressive conservation, to keep the United States competitive in the information age, without nuclear power, period. (More on this subject here)

One last thing. Sinclair is not a climatologist. He is an artist, cartoonist, and independent filmmaker. He is also has some completely unhinged friends, as Anthony Watts found out the hard way, after Sinclair did a video on Watts' Surface Stations project (and in the process, violated Watts' copyright).

As Charles like to say, read the whole thing:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/

862 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:43:01pm

re: #716 hebrewtoyou

Thanks. That's the gist of what I was trying to get at in my critique of LVQ's commentary. It's easy for an incredibly knowledgeable person to present facts; it's not-so-easy for those facts to be presented in a way that appears sincere.

What do facts have to do with sincerity? The data speaks for itself.

863 lostlakehiker  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:43:13pm

re: #100 Chekote

I am trying to sort through this global warming issue. Clearly, the global termperatures have increased. Also CO2 levels have increased. There is a correlation. However, as the video shows several factors can affect global temperature. So how do we know that global warming is solely man made or that man is the biggest factor? I am sincerely looking for answers. Please don't blast me.

It's not easy to prove that man is the biggest factor. It's easy to prove that we are something of a factor*, and it's easy to see that from what we now know, there is every chance that we're the main factor. There's no attributing it all to changes in solar activity, or too little volcanic activity, or changes in the earth's orbit.

The sun is in a quiet stretch when it comes to sunspots. Going by history, that should be making things a bit cooler if anything. The changes in the orbit and inclination ought to be taking us back toward a cooler climate. We've had enough volcanic activity to give the usual bursts of cooling.

That leaves either ourselves, or some unknown and subtle factor that we haven't yet understood.

* CO2 really is a greenhouse gas. Levels really are higher than before the industrial revolution. Volcanic bursts of CO2 emission are mere pimples on the quiet and regular graph of year-over-year increase in world CO2 levels.
Those levels fit nicely with the known rate at which industry and land clearing ought to cause them to rise. We are definitely the cause of rising atmospheric CO2. Greenhouse gases can have a major effect on climate, even if they're only a small fraction of the atmosphere, for the same reason that a little squid ink can have a major effect on the transparency of a patch of ocean. It pays to keep in mind that the seemingly clear night sky is not so clear in the infrared, the frequency at which hot desert sands radiate they day's energy back into space. [Or don't, to whatever extent the IR window is obscured by CO2.]

So how could we not be the cause? Increased CO2 can affect plant growth. Plants increase the rate at which rainfall is sent back into the sky---to evaporation from puddles, add transpiration through plant leaves. And clouds also affect climate. This is a terribly complex system and there remains the possibility that this side of the effects of CO2 might somehow tend to cool things off. And then, some sort of other natural climatic forcing chain of cause and effect is making things heat up. Kind of thin, eh?

864 Flyers1974  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:43:23pm

re: #852 ArmyWife

I just left a business conference that included business people from China and India. They won't do anything regardless of what we do, and said as much. Why? Because they want their countries to make money. There is no fluff hidden in that message - NONE. They don't give a rat's patoot what we do - in fact, that is wrong. Let me self correct. They LOVE when we attack companies and impose this kind of stuff on them here - it makes the Chinese and Indian market shares go up. I almost forgot China was Communist, to be honest, what with their incredible desire to earn a ton of money.

[Link: 74.125.113.132...]

2007 article. China's traditional policy regarding taking action is wait until the US takes action. That policy shows signs of evolving.

865 van helsing  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:43:33pm

re: #858 Coracle

I think that might be a god start. I predict 5 years minimum to have any real impact.

Thanks.
I'd be interested in the links you've got on storage mechanisms. So far what I've seen on anything that might scale up sufficiently is a long way out.

866 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:43:36pm

re: #827 Coracle

Cleanest my ass. And yes, I do snipe. They are cutting off their own futures and ours for their 30 month - or shorter - bottom lines. Exxon/BP/You name it, they should be the ones building the solar farms in NV and AZ. They should be the ones siting wind farms east of the rockies. But they've decided to go the other way instead.

Then GO MAKE YOUR OWN and make some for your 6.7 billion neighbors. Who is powering your PC right now?

Your 30 month ROI is not true. Budget items for any significant investment are longer than 30 months. Practically every refinery ever built is still in operation. Why? Because its economical and efficient power production for a growing population.

You are making sweeping statement about an industry I suspect you do not know a lot about.

Whatever your concerns (and knowledge) about GW are you need to recognize the reality of our power production and propose solutions accordingly.

And apologies I must sign off but I hope to see you down the road.

867 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:43:48pm

re: #855 Pythagoras

Actually, I wouldn't say I disagree; I just don't know. But the Onus Probandi is on the folks who want to change our lives. They don't know either.

I'll admit right here that I'm starting to get a bit scared about something else I just don't know. What the heck is going on with the sun? NASA's decreasing magnetism chart is kinda creepy.

[Link: science.nasa.gov...]

I was at a conference recently where a senior NASA scientist gave a seminar on Space Weather. I talked to her afterwords and, while she was very careful with her public statements, she was not sanguine about the future of climate with respect to solar changes. She clearly believed that the sun is not a minor player in climate change.

OT but when you say "South Beach," which one?

I'm not too worried about the solar cycle. We might "miss" this solar max, but the guys I know in the field aren't freaked about it. The nigling question I have is how the sun will "wake up". Will it just resume the cycle, like after the Maunder minimum, or will it have some kind of minor fit with a boatload of big flares. That's something I'd like to ask them for their opinions on, actually.

As for "which South Beach", my answer is "there's more than one?" I was thinking FL.

868 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:45:26pm

re: #861 meh130

Sorry. This guy loses it with his use of loaded language ("deniers" not "skeptics").

Climate Change Denier is a term specifically taken from the Holocaust Deniers, and portends a moral equivalence between climate change skeptics and Nazi sympathizers.

The use of the term is a form of Godwin's Law.

That's bullshit right from the start.

869 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:46:12pm

re: #724 yochanan

they would have to come from the same computer i.p.

Not necessarily. I've got more than one IP address coming in to my house. Or I can hop my neighbor's wireless or use a proxy or other anonymizer.

IP address is generally a tell, but it's not a given. :)

870 Basho  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:47:07pm

re: #868 Coracle

Beat me to it. Not even going to answer that moronic debate tactic.

871 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:47:29pm

re: #856 Walter L. Newton

He knows more about Torah than most people on this blog, including myself. I said what I had to say about him, and I stick by what I said.

You don't like Buzzsawmonkey's style, his debating ability, his knowledge, that's fine.

I don't dispute his knowledge of the Torah. But you only have to look upthread to see a prime example of what's wrong with his debating ability. Abandon the argument - then spew insults. At the end of the day, there's really not much to be said for that as a debating technique is there?

872 ArmyWife  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:47:57pm

re: #864 Flyers1974

Someone ought to let the Chinese chemical and energy execs know. ;)

873 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:48:31pm

re: #865 van helsing

Thanks.
I'd be interested in the links you've got on storage mechanisms. So far what I've seen on anything that might scale up sufficiently is a long way out.

Sodium batteries work (on a large scale (they're hot), but they're talking about developing fridge-sized ones for even domestic use). Also heat reservoirs (water, other materials) are a basic way to store solar power for night time or low-sun periods. But those are just two off the top of my head.

874 deacon  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:49:12pm

All the proof for global warming you need.

Ice Caps Melting

875 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:51:14pm

re: #861 meh130

Sorry. This guy loses it with his use of loaded language ("deniers" not "skeptics").

Climate Change Denier is a term specifically taken from the Holocaust Deniers, and portends a moral equivalence between climate change skeptics and Nazi sympathizers.

The use of the term is a form of Godwin's Law.

False. "Denier" is perfectly applicable and has nothing to do with the Holocaust or a violation of Godwin's Law. They are called 'deniers' because they deny the evidence and refuse to look at it. Genuinle sceptics are open to the evidence and they are persuaded by it upon looking.

The term 'sceptic' has been co-opted by the deniers in their attempt to steal the trappings of science and objectivity, and present themselves as the truly objective and reasonable, while claiming that the actual scientists are member of a cult, or a religion, or somehow blindly accepting claims on faith.

This is exactly like the creationist move of claiming that there is something called 'Darwinism' which scientists 'worship'. It is an attempt to invert reality.

876 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:51:26pm

Again and again, the same tired BS.

Yes, Virginia, there really are climate denialists.

877 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:52:19pm

re: #867 Coracle

I'm not too worried about the solar cycle. We might "miss" this solar max, but the guys I know in the field aren't freaked about it. The nigling question I have is how the sun will "wake up". Will it just resume the cycle, like after the Maunder minimum, or will it have some kind of minor fit with a boatload of big flares. That's something I'd like to ask them for their opinions on, actually.

As for "which South Beach", my answer is "there's more than one?" I was thinking FL.

I just don't know about the solar thing. We're gonna find out though! If this leads to any serious chilling, our inability to know when it will end will scare people like nothing else in modern history.

If.

There's a South Beach on Hilton Head Island.

878 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:54:03pm

re: #866 experiencedtraveller

Then GO MAKE YOUR OWN and make some for your 6.7 billion neighbors. Who is powering your PC right now?

I am. I made about 100kWh this past week. So I loaned some of it to the power company during the day, and they're giving it back to me tonight so I can type this to you. I don't think I'm 100% yet, but I'm working on it. My investment'll break even in ~6 years by my calcs. If it had taken 10, I'd still have done it. Because that's the horizon we need to look at. I've already talked to four neighbors about my setup. I'm hoping to lead by example. So should the power companies.

879 Wendya  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:54:14pm

re: #781 Coracle

Your scenario is based on quite a few assumptions. The foremost being that the only reaction to a carbon tax is to pass on the expense. Some companies will figure out ways to lower or eliminate their carbon profiles without causing such a big price hit. They will get more business and drive the competition to follow suit or die. Yes, my scenario is based on other assumptions. You show me how yours are more valid. Do you know exactly how a carbon tax would be applied? Could it not be applied in such a way to encourage my scenario?

I suppose I view mine as more valid because I actually own and operate a business. That gives me more than just a theoretical idea of how increased taxes harm the American business community. You know,those of us who provide jobs for other people?

880 van helsing  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:55:57pm

re: #873 Coracle

Sodium batteries work (on a large scale (they're hot), but they're talking about developing fridge-sized ones for even domestic use). Also heat reservoirs (water, other materials) are a basic way to store solar power for night time or low-sun periods. But those are just two off the top of my head.

Thanks.

I've looked at the info on sodium/sulfur batteries and they do indeed get hot. Not sure I'd want one in my house. They do think they can scale up to 10s of MWs, but that's still a long way from grid requirements. Also, they have a limited life-span.

In addition to capacity there are also issues simply because it can be days in some situations where the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

this is why I think tidal generation should be looked at much more closely. It's continuous generation and close to the points of consumption. Somewhere the DOE has a graph that shows that about half the electricity generated is lost in transmission. Local production of electricity becomes very important.

You still end up with a requirement for a great deal of on-demand generation. Right now, that's nuclear.

881 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:56:41pm

re: #878 Coracle

I am. I made about 100kWh this past week. So I loaned some of it to the power company during the day, and they're giving it back to me tonight so I can type this to you. I don't think I'm 100% yet, but I'm working on it. My investment'll break even in ~6 years by my calcs. If it had taken 10, I'd still have done it. Because that's the horizon we need to look at. I've already talked to four neighbors about my setup. I'm hoping to lead by example. So should the power companies.

Wow. With photovoltaics? Tell me more.

882 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:57:03pm

re: #879 Wendya

I suppose I view mine as more valid because I actually own and operate a business. That gives me more than just a theoretical idea of how increased taxes harm the American business community. You know,those of us who provide jobs for other people?

Yeah, sure. My spouse owns an LLC. But what do I know about small business.

883 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:57:21pm

re: #860 ~Fianna

Essentially, you asked LVQ to either renounce his vocation or his faith as though it was some sort of zero-sum game.

The question presented a false dichotomy, and subsequent claims that "this isn't what I think" and "I'm just curious about how LVQ reconciles these" were clear attempts to get out of the questions posed by Charles and others: Why does he even think this is a dichotomy?
And yes, it clearly was an attempt to portray it as a zero-sum game.

884 ~Fianna  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:59:21pm

re: #883 iceweasel

The question presented a false dichotomy, and subsequent claims that "this isn't what I think" and "I'm just curious about how LVQ reconciles these" were clear attempts to get out of the questions posed by Charles and others: Why does he even think this is a dichotomy?
And yes, it clearly was an attempt to portray it as a zero-sum game.

Which is just an odd and rather disturbing way to look at it.

My Gods gave me a brain to think with and eyes to see, blindly following because thinking might offend a god here or there isn't what they quite had in mind... at least I don't think so. If I'm wrong, will someone save a seat for me in Hades?

885 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 7:59:56pm

re: #881 Pythagoras

Wow. With photovoltaics? Tell me more.

Whaddya wanna know? I have 14 210 Watt panels on my roof. Late this month or early next, I'm getting a solar hot water system set up on another section of roof. That should cut 10-20% more of my electrical usage (not sure the exact number because I really don't know how much hot water we use on average).

886 Wendya  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:00:22pm

re: #827 Coracle

Cleanest my ass. And yes, I do snipe. They are cutting off their own futures and ours for their 30 month - or shorter - bottom lines. Exxon/BP/You name it, they should be the ones building the solar farms in NV and AZ. They should be the ones siting wind farms east of the rockies. But they've decided to go the other way instead.

If there was money to be made in solar and wind farms, you can bet your ass they'd be leading the way. They are, after all in the profit business. Instead, anyone interested in alternatives is going to spend years and a ton of money defending their interests in lawsuits filed by supposed "green" advocates who don't give a shit about the environment and are only concerned about their political agenda.

For example, we have a company that wanted to put up a wind farm out in the middle of nowhere in one of the few areas in my state that can provide the level of winds needed. You'd think the left wing greenies that inhabit my county would be thrilled to death but no... they fought it tooth and nail. You see, it's surrounded by BLM and state lands and they don't want the view marred when they drive their SUVs out to the sticks to gape at the sage brush. The so-called environmental groups led the charge to have the project killed.

887 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:02:28pm

re: #886 Wendya

I'd like to see the full up story on that. If it is as you say, then I'd say those groups were mistaken.

888 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:08:31pm

re: #885 Coracle

What did the panels cost? Where? I've used solar water heaters and they can work great. I'd recommend one of those fancy shower controls that's thermostatic.

889 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:09:56pm

re: #888 Pythagoras

What did the panels cost? Where? I've used solar water heaters and they can work great. I'd recommend one of those fancy shower controls that's thermostatic.

Would you mind if I blued my name for a short bit? I'd be happy to email you some details but don't want to get too location or identity specific online.

890 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:14:42pm

...er if I can figure out how to do it, that is.

891 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:20:59pm

re: #890 Coracle

...er if I can figure out how to do it, that is.

Click the checkbox that says "Show email..."

892 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:21:29pm

And clear the "Web site" line...

893 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:21:50pm

re: #717 buzzsawmonkey

Gee, I didn't realize you were the designated driver, or spokesman, or blatherboy. Show your credentials next time, and I'll give you the proper respect.

Missed this the first time and it deserves to be addressed.

Although Brave Sir Buzzsaw has left us for the evening, anyone who wants to present him as some sort of exemplar of 'logic' and 'reason', let alone civility, and believes his debating techniques to be stellar, ought to take a good long look at this as well as the rest of the thread. This is garbage.

And I will look forward to continuing the 'debate' over that any time, once Sir Buzzsaw rejoins us.

894 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:22:04pm

If you have something on the "Web site" line it overrides the email address.

895 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:24:55pm

re: #889 Coracle

Would you mind if I blued my name for a short bit? I'd be happy to email you some details but don't want to get too location or identity specific online.

I don't know what "blued" means. I clicked on your picture and it didn't display an email (yet). I'm not in the market for panels right now so this isn't worth the trouble.

896 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:24:59pm

Thanks. I must be having some kind of brainfart. I can't find the "show email" checkbox. Is it in the User Account page?

897 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:26:06pm

re: #895 Pythagoras

I don't know what "blued" means. I clicked on your picture and it didn't display an email (yet). I'm not in the market for panels right now so this isn't worth the trouble.

No prob. I can at least tell you the panels were from Evergreen Solar. I can't remember the brand name of the hot water system off the top of my head.

898 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:28:18pm

re: #896 Coracle

Thanks. I must be having some kind of brainfart. I can't find the "show email" checkbox. Is it in the User Account page?

Right next to the "Email" line in the comment form...

899 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:29:20pm

re: #898 Charles

Right next to the "Email" line in the comment form...

AHA! Genius! I think "brainfart" was an understatement. I blame... fatigue. I blame... Global warming!

900 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:30:30pm

re: #897 Coracle

No prob. I can at least tell you the panels were from Evergreen Solar. I can't remember the brand name of the hot water system off the top of my head.

Cool. I keep wondering when they'll be cost effective and your numbers are better than what I'd been seeing. I'll check out Evergreen.

If I put up solar panels, the ARB (architectural review board) in my community would show up with torches and pitchforks. They ban skylights and transoms over windows (honest). I love the Hilton Head area but some things are OCD.

901 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:32:08pm

re: #884 ~Fianna

Which is just an odd and rather disturbing way to look at it.

My Gods gave me a brain to think with and eyes to see, blindly following because thinking might offend a god here or there isn't what they quite had in mind... at least I don't think so. If I'm wrong, will someone save a seat for me in Hades?

Indeed. It amounts to a repudiation of Enlightenment values and the idea that God, if there is one, surely endowed us with reason so that we might use it. The first use of that argument I can recall is in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, 1641,-- or rather in his dedicatory letter to the Sorbonne.

It's interesting that the Catholic Church has had no problem reconciling reason and faith, or evolution and a belief in a creator, but for creationists and fundamentalists of all stripes there appears to be a distrust of reason and even the idea that it and science somehow threaten God.

902 The Left  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:32:42pm

re: #899 Coracle

AHA! Genius! I think "brainfart" was an understatement. I blame... fatigue. I blame... Global warming!

I blame Bush!

j/k ;)

903 Zoomie  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:32:44pm

Has global warming stopped 'sometime in the last decade'?

What if three out five of the primary data sources show a negative linear trend for the last ten years? Answer: I should be very suspicious of absolutist claims...

See 5 primary data sources

If you scroll half way down to the "Comparing global air temperature estimates" you can see summaries of the trend.

The annual linear trend, last ten years, for UAH MSU, RSS MSU and Had CRUT3 are negative. The last ten years annual linear trend for GISS and NCDC are positve.

The annual linear trend for all five sources for the last five years is negative.

This does not disprove AGW. Otherwise the IPCC would have already gone home. But it says they have a HELL of lot of explaining to do.

And check out those "Central England air temperature since 1659". I do not see the hockey stick explosion in temps.

904 Van Helsing  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:34:50pm

re: #900 Pythagoras

If I put up solar panels, the ARB (architectural review board) in my community would show up with torches and pitchforks. They ban skylights and transoms over windows (honest). I love the Hilton Head area but some things are OCD.

Torches, pitchforks... those were the days.
But seriously, you may want to verify with a lawyer but I believe there are regulations with regard to HOAs and such not being able to disallow energy saving devices. They may scream and bitch but it's along the same lines as satellite dishes.

905 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:35:18pm

re: #900 Pythagoras

Cool. I keep wondering when they'll be cost effective and your numbers are better than what I'd been seeing. I'll check out Evergreen.

If I put up solar panels, the ARB (architectural review board) in my community would show up with torches and pitchforks. They ban skylights and transoms over windows (honest). I love the Hilton Head area but some things are OCD.

We have a committee where I live as well. I had no problem for two reasons. One is I am devastatingly attractive and persuasive to both sexes, and the other is that energy projects like solar power trumps the local committees by either county or state rules. Since my name is blue you can now click on it and get my e-mail addy. Might as well, since I'll turn it back in a few minutes. Happy to talk about my solar experience any time.

906 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:42:30pm

re: #903 Zoomie

Has global warming stopped 'sometime in the last decade'?

What if three out five of the primary data sources show a negative linear trend for the last ten years? Answer: I should be very suspicious of absolutist claims...

See 5 primary data sources

If you scroll half way down to the "Comparing global air temperature estimates" you can see summaries of the trend.

The annual linear trend, last ten years, for UAH MSU, RSS MSU and Had CRUT3 are negative. The last ten years annual linear trend for GISS and NCDC are positve.

The annual linear trend for all five sources for the last five years is negative.

This does not disprove AGW. Otherwise the IPCC would have already gone home. But it says they have a HELL of lot of explaining to do.

And check out those "Central England air temperature since 1659". I do not see the hockey stick explosion in temps.

Single regions are not the best place to see global trends. I have no doubt we could find regions that have seen net decreases in avg temp over the last decades. The global average is where the climate trend is clear.

To me, at worst, we see something similar in the past decade as we did in the early 80's, late 80's, and in the late 90's. We see other cycles, such as the ENSO variation, overprinting on a constant gradual upper slope. You could have made exactly the same statement "Things are leveling off or cooling" in 1984, 1992, and 2000. You'd have been wrong every time.

907 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:53:04pm

re: #905 Coracle

We have a committee where I live as well. I had no problem for two reasons. One is I am devastatingly attractive and persuasive to both sexes, and the other is that energy projects like solar power trumps the local committees by either county or state rules. Since my name is blue you can now click on it and get my e-mail addy. Might as well, since I'll turn it back in a few minutes. Happy to talk about my solar experience any time.

Mine's not a committee. They changed my house design A LOT. Then again, I ain't so cute.

By the way, the email bounced. That's OK as I was using my work email and maybe should set up a gmail account first.

908 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 8:53:42pm

re: #903 Zoomie

Has global warming stopped 'sometime in the last decade'?

What if three out five of the primary data sources show a negative linear trend for the last ten years? Answer: I should be very suspicious of absolutist claims...

See 5 primary data sources

If you scroll half way down to the "Comparing global air temperature estimates" you can see summaries of the trend.

The annual linear trend, last ten years, for UAH MSU, RSS MSU and Had CRUT3 are negative. The last ten years annual linear trend for GISS and NCDC are positve.

The annual linear trend for all five sources for the last five years is negative.

This does not disprove AGW. Otherwise the IPCC would have already gone home. But it says they have a HELL of lot of explaining to do.

And check out those "Central England air temperature since 1659". I do not see the hockey stick explosion in temps.

I'm not the least bit surprised to find a creationist who's also a climate change denier.

909 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:00:27pm

re: #907 Pythagoras

By the way, the email bounced. That's OK as I was using my work email and maybe should set up a gmail account first.

Huh. That's odd. I just logged in to gmail to check and everything seemed OK. Let me know if you want to pursue it again. We'll find a way to make it work.

910 LifeTrek  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:11:23pm

Be nice if he:

1) Were intellectually honest enough to leave comments he disagreed with,
2) Went back more then 20 years in his charts,
and
3) Stopped picking on where people work -- this is science, if it is verifiable and repeatable then what does it matter where anyone works? It only demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the warming communities evidence when this is their fallback argument. It is very hard to sell a computer model as your main evidence, even harder when none of them predicted the drop after the 1998 spike. Even government funded scientists worry about where the money is coming from so stop it with that!
David

911 LifeTrek  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:13:18pm

FYI, yesterday he didn't allow dissenting comments, he appears to today.

912 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:17:46pm

re: #910 LifeTrek

How do you equate leaving factually challenged or derogatory comments as intellectual honesty? Do you have some personal insight into or evidence of scientifically credible disagreements being deleted?

Going back more than 20 years only makes the warming case stronger. Doubt it? Look at the journals.

"Picking on where people work" has relevance if much of the opposing viewpoint is funded by shills for specific industry with a denialist agenda.

But it sounds to me like your mind was made up before watching. So I'm not optimistic.

913 wkeller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:18:04pm

Just a couple thoughts:

Science by consensus is not science. There is ample data to bring support to both sides of this argument. I have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW. There are hundreds of scientists that firmly dispute the UN study claiming AGW is fact and not speculation.

It is simply truth that with the massive temperature drop in the earth's temperature last year, and its continued low value this year, if you look back only 11 years there has been no effective change in temperature.

The key to this is that no one knows why. No one. Current speculation seems to point to the Sun being very quiet past 2 years. The most quiet it has been in over 100 years. In fact some solar scientists now believe that solar cycle 24 was skipped altogether. And some speculate that we may be entering a new "little ice age" as in the late 1600s to the early 1800s. True? No one knows. There is much science to be done yet.

My point here is that if any one definitely states that global warming is occurring and that man is the cause – they are not a scientist. Scientific method simply forbids this kind of statement until a hypothesis has been tested and proven. That has not occurred in the case of global warming. There are hundreds of papers offering alternative views that simply can not be discarded because it does not fit the global warming story line.

It has not been proven that CO2 is a cause of global warming at all or that it is even a “green house gas”. Again, I am using the scientific definition of a “proof”. In fact, the largest single “green house gas” is water vapor – by orders of magnitude. Are we next going to cover the oceans with plastic to prevent evaporation?

Please, let the science continue, and a true scientific debate continue. But to categorically state that global warming exists insults everything science is.

914 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:22:01pm

re: #913 wkeller

Most of what you just posted is completely false.

It absolutely has been proven beyond all doubt that CO2 is:

1) a greenhouse gas (I can't believe you're going to dispute that!), and

2) a cause of global warming.

I have no idea why you folks think you can get away with stating outright falsehoods as if they were unquestioned facts.

915 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:27:03pm

re: #913 wkeller

Science by consensus is not science. There is ample data to bring support to both sides of this argument. I have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW. There are hundreds of scientists that firmly dispute the UN study claiming AGW is fact and not speculation.

Then this should be easy. Give me 10 articles from the last 5 years that "firmly argue against AGW."

It is simply truth that with the massive temperature drop in the earth's temperature last year, and its continued low value this year, if you look back only 11 years there has been no effective change in temperature.

It is simply true that this past year has been the La Nina cycle of ENSO, and it is over now. As I said in #906, we see something similar in the past decade as we did in the early 80's, late 80's, and in the late 90's. We see other cycles, such as the ENSO variation, overprinting on a constant gradual upper slope. You could have made exactly the same statement "there has been no effective change in temperature" in 1984, 1992, and 2000. You'd have been wrong every time.

The key to this is that no one knows why. No one.


Simply false.

Solar cycle speculations are exactly that. There is no evidence to show that solar cycle forcings are significant drivers of the current warming trend.

My point here is that if any one definitely states that global warming is occurring and that man is the cause – they are not a scientist.


That's bull from the get go. Many scientists - the vast majority, in fact, coclude that global warming is occurring, with mankind a significant, possibly dominant cause, precisely - and only - because that is what the science is telling us.


It has not been proven that CO2 is a cause of global warming at all or that it is even a “green house gas”.


That is complete crap. Basic phyiscs and chemistry.

Please, let the science continue, and a true scientific debate continue. But to categorically state that global warming exists insults everything science is.

With statements like the above, the only one insulting science here is you.

916 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:28:04pm

re: #913 wkeller

Reading over your post again -- this is a wonderful example of nearly every bogus anti-AGW talking point currently on the market. I think you left out the dreaded hockey stick, though.

917 Zoomie  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:31:07pm

re: #906 Coracle

Single regions are not the best place to see global trends. I have no doubt we could find regions that have seen net decreases in avg temp over the last decades. The global average is where the climate trend is clear.

To me, at worst, we see something similar in the past decade as we did in the early 80's, late 80's, and in the late 90's. We see other cycles, such as the ENSO variation, overprinting on a constant gradual upper slope. You could have made exactly the same statement "Things are leveling off or cooling" in 1984, 1992, and 2000. You'd have been wrong every time.

Single regions? The five primary data sources used by UN IPCC are shown. They are global, not regional.

I did not say things are leveling off. The data, five of the five, say the annual linear trend is cooler for the last five years. Three of the five say the trend is cooler for the last ten years. I am just a layman looking at the temperature results. I understand that many of the UN endorsed models still predict AGW. But the data clearly shows a cooling trend (five years) or leans toward a cooling trend (ten years, three of five data sets).

Best I recall from my undergrad physics, heat is energy that must be stored in excited molecules or transferred to another source. The heat in the teapot water escapes to the atmosphere or teapot, if not maintained by the fire. The heat in the atmosphere, over the last five years has not been maintained; it has dissipated, it has cooled, the heat energy has gone elsewhere. Most likely back to space. The CO2 has not been an effective warming blanket for the last five years. Strange. Even with more of the CO2 warming blanket wrapped like a cozie around the earth , the temperatures have trended down.

918 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:34:38pm

re: #909 Coracle

Huh. That's odd. I just logged in to gmail to check and everything seemed OK. Let me know if you want to pursue it again. We'll find a way to make it work.

I probably shouldn't do this with my work email anyway. Was the reason for this that you don't want to quote the price publicly?

I don't need it anyway. Thanks for trying. And thanks to Charles for the attentive moderating. How he puts up with this, I'll never know.

Meanwhile, the topic of the thread seems to have fizzled. JAXA just came out with the Sept. 7 Arctic Sea Ice extent and we're 584,844 km. sq. above last year on this date (you have to click on the download data button to get the numbers).

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

Now, I expect this to sag a bit but the minimum is still likely to be about a million km. sq. above 2007. "Back to linear, naturally," (to the tune of "Alone again, naturally").

By the way, JAXA updates their numbers sometime later in the day so my arithmetic will look wrong in a few hours. The current number is 5,324,688. The updates are generally upwards but not always. They tend to be a fraction of the delta from the previous day (+/- 20% or so). Sept 6th was 5,345,156 (final answer) so a revision of more than 4k km. sq. would be surprising.

I gotta get some work done.

Back later.

919 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:35:39pm

re: #910 LifeTrek

It is very hard to sell a computer model as your main evidence, even harder when none of them predicted the drop after the 1998 spike.
David

he explains the reasons for the spike and drop (e.g. el nino)

920 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:36:35pm

re: #917 Zoomie

Of course, you also think "intelligent design" creationism is a valid scientific theory -- so why in the world would anyone give any credence to your opinions about global warming?

921 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:36:51pm

re: #911 LifeTrek

FYI, yesterday he didn't allow dissenting comments, he appears to today.

what do you mean by dissenting comments? name-calling and such deserve to be removed (if that's the case)

922 Aye Pod  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:39:34pm

re: #913 wkeller

I favourited this because you don't often see a post as densely packed with complete bullshit as this. Seriously - it's hard to believe you even watched the video, or anything of a factual nature relating to this topic.

923 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:40:30pm

re: #913 wkeller

There is ample data to bring support to both sides of this argument. I have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW.

feel free to list a few of these papers

924 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:40:58pm

re: #917 Zoomie

Single regions? The five primary data sources used by UN IPCC are shown. They are global, not regional.


You singled out the Central England Air temperature as a specific example in support of your contention. Not only is it, in fact a non-representative single region, but it doesn't even support your case. The trends in all three measuremnts plotted there show rises in the last 3 decades, if not longer.


I did not say things are leveling off. The data, five of the five, say the annual linear trend is cooler for the last five years. Three of the five say the trend is cooler for the last ten years.

The same short term trends are visible in three other locations in all those plots. None of them reflect the long term trend, which is increasing.


I am just a layman looking at the temperature results.

And you seem to have little interest in listening to anyone who might not be a layman who doesn't share your preconceived conclusion.

Best I recall from my undergrad physics, heat is energy that must be stored in excited molecules or transferred to another source. ...

Look upthread for links to educate yourself. Your lack of basic understanding is readily apparent. You claim to be a layman, and you're right. You want to learn the facts? Learn the science? Go to AIP.org, or any one of the links in post #14 in this thread. Educate yourself. Then come back and we can talk nitty gritty.

925 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:42:16pm

re: #910 LifeTrek

Be nice if he:

2) Went back more then 20 years in his charts

David

how far back do you want him to go before you are convinced?

926 Gus  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:43:52pm

re: #917 Zoomie

The-temperatures-are-trending-upwards.

Even if it's ever so slightly. You have to look at the mapping. Where you see red that means an increase in temperature.

927 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:45:41pm

Zoomie's comments promoting "intelligent design" creationism:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

928 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:46:38pm

re: #918 Pythagoras

Thanks for the ijis link. I'm not surprised with the larger ice extent numbers this year. I don't know the influence of La Nina/El Nino on the arctic, but it makes some sense to me that there should be some. Still, the last 3 years all have lower minimum ices than the preceding 5. Something to keep watching, clearly.

929 LifeTrek  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:48:36pm

re: #912 Coracle

Wow, your first few words answered all -- "How do you equate leaving factually challenged..." as determined by you and the YouTuber of course. You have no idea what comments I am referencing or what they said.

Now, who did you say has their mind made up already? Oh yea, that would be you! You have no idea whether I am a global warming denier yet you assume I am.

I am a believer in the scientific method and attacking a persons employment as , "shills," is definitely intellectually dishonest and non scientific. It is nothing but a ploy to allow you to end the debate without having to do what I said earlier is hard, selling a computer model, proving it's validity, verifying the inputs, and convincing a skeptical public.

Stop it with that, do the hard work.

930 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:48:39pm

re: #913 wkeller

J There are hundreds of scientists that firmly dispute the UN study claiming AGW is fact and not speculation.

and there are many more that state otherwise

931 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:49:27pm

re: #916 Charles

Reading over your post again -- this is a wonderful example of nearly every bogus anti-AGW talking point currently on the market. I think you left out the dreaded hockey stick, though.

he probably doesn't speak canadian

932 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:52:25pm

re: #929 LifeTrek

I am a believer in the scientific method and attacking a persons employment as , "shills," is definitely intellectually dishonest and non scientific. It is nothing but a ploy to allow you to end the debate without having to do what I said earlier is hard, selling a computer model, proving it's validity, verifying the inputs, and convincing a skeptical public.

The Heartland Institute is absolutely a shill for the tobacco industry. They are infamous for circulating thoroughly discredited false claims about the dangers of smoking. And now they're circulating false claims about the dangers of climate change.

They're shills. Confirmed, dyed in the wool shills.

933 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:56:56pm

re: #929 LifeTrek

I am a believer in the scientific method and attacking a persons employment as , "shills," is definitely intellectually dishonest and non scientific. It is nothing but a ploy to allow you to end the debate without having to do what I said earlier is hard, selling a computer model, proving it's validity, verifying the inputs, and convincing a skeptical public.

Stop it with that, do the hard work.

here's some hard work
this is the Heartland Institute that you are defending

934 Gus  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:58:10pm

Somehow I don't think this will be solved until we get Dr. Bill O'Reilly, Dr. Glenn Beck, Dr. Michelle Malkin, Dr. Laura Ingraham, and Dr. Ed Morrisey to agree on the "science."

Oh, and Dr. Rush Limbaugh.

//

935 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 9:59:03pm

re: #929 LifeTrek

Wow, your first few words answered all -- "How do you equate leaving factually challenged..." as determined by you and the YouTuber of course. You have no idea what comments I am referencing or what they said.


Which is exactly why I asked the question I did. You have some insight as to what comments were deleted that denote "intellectual dishonesty"? Please, please do share them with us.

You have no idea whether I am a global warming denier yet you assume I am.


I certainly insinuate you sound like one, based on the statements you've been making. Are you saying you care to claim otherwise?

I am a believer in the scientific method and attacking a persons employment as , "shills," is definitely intellectually dishonest and non scientific. It is nothing but a ploy to allow you to end the debate without having to do what I said earlier is hard, selling a computer model, proving it's validity, verifying the inputs, and convincing a skeptical public.

Stop it with that, do the hard work.

Computer models as has been stated over and over and over again are not the sole support of AGW. You want to challenge one or more, name it, and tell me what you're challenging about it. "Computer models are invalid" is a bullshit generic claim. The problem with the people employed by a shill organization is that their arguments have no scientific merit. Yet they keep bringing them out and attempt argument from authority based on the "credibility" of that organization. That is why the place of employment is fair - and important - game here.

936 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:02:41pm

re: #929 LifeTrek

It is nothing but a ploy to allow you to end the debate without having to do what I said earlier is hard, selling a computer model, proving it's validity, verifying the inputs, and convincing a skeptical public.

anti-global warming = anti-computer?
robots will take over the world?
///

937 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:06:50pm

re: #928 Coracle

Thanks for the ijis link. I'm not surprised with the larger ice extent numbers this year. I don't know the influence of La Nina/El Nino on the arctic, but it makes some sense to me that there should be some. Still, the last 3 years all have lower minimum ices than the preceding 5. Something to keep watching, clearly.

Actually, 2006 was higher than 2005 -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

The arctic sea ice is steadily trending downward but the big random factor is wind. There is often a big wind from the Bering Strait across towards England. This pushes a lot of ice out into the north Atlantic where it melts. 2007 had huge wind, this year had very little. That's just random.

It is trending downward and you should hear our Admirals talk about this. There are big security issues related to everyone jumping into the Arctic to tap the resources.

And all that methane is another wild-card. If we can harvest it, then instead of it being a major greenhouse gas, it's a relatively low carbon energy source. If there's as much of it as some claim, it's energy for the whole planet for a long time. Running cars on CH4 beats the pants off using gasoline.

[Link: www.thestar.com...]

938 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:09:01pm

re: #937 Pythagoras

Actually, 2006 was higher than 2005 -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

The arctic sea ice is steadily trending downward but the big random factor is wind. There is often a big wind from the Bering Strait across towards England. This pushes a lot of ice out into the north Atlantic where it melts. 2007 had huge wind, this year had very little. That's just random.

It is trending downward and you should hear our Admirals talk about this. There are big security issues related to everyone jumping into the Arctic to tap the resources.

And all that methane is another wild-card. If we can harvest it, then instead of it being a major greenhouse gas, it's a relatively low carbon energy source. If there's as much of it as some claim, it's energy for the whole planet for a long time. Running cars on CH4 beats the pants off using gasoline.

[Link: www.thestar.com...]

Yeah. But how to harvest methane bubbling up from random spots on the ocean floor? Unless it's not random. ANd just FTR, I was counting 09, 08, and 07 as the "3 most recent" years. 09 is already lower (fractionally) than 06 minimum, it looks like.

939 LifeTrek  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:12:40pm

re: #932 Charles

The Heartland Institute is absolutely a shill for the tobacco industry. They are infamous for circulating thoroughly discredited false claims about the dangers of smoking. And now they're circulating false claims about the dangers of climate change.

They're shills. Confirmed, dyed in the wool shills.

Charles, thank you -- clearly you have seen evidence that their work was not verifiable and repeatable, -- that is scientific -- you made my original point perfectly.

I don't know what studies your referencing or whether it was their work or if they were just a paid spokes man or if the work was honestly mistaken, but I do know that doesn’t mean this gentleman's current studies are in error. That would be a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about his current science.

At lest that is Skeptical Science argued when they defended scientists against the inappropriate argument that, “they were wrong in the 70’s, how do we trust them now."

Make the case, don't attack the man -- if his science is wrong then show it and remember shills exist on both sides.

940 wkeller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:12:46pm

re: #923 mt3_1234

feel free to list a few of these papers

OK, here is a list to over 200 peer reviewed studies that provide alternatives to AGW.

[Link: petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...]

Is there a single scientist on this board?? I have spent nearlhy 40 years in the scientific community and have never seen such a bunch of koolaid drinkers in my life. Go back to school. Take some basic science classes. Learn what the scientific method is.

Ignorance is a painful way to life, you can change that if you wish.

941 Zoomie  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:13:41pm

re: #927 Charles

Zoomie's comments promoting "intelligent design" creationism:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Charles, guilty as charged. God is there. He is not silent. He has spoken and we have access to that revelation. Like many of the founders I believe in the "Laws of nature" (science, logic, reason) and "nature's God" (Judeo Christian revelation).

It must keep you busy labeling and profiling all your lizards.

But you distract me from the topic here.

942 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:14:52pm

re: #940 wkeller


Is there a single scientist on this board??

yes, i'm one of them

943 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:15:01pm

re: #941 Zoomie

Charles, guilty as charged. God is there. He is not silent. He has spoken and we have access to that revelation. Like many of the founders I believe in the "Laws of nature" (science, logic, reason) and "nature's God" (Judeo Christian revelation).

It must keep you busy labeling and profiling all your lizards.

But you distract me from the topic here.

Labeling? You just admitted it was true. You're a creationist.

Your opinions on science are worthless.

944 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:16:13pm

re: #939 LifeTrek

Charles, thank you -- clearly you have seen evidence that their work was not verifiable and repeatable, -- that is scientific -- you made my original point perfectly.

I don't know what studies your referencing or whether it was their work or if they were just a paid spokes man or if the work was honestly mistaken, but I do know that doesn’t mean this gentleman's current studies are in error. That would be a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about his current science.

At lest that is Skeptical Science argued when they defended scientists against the inappropriate argument that, “they were wrong in the 70’s, how do we trust them now."

Make the case, don't attack the man -- if his science is wrong then show it and remember shills exist on both sides.

in the video, the scientist presenting to Heartland Institute (not the person that made the video) tells them:
"global warming is real, get over it"

945 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:17:41pm

re: #940 wkeller

Ignorance is a painful way to life, you can change that if you wish.

And the irony meter goes off the scale!

946 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:20:00pm

re: #940 wkeller

OK, here is a list to over 200 peer reviewed studies that provide alternatives to AGW.

[Link: petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...]

Is there a single scientist on this board?? I have spent nearlhy 40 years in the scientific community and have never seen such a bunch of koolaid drinkers in my life. Go back to school. Take some basic science classes. Learn what the scientific method is.

Ignorance is a painful way to life, you can change that if you wish.

Been there, done that - on a previous thread at LGF. I looked at a half dozen random papers on that list, and they DO NOT make anti-AGW claims. Some of them, in fact do quite the opposite.

Nice argument from authority by the way. What part of the science community have you spent 40 years in? Climate science? Anything related to it? For all your claimed experience you don't seem to show much respect for the scientific method when the conclusion is other than your preference.

THe only thing worse than ignorance is willful ignorance.

947 LifeTrek  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:20:29pm

re: #925 mt3_1234

WTF, did I say I wasn't? Going back more the 20 years would show a greater long term trend then the 10 and 20 year charts he used.

948 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:22:37pm

re: #947 LifeTrek

WTF, did I say I wasn't? Going back more the 20 years would show a greater long term trend then the 10 and 20 year charts he used.

I'll repeat: going back more than 20 years only makes the long term warming trend more apparent.

949 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:23:28pm

re: #940 wkeller

OK, here is a list to over 200 peer reviewed studies that provide alternatives to AGW.

[Link: petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...]

Is there a single scientist on this board?? I have spent nearlhy 40 years in the scientific community and have never seen such a bunch of koolaid drinkers in my life. Go back to school. Take some basic science classes. Learn what the scientific method is.

Ignorance is a painful way to life, you can change that if you wish.

ok, thanks for the link to the papers
but are these all supporting your main point of "I have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW"?
which ones have that argument as their main thesis?

in this paper here, which is listed in your link (called Global Warming, oddly enough), they don't deny the existence of global warming, but that "the anticipated global warming is also [likely] overestimated" (in conclusion section)

950 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:24:43pm

re: #938 Coracle

Yeah. But how to harvest methane bubbling up from random spots on the ocean floor? Unless it's not random. And just FTR, I was counting 09, 08, and 07 as the "3 most recent" years. 09 is already lower (fractionally) than 06 minimum, it looks like.

You're absolutely right. It could be a tricky problem to solve but the pot of gold at the end of that rainbow makes me think someone'll work it out. If they drill and tap it before it bubbles, that might partially do it.

The 2006 min was 5,315,156. We haven't hit that yet but we will. I'll predict a min of 5,250,000. Arctic temps are pretty low right now and falling fast. Freeze-up is soon.

[Link: ocean.dmi.dk...]

By the way, this site has the clearest evidence in support of AGW that I know of. Notice how the only significant deviation from the mean is in the coldest months. That is precisely when (and where) AGW theory predicts the greatest warming. Click on other years (on the left) and you'll see this pattern consistently in recent years. Go back further and it's not there.

If solar effects were driving the recent warming, the coldest months in the coldest places wouldn't show the most warming. More insulation always warms up the cold spots.

As I've been saying, AGW is true -- it's the CAGW I disagree with.

951 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:24:48pm

re: #940 wkeller

Is there a single scientist on this board?? I have spent nearlhy 40 years in the scientific community and have never seen such a bunch of koolaid drinkers in my life. Go back to school. Take some basic science classes. Learn what the scientific method is.

Ignorance is a painful way to life, you can change that if you wish.

as poster #939 says directly above you:
"Make the case, don't attack the man"

952 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:25:34pm

re: #949 mt3_1234

If he's "read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW" then it should be child's play for him to pick out 10 clear examples.

Yet he hasn't.

953 LifeTrek  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:26:03pm

re: #948 Coracle

I'll repeat: going back more than 20 years only makes the long term warming trend more apparent.

That is my point exactly, I don't know what the issue is here.

954 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:26:52pm

re: #947 LifeTrek

ya, my bad, i extrapolated that you were sceptical due to him not going back far enough

955 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:27:49pm

re: #949 mt3_1234

ok, thanks for the link to the papers
but are these all supporting your main point of "I have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW"?
which ones have that argument as their main thesis?

in this paper here, which is listed in your link (called Global Warming, oddly enough), they don't deny the existence of global warming, but that "the anticipated global warming is also [likely] overestimated" (in conclusion section)

If you feel like wasting your time, take a look through those papers. The majority of them do not argue against global warming at all.

This is a very very common tactic of both global warming deniers and creationists -- they put together long lists of papers and scientists who they claim support their nonsense. And when you start investigating, you discover that the lists are full of papers that say the exact opposite of what they claim, and scientists who didn't sign on to the list at all and don't believe the anti-AGW garbage.

Here's another of those lists put together by ... yes ... the Heartland Institute, packed with scientists who were outraged to find their names being used without permission:

[Link: www.desmogblog.com...]

956 Pythagoras  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:33:20pm

G'night all.

957 Coracle  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:33:50pm

It's a sad sad thing I must also go to sleep. Good night all.

958 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:36:04pm

re: #955 Charles

If you feel like wasting your time, take a look through those papers. The majority of them do not argue against global warming at all.

This is a very very common tactic of both global warming deniers and creationists -- they put together long lists of papers and scientists who they claim support their nonsense. And when you start investigating, you discover that the lists are full of papers that say the exact opposite of what they claim, and scientists who didn't sign on to the list at all and don't believe the anti-AGW garbage.

Here's another of those lists, packed with scientists who were outraged to find their names being used without permission:

[Link: www.desmogblog.com...]

ya, i was just hoping that if i made them actually read the papers they cite then they'd finally go away...
:)

959 Zoomie  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:44:21pm

Back on topic. (Before Charles gets me off track)

The video seems to discuss the one data source from NCDC (national climate data center, related to NOAA).

I simply pointed to a scientist web site that showed all the primary data sources including the NCDC.

The NCDC data shows that the linear trend is positive for the last ten years, as does GISS.

But the other three sources point to a negative annual trend in the data for ten years. That was not discussed in the video.

Five primary GLOBAL data sources

Underneath these displayed data sets this scientists (I have no idea if he is believer in AGW) says "The two diagrams above show the calculated linear annual global temperature trend for the last 5, 10, 20 and 30 yr period. Trends calculated for 20 years or longer all are positive, typically between 0.15 and 0.2 degrees Celsius year. However, most temperature trends calculated for the last 10 years are close to zero. Trends calculated for the last 5 years all are negative."

Let the record show that I am just pointing out those pissy little details about actual scientific data, and Charles is concerned about my philosophical/religious beliefs.

960 wkeller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:45:47pm

re: #946 Coracle

Been there, done that - on a previous thread at LGF. I looked at a half dozen random papers on that list, and they DO NOT make anti-AGW claims. Some of them, in fact do quite the opposite.

Nice argument from authority by the way. What part of the science community have you spent 40 years in? Climate science? Anything related to it? For all your claimed experience you don't seem to show much respect for the scientific method when the conclusion is other than your preference.
THe only thing worse than ignorance is willful ignorance.

Last post on this since you might be many things, but a scientist isn't one of them. My degree is in Computer Science with minors in mathematics, physics and chemistry. No, I do not work in climate science, but then scientific method is NOT about the field but about the science. I will simply say this one more time - you can not claim to follow the scientific method and while claiming that AWG is scientific fact. Perhaps if you had read more than 6 of the over 200 papers you might have seen the opportunity for a belief outside AWG. But, since it is proven science to you, so be it. The scientific community is littered with the corpuses of "certainty".

The earth is the center of the universe.
You can't break the sound barrier.
There are only 3 particles in an atom.
Cancer is a death sentence.
Man will never fly.
There are 9 planets.

This is a list that can go on and on and on. Your disregard for science is simply foolish on its face. You also seem to think I am making the argument that global warming (or AWG for that matter) doesn’t exits. I am not. I am simply making the argument that it is NOT scientific FACT that they DO exist – so I see no reason to kneel at the alter of global warming. I sure the hell see no reason to tax our economy to death to please a few alarmists.

So please, you may be many things, but a scientist - not so much.

961 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:47:31pm

re: #940 wkeller

Is there a single scientist on this board?? I have spent nearlhy 40 years in the scientific community and have never seen such a bunch of koolaid drinkers in my life. Go back to school. Take some basic science classes. Learn what the scientific method is.

Ignorance is a painful way to life, you can change that if you wish.

and just to clarify, whenever i have discussions amongst my scientist friends, none of our arguments follow the lines of "i've been a scientist for 30 years!" or "go back to school!" (although i admit, it would be comical if one of them actually did use that logic...)

bytheway, which science are you involved in if you don't mind me asking?

962 Bagua  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:49:23pm

re: #961 mt3_1234

bytheway, which science are you involved in if you don't mind me asking?

Scientology?

Just a guess.

963 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 10:51:23pm

re: #960 wkeller

I will simply say this one more time - you can not claim to follow the scientific method and while claiming that AWG is scientific fact. Perhaps if you had read more than 6 of the over 200 papers you might have seen the opportunity for a belief outside AWG.

i agree with what you are saying, 6 out of 200 is not enough
but the ones i DID read said nothing of what you claimed (actually, even the opposite)
that's why i followed up with asking you to point out the ones that ACTUALLY do support your claim

you have to help me here, it's understandable that i can't possibly read all those papers
especially after skimming a few and finding out they actually say nothing what you claim they do

964 wkeller  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 11:07:30pm

re: #963 mt3_1234

i agree with what you are saying, 6 out of 200 is not enough
but the ones i DID read said nothing of what you claimed (actually, even the opposite)
that's why i followed up with asking you to point out the ones that ACTUALLY do support your claim

you have to help me here, it's understandable that i can't possibly read all those papers
especially after skimming a few and finding out they actually say nothing what you claim they do


Just what “claim” do you think I am making? I am NOT claiming global warming does not exist, just not apparently over the past 11 years. In fact, the earth’s average temperature over the past couple million years is actually about 5 degrees warmer. I am NOT claiming that global warming DOES exist either. There are certainly solid arguments to be made that we are still exiting our last ice age. I am NOT arguing that AWG is not real, yet clearly there is not as much attention being paid to common water vapor which has much more to do with earth’s temperature than CO2. I am appalled at the cherry picking of data at the UN, at NASA, at NOAA and pleased that time after time the scientific community forces them to retract their statements.

What I AM arguing against is the declaration of FACT in this argument. There are hypotheses, theories, thoughts, ideas but no clear FACTS. There is nothing that can be defined by the parameters of an experiment and proven over and over and over by the experiment.

What IS certain is that an entire environmental community has grown up around the idea of global warming. Trillions of dollars are at stake. America is about to be taxed out of competition in the global economy. Cap and Trade is a simple vote away from reality. The House has already passed it. Obama will sign it. Yet, there is – in my opinion – ample doubt for the science to say we should simply step back and continue the debate and the science.

These are my arguments.

965 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 11:12:02pm

re: #960 wkeller

ok
here's what you first said:
"I have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW"

next, you said:
"OK, here is a list to over 200 peer reviewed studies that provide alternatives to AGW."

finally, you said:
" You also seem to think I am making the argument that global warming (or AWG for that matter) doesn’t exits. I am not. I am simply making the argument that it is NOT scientific FACT that they DO exist"

can you clarify your position once and for all, and with appropriate literature supporting that position?

966 mashiki  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 11:30:28pm

re: #925 mt3_1234

how far back do you want him to go before you are convinced?

Convinced? Beh. Using 20yr data sets exist for only one purpose. It's snap shotting, and it's meant for two things. Make you think not logically, and refuse to question the subject matter at hand(HOLY SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE). See when you start going back further you start getting into other areas, geology, paleontology, geodesy, mineralogy, volcanology, and all this other fun stuff. This really goes beyond the scope of just climatology. 250k-1.9m yrs should be fine. Of course you'll start bumping into the obvious stuff like 6-25x higher O2/SO2/CO2 levels recorded. Then you're jumping into paleoclimatology, and yeah. Now we're starting to get some where.

All that fear for 'inland seas' fear. Ah yes, we must panic, as we know. Warmer temperatures sure didn't increase vegetation and precep in the now existent deserts. Much better to look look at the short term picture. Because we all know. That in the span of 20 years, in the length of the earth with an estimated age of 6.2billion years, that really means a lot.

What am I saying? 20 years? If we're looking at 20 years to compose a picture you might as well throw the creationist argument in and say the earth is 6000 years old for shits and giggles.

967 mt3_1234  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 11:36:14pm

re: #966 mashiki

ya, my main point with the 20 year argument was whether or not the original poster meant what you did, or that they were just playing a game of "moving the first down marker", so that no matter the number you used, you'd always be forced to punt

if the data used 20 years, they'd ask for 30
if the data used 30, they'd ask for 40
ad inifinitum

968 Dogness  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 11:48:13pm

So, if I believe the video, over the last 10 years, the temperature has fluctuated because of the El Nino/La Nina cycles. I am not sure how that means that there was Global Warming.

All it told me was that natural weather patterns cause the temperature to change from year to year.

969 Bagua  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 11:54:08pm

re: #968 Dogness

I am not sure how that means that there was Global Warming.

Missing the point doesn't truly merit an announcement.

970 mt3_1234  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 12:05:04am

re: #968 Dogness

So, if I believe the video, over the last 10 years, the temperature has fluctuated because of the El Nino/La Nina cycles. I am not sure how that means that there was Global Warming.

All it told me was that natural weather patterns cause the temperature to change from year to year.

here's a link to the data used in the video (3:25)

971 Abu Al-Poopypants  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 1:37:53am

re: #692 Killgore Trout

How is it a lie? It's from published Bureau of Economic Analysis data:

Look here, under Lines 3 and 89:

Line 2007 2008
1 Wage and salary accruals per
full-time equivalent employee 49,844 51,108
2 Domestic industries 49,619 50,868
3 Private industries 48,828 49,935
...
86 Government 53,887 55,794
87 Federal 68,447 70,330
88 General government 70,969 73,364
89 Civilian 76,959 79,197


Where's the lie?

972 diffycult  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:20:32am

cooling, warming, heating, freezing - who knows? not me. some do know, yes.
the scientists?
here´s an interesting report from Geneva:
World's climate could cool first, warm later

973 freetoken  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:48:37am

re: #971 Abu Al-Poopypants

How is it a lie? It's from published Bureau of Economic Analysis data:

Look here, under Lines 3 and 89:


Where's the lie?

The "lie" is in the (intentional ?) misunderstanding of the data. The Federal government does not have that many of the really low paying jobs found in agriculture or retail, which are major private employers.

For instance, the line #89 you quoted includes a great deal of GS13,14,15 employees. Their jobs tend to be what in industry would be lower management to middle-management jobs, often administering contracts (to private companies.) Thus you would have to compare line #89 to the private sector lines #69 (Management of companies and enterprises) and line #65 (Professional, scientific, and technical services).

In other words, what Instapundit and so many quoting him are guilty of is, as with the AGW-deniers, willful ignorance. If Instapundit actually analyzed this he is guilty of lying, if he just swallowed whatever someone was feeding him then he is merely a fool.

974 mt3_1234  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:49:19am

re: #972 diffycult

your link is broken

975 freetoken  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:56:37am

re: #972 diffycult

cooling, warming, heating, freezing - who knows? not me. some do know, yes.
the scientists?
here´s an interesting report from Geneva:
World's climate could cool first, warm later

What a horrible article, but many Newscientist articles are not good examples of science journalism so in this case we are not surprised.

If you look at the author's (Fred Pearce) other stories online:
[Link: www.newscientist.com...]
you can find other examples of his penchant for hyperbole and over-generalizations.

976 mt3_1234  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 3:10:20am

re: #975 freetoken

ya, some of the articles in NewSci can be sketchy, this one wasn't that bad
this one just wasn't well-written (and the links in the text don't really follow from the text...)

977 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 3:11:14am

As a rule, messages that include using generalizing and pejorative language about the author's opponents like "denialists" and "so-called think-tank" should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Name-calling is the favourite tactic of those who are less than truthful.

978 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 3:49:48am

re: #960 wkeller

Last post on this since you might be many things, but a scientist isn't one of them.


You know nothing about me, and that's fine. I can do nothing but laugh at your asinine ignorant and false statement.

My degree is in Computer Science with minors in mathematics, physics and chemistry. No, I do not work in climate science, but then scientific method is NOT about the field but about the science.


Would that you practiced what you preached.

I will simply say this one more time - you can not claim to follow the scientific method and while claiming that AWG is scientific fact.

Where do I claim that? AGW over the last century plus is the explanation that best explains the available data. It would help if you started with the correct claim.

Perhaps if you had read more than 6 of the over 200 papers you might have seen the opportunity for a belief outside AWG.


I have. Of the first six random ones I picked, none were anti-AGW of the next bunch I looked at entire sections didn't even address AGW, still more didn't refute AGW, and others supported it.

From you, you have claimed to "have read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW"?
Give me ten such articles. Author, year, Journal. This is the third? foruth? time I've asked you for this backup for your claim. If you've read "hundreds" of such articles, picking 10 "firm arguments" to show me should be dead simple. Put up, or admit you're full of shit.

Your aspersions aside, I'd be more of a scientist than you on this subject if I were a hairdresser.

979 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:06:39am
980 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:10:51am

You never get tired of repeating the same old crap, do you.

981 chip  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:20:43am

jpkoch at 558 and crosspatch at 572 had reasonable comments.

The video's reliance on just two of the five global temperature sets (the minority that support his point) is very misleading.

Of the two, the surface temperature set has been corrupted by the loss of thousands of stations and the failure to correctly adjust for UHI. Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com has documented that some 80% of the surface stations in the US fail to meet their own minimum standards for distance away from localized heat sources. The data is next to useless as a scientific tool.

As mentioned by others, satellite and other data does show a cooling, as well as a failure of the AGW theory's central tenet that the troposphere will exhibit the most warming. It hasn't.

Theories need to be supported by evidence.

982 freetoken  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:38:51am

re: #981 chip

The data is next to useless as a scientific tool.

Wrong. Very wrong. That you are referencing the non-scientist Tony Watts shows that you really are relying on unreliable thinking. The NCDC showed, very simply, that Watt's objections are irrelevant in the big picture.

As mentioned by others, satellite and other data does show a cooling, as well as a failure of the AGW theory's central tenet that the troposphere will exhibit the most warming.

Which it does. The troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools.

983 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:38:56am

Where I live on the Mediterranean this was the very first year that we had to use A/C all day and all evening long. We were stuck in a 3 month heat and humidity cycle that didn't break until this week, while for the past 16 years it was always hot and dry during the day with a nice breeze, and brisk in the evenings. In the past, we used A/C for barely 3 days each summer.

I read that the same humidity cycle happened this year in Los Angeles, which has a similar climate, for the first time ever.

984 floppydusk  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:58:41am

Can't you see the red dots? Can't you hear the treasonable tone of his voice. For Darwin's sake, Trust him, he is a scientist.

(You idiots, now go get your shine box)

985 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:37:02am

re: #981 chip

Freetoken is quite right. Watts' argument falls apart under analysis. If you eliminate every single station he doesn't like, the trend is virtually identical.
Further, crosspatch has not backed up his claim that 1993 was warmer than 1998. I can claim yesterday was 115°F in the shade as long as you don't ask me for proof.

986 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:41:57am

re: #984 floppydusk

Can't you see the red dots? Can't you hear the treasonable tone of his voice. For Darwin's sake, Trust him, he is a scientist.

(You idiots, now go get your shine box)

Lovely. Brilliant. Don't take any one, or any dozen people's word on it. Read up. You have many links to follow. Then come back with more than know-nothing snark.

987 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:42:54am

re: #985 Coracle

Freetoken is quite right. Watts' argument falls apart under analysis. If you eliminate every single station he doesn't like, the trend is virtually identical.
Further, crosspatch has not backed up his claim that 1993 was warmer than 1998. I can claim yesterday was 115°F in the shade as long as you don't ask me for proof.

I think the analysis that claimed to do this was laughably flawed. They actually "homogenized" the other stations in with the good ones.

Back in 2 hours.

988 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:44:58am

re: #982 freetoken

"That you are referencing the non-scientist Tony Watts"

From the wikipedia article on him:

Anthony Watts is a broadcast meteorologist, editor of the science blog, Watts Up With That?, owner of ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, devoted to documenting the quality of weather stations across the US.

... and ...

In 2007 Watts launched the 'Surface Stations' project, whose mission is to create a publicly available database of photographs of weather stations, along with their metadata. The project relies on volunteers to gather the data.[3] The project has been publicly lauded by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke Sr., the latter having described the effort as "very important".[4][5] Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has said that he was aware of Watts' work and invites anyone with expertise to contribute to the scientific process.

I've just seen him debunk a dishonest attempt by [Link: www.myclimatechange.ne...] to claim that all the worst sinners in terms of CO2 production were Western countries by making a graphic that gave that impression.

989 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:49:05am

The graphic on myclimatechange can be compared to statistics from [Link: cdiac.ornl.gov...]

The artist tried to defend the misrepresentation by arguing that he had left out those countries because they were to small to have a real effect. Which is also a misrepresentation of the truth since he also left out Russia and Ukraine.

990 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:50:52am

Hmm, that link doesn't seem to work due to going directly to the stats. Try this one and click the link named "World's countries ranked by 2006 fossil-fuel CO2 per capita emission rates".

[Link: cdiac.ornl.gov...]

991 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:55:03am

re: #990 Pennies

I don't find the fact that China has overtaken the US in CO2 production in recent years to be news - we've been seeing it coming for well over a decade as Chine has been building cola plant after coal plant to feed its growing hunger for electricity. Someone making a claim that the US is the "worst sinner" in total production would be incorrect. However, per capita, the US CO2 production exceeds China by a factor of several.

992 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:59:17am

re: #991 Coracle

Man. PIMF's all over. Cola plants wouldn't be so bad. Coal plants, on the other hand...

China has, depending on its source location, some of the cleanest and some of the dirtiest coal on the planet. I don't know what kind of environmental controls the new plants have. I'm betting they are not as stringent as the US in most areas.

993 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:15:58am

re: #990 Pennies

Hmm, that link doesn't seem to work due to going directly to the stats. Try this one and click the link named "World's countries ranked by 2006 fossil-fuel CO2 per capita emission rates".

[Link: cdiac.ornl.gov...]

Wow. The US is number 9 on that list (and Qatar has over double our per capita CO2 emissions). Yes, the graphic is misleading.

On top of that they do the classic "how to lie with statistics" trick of using of growing solid figures by the linear dimension in proportion to the stat. In this case a country with twice the emissions gets a balloon that's twice as big in radius and 4 (or 8) times as big in perception. That's way over the top.

994 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:29:41am

re: #993 Pythagoras

Wow. The US is number 9 on that list (and Qatar has over double our per capita CO2 emissions). Yes, the graphic is misleading.

On top of that they do the classic "how to lie with statistics" trick of using of growing solid figures by the linear dimension in proportion to the stat. In this case a country with twice the emissions gets a balloon that's twice as big in radius and 4 (or 8) times as big in perception. That's way over the top.

I'll agree that's a particularly misleading graphic. And unnecessarily so.

Some additional tidbits. Qatar is clearly far and a way the worst per capita producer. On the other hand it doesn't have that big a population, and is 60th over all in CO2 total production - with 0.8% of the US's production. It also doesn't surprise me that the Oil states - lousy with the petroleum resource - are the most profligate per-capita producers, followed by a couple islands and Luxembourg. US's 9th place on that list really doesn't do us much credit.

995 kochsr  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:34:33am

Not impressed - an objective person would not use all the pejorative language.

996 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:34:42am

re: #994 Coracle

I'll agree that's a particularly misleading graphic. And unnecessarily so.

Some additional tidbits. Qatar is clearly far and a way the worst per capita producer. On the other hand it doesn't have that big a population, and is 60th over all in CO2 total production - with 0.8% of the US's production. It also doesn't surprise me that the Oil states - lousy with the petroleum resource - are the most profligate per-capita producers, followed by a couple islands and Luxembourg. US's 9th place on that list really doesn't do us much credit.

Both side have their "with friends like these who needs enemies" gang. That's sort of the topic of the original video that Charles posted. The speaker was admonishing folks to not go overboard.

I resent my email and it didn't bounce.

997 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:41:24am

re: #994 Coracle

"Some additional tidbits. Qatar is clearly far and a way the worst per capita producer. On the other hand it doesn't have that big a population, and is 60th over all in CO2 total production - with 0.8% of the US's production."

The defence for leaving these small countries out advance the artist is also misleading. For instance Kuwait has a third of the pop of Sweden, while it's emission per capita is seven times as large. So they have a bigger foot print. Furthermore about twenty countries with a larger pop, including Russia and Ukraine, have a larger emission per capita than Sweden. While China at place 51 and Russia at place 82 are included leaving some forty larger emitters out.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the graphic wants to give the incorrect impression that Western countries are the great sinners, while the third world countries are innocent, with the inclusion of China and India is intended to drive the message home.

998 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:43:11am

re: #996 Pythagoras

"Both side have their "with friends like these who needs enemies" gang. That's sort of the topic of the original video that Charles posted. The speaker was admonishing folks to not go overboard."

Yesss, but since the message of both the video and this thread has been that only the sceptics are frauds, clowns or mouth pieces for industry.

999 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:47:33am

re: #995 kochsr

Not impressed - an objective person would not use all the pejorative language.

You think that "misrepresenting" when talking about a message that is just that is on the same level as characterizing all and every dissenter as a liar?
Maybe you're not so objective as you want to us to believe?

1000 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:51:30am

re: #997 Pennies

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the graphic wants to give the incorrect impression that Western countries are the great sinners, while the third world countries are innocent, with the inclusion of China and India is intended to drive the message home.

The graphic is certainly misleading. And unnecessarily so. Its primary misrepresentation is a de-emphasis of China's Russia's and India's significance.

1001 EndlessBob  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:53:46am

re: #854 Coracle

Source for that 5% number, please.

Earth's climates have many buffers. It didn't run away in the Cretaceous, either, but we had inland seas in what would become continental US. I'd rather not, thank you.

No. CO2 may not have initiated ancient warming cycles. But that is not applicable to the case today, when it is providing a clear forcing factor.

Simply false. The geologic and climate evidence does not support you.

The 5% number is commonly accepted. You can find it anywhere from Wikipedia to here: United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization

"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth... carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions..."

You still want to handwave away the "unknown cause" that started the previous warmings, yet have no problem accepting that once this warming started -- without CO2 forcing -- that 800 years later, the CO2 became the prime driver. And yet wave away again the "unknown cause" that stopped the warming and cooled the earth, allowing CO2 levels to fall again.

CO2 is considered a prime forcing agent today because the GCMs have been programmed to consider it as such. When one considers that there have been ice ages when CO2 content was as much as 10 times greater than today (the end of the Ordovician), and periods of decreasing CO2 when global temps were increasing (Silurian and Devonian), how can one presume that now CO2 is a major driver?

Perhaps you should research the historic geological data yourself and not just accept my -- or anybody else's -- word for it.

1002 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:02:23am

re: #998 Pennies

"Both side have their "with friends like these who needs enemies" gang. That's sort of the topic of the original video that Charles posted. The speaker was admonishing folks to not go overboard."

Yesss, but since the message of both the video and this thread has been that only the sceptics are frauds, clowns or mouth pieces for industry.

I agree -- especially about the video. Your challenge to that particular graphic was right and you carried the point.

However, I have developed a fondness for hearing the other side of an argument -- even if presented badly. The global warming activists are particularly nasty but some skeptics have responded in kind. We would do better if we did not follow their style.

If global warming turns out to be minor (as I believe it will) history will be very harsh on the activists. Scientific debate is supposed to involve disagreement and it's supposed to be OK to be wrong. Science marches on. However, the activists have put themselves in a position where they cannot be wrong. If they can get everyone to change their CO2 habits, then no matter how the future turns out, they will be safe. If the warming turns out not to be a problem they can even claim credit for saving the world. But if we do nothing and their extreme predictions fail then CAGW will be judged to be the greatest hoax in the history of science and the largest scam in the history of man. I wouldn't want to have that possibility looming over my head.

1003 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:10:02am

re: #983 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey

Where I live on the Mediterranean this was the very first year that we had to use A/C all day and all evening long. We were stuck in a 3 month heat and humidity cycle that didn't break until this week, while for the past 16 years it was always hot and dry during the day with a nice breeze, and brisk in the evenings. In the past, we used A/C for barely 3 days each summer.

I read that the same humidity cycle happened this year in Los Angeles, which has a similar climate, for the first time ever.

On anecdotal examples, I toured Sweden this summer. Talking of weather with residents it seems that the real snow line has moved a hundred miles or more to the north from south central Sweden, and that is not just a fluke the past few years.

There are deniers who say that this is just normal short term weather fluctuation, even while the data suggests different.

There are those who admit to a changing trend, but point to geological evidence of past changes, while ignoring the issue of whether change can be caused by different factors.

There are the hard core morons who dismiss everything by saying Co2 is plant food, so how can it be bad?

Then there are those who say nothing we do will make a difference, and it will reduce our standard of living, so don't even bother.

I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the latter, since my pessimist half tells me that the real root problem is not increasing Co2, but the explosively increasing human population. What is the number these days? Something around 70,000,000 new people per year?

No politician ever mentions that.

1004 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:14:52am

re: #1001 EndlessBob

The 5% number is commonly accepted. You can find it anywhere from Wikipedia to here: United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization

From the same source you cherrypicked:

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.

You still want to handwave away the "unknown cause" that started the previous warmings, yet have no problem accepting that once this warming started -- without CO2 forcing -- that 800 years later, the CO2 became the prime driver. And yet wave away again the "unknown cause" that stopped the warming and cooled the earth, allowing CO2 levels to fall again.

I don't need to handwave anything. I have a proximate cause and mechanism for today's trends, backed by the observations and the data. You find me a better explanation, consistent with the data.

CO2 is considered a prime forcing agent today because the GCMs have been programmed to consider it as such.

CO2 is a prime forcing agent because physics and chemistry dictates it is.

Perhaps you should research the historic geological data yourself and not just accept my -- or anybody else's -- word for it.


A truly ironic statement. I know the geologic data, that is how I know why millennial and megayear cycles are not the drivers of today's trends.

1005 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:17:13am

re: #1003 Naso Tang

On anecdotal examples, I toured Sweden this summer. Talking of weather with residents it seems that the real snow line has moved a hundred miles or more to the north from south central Sweden, and that is not just a fluke the past few years.

There are deniers who say that this is just normal short term weather fluctuation, even while the data suggests different."

My experience (born 1957) is that we have had periods of warm with no snow and cold weather with lots of snow so I wouldn't rely to much in that. Scientists usually claim that we shouldn't focus on regional variations, as for instance the warm summers in the US during the thirties, but look at the big picture.

Another problem is the possibility of other trends that may cloud this picture, such as has just been posited by proponents of AGW, that what's called a natural global cooling has been overridden by the CO2 increase.

There are those who admit to a changing trend, but point to geological evidence of past changes, while ignoring the issue of whether change can be caused by different factors.

There are the hard core morons who dismiss everything by saying Co2 is plant food, so how can it be bad?

Then there are those who say nothing we do will make a difference, and it will reduce our standard of living, so don't even bother.

I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the latter, since my pessimist half tells me that the real root problem is not increasing Co2, but the explosively increasing human population. What is the number these days? Something around 70,000,000 new people per year?

No politician ever mentions that.

1006 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:19:22am

re: #1005 Pennies

There are those who admit to a changing trend, but point to geological evidence of past changes, while ignoring the issue of whether change can be caused by different factors.

There are the hard core morons who dismiss everything by saying Co2 is plant food, so how can it be bad?

Then there are those who say nothing we do will make a difference, and it will reduce our standard of living, so don't even bother.

I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the latter, since my pessimist half tells me that the real root problem is not increasing Co2, but the explosively increasing human population. What is the number these days? Something around 70,000,000 new people per year?

No politician ever mentions that.

Sorry about this part of my post, I forgot to remove it before pushing post. Please ignore it.

1007 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:23:19am

re: #1005 Pennies

My experience (born 1957) is that we have had periods of warm with no snow and cold weather with lots of snow so I wouldn't rely to much in that. Scientists usually claim that we shouldn't focus on regional variations, as for instance the warm summers in the US during the thirties, but look at the big picture.

My implied point was that regional is only regional if it is unique to a region.

1008 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:26:06am

re: #1004 Coracle

I have a proximate cause and mechanism for today's trends, backed by the observations and the data. You find me a better explanation, consistent with the data.

Since the data indicates that cause precedes effect by ca 800 years, the connection would seem weak. An alternate explanation explaining why CO2 increase follows GW is that GW causes CO2 to be released from the seas. When water is heated the amount of CO2 it can retain weakens.

A truly ironic statement. I know the geologic data, that is how I know why millennial and megayear cycles are not the drivers of today's trends.

That's a level of certainty that doesn't seems based on the data. The earth has had cycles of temperature in the recent human past. The little ice age is only one example.

1009 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:37:04am

re: #1008 Pennies

Since the data indicates that cause precedes effect by ca 800 years, the connection would seem weak.

It might seem weak if you ignore the present. Past epochs do not have anthropogenic factors to contend with. This is a lame canard, dealt with over and over again in multiple places.

That's a level of certainty that doesn't seems based on the data. The earth has had cycles of temperature in the recent human past. The little ice age is only one example.

My conclusions are backed by the data. The little ice age doesn't refute anything. The last century-plus' warming trend is superimposed atop long- and short-term natural cycles.

1010 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:37:45am

re: #1007 Naso Tang

My implied point was that regional is only regional if it is unique to a region.

If you base your argument that change is global by referring to a local change, I believe that pointing out the weakness in the argument is not uncalled for. I also want to point out that I don't use terms like "morons" and deniers" for those who don't agree with me.

1011 jantjepietje  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:37:47am

re: #485 Desert Dog


[...]
Is there another way to reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels without slamming on the brakes of our already hurting economy?

No there isn't and not doing it is only stalling it's not actually preventing prices from going up, if we wait till peak oil kicks in the prices are going to go up dramatically do you want to do that to your kids?
I prefer to have solutions before peak oil.

1012 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:47:50am

Mr. Sinclair needs to purge himself of this haughty language eg. "Climate Denial Conference" and "denier lecture circuit" and "denier literature," those of us who lived through 60's era Scientific Materialism on college campuses recognize this chatter as attempts to bully people, and sophisticated people do not respond to being bullied.

I quit watching this video after about thirty seconds, enough to hear the word "denier" about three times. Had it been rational, I would have finished watching it.

I assume if it had been factual it would not have needed this propaganda language.

1013 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:50:16am

re: #1009 Coracle

It might seem weak if you ignore the present. Past epochs do not have anthropogenic factors to contend with.

If CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been many times higher than what it is now, then anthropogenic factors may not be so critical as have been argued. Since I've also heard (but that may have been refuted) that an increase of CO2 generate diminishing returns in the sense of heating.

This is a lame canard, dealt with over and over again in multiple places.

You might point me to a site which does so in a convincing manner. What I've seen before is an attempt to argue that MWP was entirely local to Europe, which archeological evidence seem to refute.

My conclusions are backed by the data. The little ice age doesn't refute anything. The last century-plus' warming trend is superimposed atop long- and short-term natural cycles.

If the end of the little ice age causes an increase of CO2, then the conclusion you draw may not be as strong as you think.

Furthermore, I'm just a sceptic, not a denier in the sense that my mind is still open for supported arguments for AGW. Name-calling and obviously phony arguments weaken the proponents case however.

1014 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:50:44am

re: #608 Walter L. Newton

re: #590 buzzsawmonkey

You both seem to have missed m reply to this upstream. There is no contradiction between the scripture and the science.

If there were though I would come down on the side of the science.

There is a great Rambam about this.

What is proven to be true can not be false by definition. The word of Hashem can not be false.
Therefore if what has been proven to be tru contradicts your understanding of Torah, then the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah.

Thus, if there were some scriptural thing that people said made AGW not possible, I would doubt the interpretation of those people.

The fact is that no where does the Torah speak in a literal manner about CO2. We are stuck with using just the science on this in all cases. Even if it did speak in a liter manner about it, we would still use the science to figure out what the Torah meant by it.

Judaism is not like certain other literalist traditions. We have many melinia of being ok with the idea that there are many many layers to meaning in the text.

Now just to be clear. The science is clear. The science is accurate and my religious beliefs have no bearing on the discussion.

As to how there is no contradiction, even the most casual look at scripture will show that Hashem is quite willing to let humans suffer the consequences of doing stupid things. It is part of that whole free will discussion if you really want to get down to it.

If you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, Hashem could stop the bullet. Jews however, do not teach that you should bank on the idea that he will.

We are doing really stupid things to the environment. There will be consequences. The science is quite clear - as clear as putting a gun to our head, and Hashem is in the business of letting us have free will to suffer the consequences.

I do hope that this puts any discussion of theology to bed here. It is utterly not relevant, and honestly feels like a strange attempt to discredit the science I have brought by falsely claiming that I have tainted it with my religious beliefs. This is a somewhat pernicious non-starter - especially since I responded to you twice before already Buzzy. Don't take my word for it in any case. Look at the science and the data provided to you in many links.

Further, I do not believe in AGW. I do not believe in any science. I am convinced of the truth of it by the data and the mathematics.

1015 Pennies  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:51:32am

re: #1011 jantjepietje

No there isn't and not doing it is only stalling it's not actually preventing prices from going up, if we wait till peak oil kicks in the prices are going to go up dramatically do you want to do that to your kids?
I prefer to have solutions before peak oil.

I totally agree that reducing CO2 emission is a good idea. If nothing else it usually saves money for those who succeed to decrease pollution.

1016 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:53:50am

re: #1012 Right Brain

I assume if it had been factual it would not have needed this propaganda language.

Not having watched it, assumptions are all you have to go on.

1017 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:56:05am

A word of caution:

[Link: www.reason.com...]

Excerpt:

When, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren was asked about his penchant for scientific overstatements, he responded that "the motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time."

"Motivation" is when Holdren tells us that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. Or when he claimed that sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century when your run-of-the-mill alarmist warns of only 13 inches.

"Motivating"—or, in other words, scaring the hell out of people—about "possibilities" is an ideological and political weapon unsheathed in the effort to pass policies that, in the end, coerce us to do the right thing.

Holdren's past flies in the face of Barack Obama's contention, made on the day of the science czar's appointment, that his administration was "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

Holdren embodies the opposite, actually.

Sal: If other people see you as doing these things, they will, quite understandably, tune you out or call you out. So if other people tell you that they perceive you this way, perhaps it would be wise to reconsider what you are predicting, whether or not the current climate science actually supports your contentions, and the manner in which you address those who have science-supported disagreements with you.

This whole discussion would be vastly more amicable and fruitful if all sides would endeavor to stick to the current climatological consensus on this issue.

1018 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:56:48am

re: #1013 Pennies

If the end of the little ice age causes an increase of CO2, then the conclusion you draw may not be as strong as you think.

If you refuse to recognize the difference between natural cycles and modern anthropogenic factors affecting the current balance, I can't help you.

Furthermore, I'm just a sceptic, not a denier in the sense that my mind is still open for supported arguments for AGW. Name-calling and obviously phony arguments weaken the proponents case however.

If you're truly open to the science, please start with aip.org and other sources linked in #14 in this thread.

1019 Irish Rose  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:02:04am

Heard on the morning DT that this thread was overheating.
Just thought I'd do a morning drive-through, and wish ya'll a good morning.

1020 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:07:14am

re: #1019 Irish Rose

Morning Irish. A lot of heat, little light. Par for the course. But it's still worth shining the flashlight in.

1021 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:25:28am

re: #908 Charles

I'm not the least bit surprised to find a creationist who's also a climate change denier.

You shouldn't be. They are frequently the same people, and they certainly argue in the same ways with the same tactics and distortions.

1022 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:31:37am

re: #952 Coracle

If he's "read hundreds of peer reviewed papers that firmly argue against AGW" then it should be child's play for him to pick out 10 clear examples.

Yet he hasn't.

That is because they do not exist. There might have been hundreds that questioned it back in the eighties and perhaps tens in the early nineties, but there are only a trickle of such papers now, and they are strongly disputed by the overwhelming concensus.

1023 The Left  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:04:45am

re: #1014 Ludwigvanquixote

re: #590 buzzsawmonkey

You both seem to have missed m reply to this upstream. There is no contradiction between the scripture and the science.

If there were though I would come down on the side of the science.

I do hope that this puts any discussion of theology to bed here. It is utterly not relevant, and honestly feels like a strange attempt to discredit the science I have brought by falsely claiming that I have tainted it with my religious beliefs. This is a somewhat pernicious non-starter - especially since I responded to you twice before already Buzzy. Don't take my word for it in any case. Look at the science and the data provided to you in many links.

Further, I do not believe in AGW. I do not believe in any science. I am convinced of the truth of it by the data and the mathematics.

Rock on Ludwig! Well said.

1024 theuglydougling  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:06:12am

As an AGW skeptic I found the video informative; it's refreshing that it wasn't full of "probably" or "maybe" or "models show...", etc.

My gripe is with at least one apparent contradiction. When an AGW skeptic uses solar activity, el nino, or volcanoes to demonstrate the significant effects of major natural phenomena (compared to humans), it is considered a "canard" and these things are dismissed as irrelevant or inconsequential. But the non-skeptic can then turn around and use those same phenomena to bolster his case when his data doesn't seem to fit with blaming human activity. So I would ask the non-skeptics: are these natural phenomena significant or not? They can't have it both ways. Or can they?

All too often both sides want to have it both ways, but it seems the skeptics are called out for it far more often than the other side. It frustrates understanding of the issue. I'm no scientist and will not claim to completely understand climate science, unlike the non-scientists I see deriding others for being non-scientists based solely on the position taken.

And just in case:
No, I am not a creationist/Paulian/birther/holocaust-denier.

1025 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:44:12am

JAXA has updated the Sept 7, 2009, sea ice extent. It's now 5,328,906 km2.re: #1024 theuglydougling

And just in case:
No, I am not a creationist/Paulian/birther/holocaust-denier.

Yeah, but do you KNOW any of them? I once saw an article that explained AGW perfectly. But, I quickly discovered that if you took the title of the article dropped 5 letters and added the "-" and the "d" you could anagram "holocaust-denier". That's all I needed to know about THAT article.

1026 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:14:41am

re: #1024 theuglydougling

As an AGW skeptic I found the video informative; it's refreshing that it wasn't full of "probably" or "maybe" or "models show...", etc.

My gripe is with at least one apparent contradiction. When an AGW skeptic uses solar activity, el nino, or volcanoes to demonstrate the significant effects of major natural phenomena (compared to humans), it is considered a "canard" and these things are dismissed as irrelevant or inconsequential. But the non-skeptic can then turn around and use those same phenomena to bolster his case when his data doesn't seem to fit with blaming human activity. So I would ask the non-skeptics: are these natural phenomena significant or not? They can't have it both ways. Or can they?

All too often both sides want to have it both ways, but it seems the skeptics are called out for it far more often than the other side. It frustrates understanding of the issue. I'm no scientist and will not claim to completely understand climate science, unlike the non-scientists I see deriding others for being non-scientists based solely on the position taken.

It's a question of time scale. Variations like ENSO are on an approximately dacadal timescale. They can shift the baseline trend anomalously high (As in 1998 El Nino) or low (2009 La Nina), and add noise to any longer term trends, such as the gradual rise over the last century. The reason why something like this is considered a canard is that cycles like these are used to attempt to refute longer term trends. The issue is frustrating. There are many signals that need to be deconvolved, and an understanding of the time scale and degree of forcing of the various factors is important. But it is not impossible for the interested layperson to understand, if they are interested in doing so.

1027 mt3_1234  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:28:44am

re: #1024 theuglydougling

I'm no scientist and will not claim to completely understand climate science, unlike the non-scientists I see deriding others for being non-scientists based solely on the position taken.

And just in case:
No, I am not a creationist/Paulian/birther/holocaust-denier.

these discussions should not come to the point where we have to qualify our arguments through "innocence by disassociation"
you bring up valid questions, in an honest, skeptical way, which should be the principles of ANY science

people shouldn't be categorizing people as creationist just because they raise some objections
the problem is that the line between honest skepticism and dishonest skepticism is very fine
especially in climate science

so, as long as you are honest with your questions, then you shouldn't feel compelled to pledge disallegiance to the dishonest factions
hopefully the people on this forum aren't making it seem as such

1028 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:39:12am

re: #1010 Pennies

If you base your argument that change is global by referring to a local change, I believe that pointing out the weakness in the argument is not uncalled for. I also want to point out that I don't use terms like "morons" and deniers" for those who don't agree with me.

Denier means denier and is not an insult. Some people deny the evidence claimed by others, and they say so. That is all.

People who claim that Co2 cannot have negative effects because it is "plant food" (yes I have seen that argument here) are morons.

The point you miss again about "local change" is that there is clear on the ground anectdotal evidence for local change worldwide, which means it is not local change.

1029 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:51:03am

As for whether the term "denier" is an accurate label, all you need to do is read through this thread to see that it absolutely is. Several deniers have been posting comments in here, not discussing anything, just dismissing all the evidence and spouting dishonest talking points they picked up from denier websites.

1030 jvic  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 11:12:12am

re: #1002 Pythagoras

...the activists have put themselves in a position where they cannot be wrong. If they can get everyone to change their CO2 habits, then no matter how the future turns out, they will be safe. If the warming turns out not to be a problem they can even claim credit for saving the world...

Pythagoras, fyi Steven Den Beste (or someone pretending to be SDB) said something similar a few months ago.

1031 Brigman  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 11:29:04am

I'm not a regular poster, but I read this site everyday.

The earth cools and it warms up - it has done so since the beginning. When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, with their enormous bodies breathing out CO2 and the piles of crap giving off methane for 165 million years, it took a fricking meteor from space to wipe them out, or a gigantic volcanic eruption - but certainly not rising sea levels and hurricanes. The biggest cause of Man-Made GHG in our time comes from farming animals - Cows and pigs, not T-Rexes and Brachios.

With El Nino, Solar Flares, Volcanic Eruptions, Shifting Plates etc., Man-Made causes amount to a bucket of water in an ocean of Climate Change factors. Sure it technically adds to the reasons why, but if you eliminate mankind and it's contributions - the Earth would not even know the difference.

The video describes El Nino, Man-Made GW and a "dose of chance" as the reasons for global warming. WTF is a "dose of chance"? The video also says Patrick Michaels is a servant to a "secret list of corporate clients" Oooo, a secret list!!! WTF?

It's such a tell-tale sign when the left is behind a cause - it's rooted in narcissism - it's all about ME ME ME. "I'm living now so it must have never happened before. It's up to us! We are the change we've been waiting for! We've been messing up the planet since the industrial revolution" Look around you, you are a flea on the ass of Mammoth. And by duping people into believing this crap you tend to gain millions and millions of dollars by scaring people into buying carbon offsets, isn't that right Mr. Vice President Gore? Carbon offsets. They remind me of those ads that tried to get you to buy your high school girlfriend a star in the sky and have it named after her.

You want to worry about something - how about a Robot Uprising and the eventual self-awareness of Artificial Intelligence. Oops, I just outed myself as a nutjob. How about this, they should get rid of designated hitter in baseball too!

1032 mt3_1234  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 11:36:20am

re: #1031 Brigman

Oops, I just outed myself as a nutjob. How about this, they should get rid of designated hitter in baseball too!

go back to the national league you commie bastard!

///

1033 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 12:22:38pm

re: #1031 Brigman

I'm not a regular poster, but I read this site everyday.

The earth cools and it warms up - it has done so since the beginning.


End of argument for you?

The point is that the earth hundreds of millions of years ago was a different planet with utterly unrecognizable continents (mostly only one in fact). Drawing such analogies is meaningless unless you can define the factors at work in any given time. Surely you can accept that there can be more than one cause behind climate and climate change?

1034 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 12:26:08pm

re: #1031 Brigman

The video also says Patrick Michaels is a servant to a "secret list of corporate clients" Oooo, a secret list!!! WTF?

I'll leave aside the other BS talking points you recited, and just point this out.

Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch:

Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are, but leaked documents have revealed that several were power utilities which operate coal power stations. On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.

Well, well ... a secret list of corporate clients. What do you know.

1035 Brigman  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 1:29:46pm

re: #1033 Naso Tang

I completely agree that there are multiple factors behind climate and climate change from billions of years ago to last night. But this whole green movement is getting just as large, corrupt and rich as the oil business - and it's based on fear.

1036 Brigman  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 1:43:57pm

re: #1034 Charles

Well, well ... a secret list of corporate clients. What do you know.

Perfect! But my point in singling it out, was their verbage in calling him a "servant" and the list a "secret" - trying to convey some sort of conspiracy. A private firm/company should not be compelled to open it's books for anyone, unless laws have been broken.

And as far as talking points go. Maybe I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply referring to my own formed talking points in my post. But that term is used for everything now. I can't form my own opinions from countless papers, articles, documentaries, interviews and common sense? No, if someone has a disagreement - it's because I've been handed talking points, or have a list I gathered from my Leaders.

Simply put, I don't believe that Man is the sole cause of global warming in our lifetime. As well as Global Warming killing us all, in our lifetime. If it does happen then I hope you will at least toss over a life jacket to me as I struggle to stay afloat!

1037 libertyvillemike  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 1:46:48pm

Of course both sides of this argument are being financed by interest groups. Is Greenpeace less biased than Exxon? Who cares! Look at the data and draw your own conclusions. I have (credentials include two degrees in engineering, and I have specifically worked with heat transfer) and the science of global warming is far too unclear to take any actions, let alone those being prescribed. Michaels was warning the "deniers" to not make false statements, because the "denier" side only gets one chance. The pro AGW side get's unlimited chances, as evidenced by the Goracle and his movie. And speaking of Gore, I don't remember there ever being a debate (he has avoided offers to debate like he has avoided salad bars) - just when was the debate over?

1038 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 1:57:03pm

re: #1037 libertyvillemike

What gets "unlimited chances" is the basic research. The research attempts to answer questions, not to come up with preconceived answers. The answers that come up, time, and time, and time again are GW and AGW. There is a case for CAGW, but it is less solid, and requires more rigorous investigation. As for "any actions," I have not seen a convincing case that an aggressive energy policy converting to renewables plus nukes hurts anything except the bottom line of companies with business plans as old and adaptable as the fossils they derive their fuels from.

1039 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:09:01pm

re: #1035 Brigman

I completely agree that there are multiple factors behind climate and climate change from billions of years ago to last night. But this whole green movement is getting just as large, corrupt and rich as the oil business - and it's based on fear.

Yes it is, on both sides, but that is besides the issue of whether or not it is real.

1040 LibertyvilleMike  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:22:42pm

re: #1038 Coracle

Lets take one of the most basic proofs provided by Gore - the historical plot of global temperature and CO2 levels. Cause necessarily precedes effect - temperature levels in his own plot rise and fall before CO2 levels. Why? One reasonable explanation is that CO2 comes out of solution in the world's oceans as the water temperature rises. I have seen no good explanation for that one fact - have you?

1041 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:32:17pm

re: #1040 LibertyvilleMike

Lets take one of the most basic proofs provided by Gore - the historical plot of global temperature and CO2 levels. Cause necessarily precedes effect - temperature levels in his own plot rise and fall before CO2 levels. Why? One reasonable explanation is that CO2 comes out of solution in the world's oceans as the water temperature rises. I have seen no good explanation for that one fact - have you?

Abundantly. Humans are pumping out CO2 at significant rates, and have been increasingly over the last century plus, raising global levels, increasing CO2 forcing. It's all in numerous primers linked here numerous times. You only haven't seen it if you haven't looked.

1042 LibertyvilleMike  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:44:53pm

re: #1041 Coracle

You didn't address my point. This is one reason why there is no intelligent debate on this issue.

For the record, if I believed in ACGW, I would be fighting like hell to curb CO2 production.

Can you answer the one point I raised above? Then I'll address your point - yes, I do believe that humans are causing CO2 levels to rise - why didn't global temperature rise from 1940 to 1970? What caused the Medieval Optimum? etc. etc.

1043 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 2:52:27pm

re: #1038 Coracle

What gets "unlimited chances" is the basic research. The research attempts to answer questions, not to come up with preconceived answers. The answers that come up, time, and time, and time again are GW and AGW. There is a case for CAGW, but it is less solid, and requires more rigorous investigation. As for "any actions," I have not seen a convincing case that an aggressive energy policy converting to renewables plus nukes hurts anything except the bottom line of companies with business plans as old and adaptable as the fossils they derive their fuels from.

Depends on what you mean by "aggressive."

1044 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 3:42:42pm

re: #1040 LibertyvilleMike

Lets take one of the most basic proofs provided by Gore - the historical plot of global temperature and CO2 levels. Cause necessarily precedes effect - temperature levels in his own plot rise and fall before CO2 levels. Why? One reasonable explanation is that CO2 comes out of solution in the world's oceans as the water temperature rises. I have seen no good explanation for that one fact - have you?

If you are seriously interested in this issue and not just repeating anti-AGW talking points, there's a very good explanation in this video:

Youtube Video
1045 EndlessBob  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:05:05pm

re: #1044 Charles

If you are seriously interested in this issue and not just repeating anti-AGW talking points, there's a very good explanation in this video:


[Video]

No. Again, the narrator handwaves away the cause of the initial warming and then goes on to claim that the released CO2 caused the rest of the warming.

This is not science. If there was a cause for the initial warming that was independent of atmospheric CO2 content, then there is no basis for claiming that the rest of the warming was caused by increased CO2 levels. This is "hauling yourself up by your bootstraps." The evidence of the ice cores is that CO2 trails warming and cooling: the Earth warms, CO2 increases; the Earth cools, CO2 decreases. The geologic record quite clearly shows that there were long periods in Earth's history where temps were high and CO2 was low, and vice-versa.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is undeniable. But its effect is apparently weak enough that other natural forces regularly overcame its contributions to create climate swings between iceless Earths and ice ages.

The Earth has just left an ice age. Fifteen thousand years ago icecaps three miles thick sat where Chicago is now. Human activity had nothing to do with their melting, and human activity is having a very small effect right now, given that only 5% of atmospheric CO2 is human-generated.

1046 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:13:04pm

re: #1045 EndlessBob

How did I know you'd just brush it off and dismiss it?

1047 EndlessBob  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:23:23pm

re: #1004 Coracle

re: #1001 EndlessBob

The 5% number is commonly accepted. You can find it anywhere from Wikipedia to here: United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization

From the same source you cherrypicked:

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.

You still want to handwave away the "unknown cause" that started the previous warmings, yet have no problem accepting that once this warming started -- without CO2 forcing -- that 800 years later, the CO2 became the prime driver. And yet wave away again the "unknown cause" that stopped the warming and cooled the earth, allowing CO2 levels to fall again.

I don't need to handwave anything. I have a proximate cause and mechanism for today's trends, backed by the observations and the data. You find me a better explanation, consistent with the data.

CO2 is considered a prime forcing agent today because the GCMs have been programmed to consider it as such.

CO2 is a prime forcing agent because physics and chemistry dictates it is.

Perhaps you should research the historic geological data yourself and not just accept my -- or anybody else's -- word for it.


A truly ironic statement. I know the geologic data, that is how I know why millennial and megayear cycles are not the drivers of today's trends.

I'm not sure what you see wrong with those numbers. The section you picked clearly shows that humans are adding only an additional 3% of the normally produced amount of CO2. The article clearly states that Earth would be in balance except for that 3%, and that extra amount is what has caused the increase over the past hundred years or so.

Your "proximate cause and mechanism" are disproved by the geologic record you claim to be aware of. There have been many periods in geologic time when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than today with lower temps, and vice-versa. Are you aware of this, or do you deny it?

1048 EndlessBob  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:30:04pm

re: #1046 Charles

How did I know you'd just brush it off and dismiss it?

Because I watched the entire thing and the CO2-temperature part of it was wrong. That is the only part I am concerned with at the moment.

One cannot dismiss the Vostok core data with the handwaving that RealClimate offered. Something caused that warming to start. What was the mechanism? RealClimate offers no suggestion, but claims that CO2 forcing became the primary driver... until it wasn't, and the Earth cooled again.

It completely boggles my mind that a so-called scientific explanation can fail to account for the "something" that started the warming and the "something" that caused the cooling, but still assert that the CO2 released during the warming was the primary forcing, even though it trailed both warming and cooling trends.

How do you explain it? Or do you just accept the "authorities'" word for it?

1049 chip  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:19:31pm

freetoken 982 said:
"Wrong. Very wrong. That you are referencing the non-scientist Tony Watts shows that you really are relying on unreliable thinking. The NCDC showed, very simply, that Watt's objections are irrelevant in the big picture."

Oh, of course, the big picture is more important than the little bits of data that form it. The survey showed the data is corrupted. Writing algorithms to 'correct' the data is not empirical science.

"The troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools."

Yes, but according to the IPCC the tropical troposphere should show the most significant warming because of the higher concentration of CO2. Look at this graph and it's clear this isn't occurring.
[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]

So, again, theories need data and evidence. Right now we have a grand theory backed by much hypothetical computer modeling. And the hypotheses are having a hard time keeping up with events.

1050 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:25:03pm

re: #1044 Charles

If you are seriously interested in this issue and not just repeating anti-AGW talking points, there's a very good explanation in this video:

The video is excellent but the explanation of the 800 year lag is flawed.

Let me state the skeptic's objection a different way. The video, like lots of things, constrains itself by avoiding the vocabulary of Calculus. Thus, I wouldn't say that he just handwaived the issue away, but he didn't really explain it.

The video uses the word "triggers" to describe events that start a process which then supposedly self-sustains through feedback mechanisms (e.g. the CO2 change). I agree that these mechanisms are there. It's how the feedback equations (differential equations, really) play out that's the problem.

Suppose temperature is falling and then some trigger reverses it. While it was falling, CO2 was also falling and passed through a value X. This value X is part of the feedback and is driving the temperature lower.

After the trigger, temperature rises and then CO2 starts to rise too. Eventually it gets back up to X but now the theory says that a CO2 level of X is driving temperature UP. That's a problem as X cannot do both. At this point I can only go on using Calculus.

The feedback term in the differential equation is that the derivative of temp with respect to time (dT/dt) is a function of X, not dX/dt. I think the technical folks here who are not skeptics/deniers will confirm this. There are other forms of feedback beside dT/dt being a function of X but this is the one everyone's thinking of. So, Houston, we gotta problem.

The only way I can see this working out is if the trigger isn't transient. That is, whatever force started the reversal is still pushing the whole way up. Then the response of the system makes sense.

But if the trigger is durative, then we no longer need the CO2 feedback to sustain the process. The trigger is just pushing it up (or down in the next phase). These swings neither prove nor disprove the feedback (which is fine since everyone agrees that there's some feedback).

1051 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 5:55:22pm

The video explanation for the "lag" is consistent with what I've read in many other sources -- this issue has been thoroughly covered in the scientific literature, because it's so often used as an anti-AGW talking point.

Am I accepting the "authorities" word for it? You bet. This isn't my field of expertise, so if I see that nearly every reputable scientist agrees with a certain conclusion, I'm going to go with the scientists.

Clarification: it's not my field of expertise, but I HAVE read a lot on the subject, starting about two years ago, because I wanted to become better informed about a vitally important issue.

I started out as a pretty hardcore skeptic, ready to dismiss that climate change was even happening at all. But the more I read, and the more I checked and cross-checked sources, the more convinced I became that the climate change crisis is not only real, but a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

And the more I saw through the numerous people on the anti-AGW side who are simply dishonest or deluded. There is an ENORMOUS amount of false information being pumped out by places like the Heartland Institute and politicians like James Inhofe and Michele Bachmann, and I've completely lost respect for most of the so-called "skeptical" arguments.

In many ways the deniers act exactly like creationists, using quotes out of context, lying about having more support than they really do, and issuing an endless stream of scientific-sounding bullshit that's intended only to hoodwink and confuse gullible people.

I know this makes me a bad "conservative," because I can't blindly follow along with this bogus agenda, and have actually researched the issues and come to my own conclusions. So be it.

1052 EndlessBob  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:06:24pm

re: #1050 Pythagoras

The video is excellent but the explanation of the 800 year lag is flawed.

Let me state the skeptic's objection a different way. The video, like lots of things, constrains itself by avoiding the vocabulary of Calculus. Thus, I wouldn't say that he just handwaived the issue away, but he didn't really explain it.

The video uses the word "triggers" to describe events that start a process which then supposedly self-sustains through feedback mechanisms (e.g. the CO2 change). I agree that these mechanisms are there. It's how the feedback equations (differential equations, really) play out that's the problem.

Suppose temperature is falling and then some trigger reverses it. While it was falling, CO2 was also falling and passed through a value X. This value X is part of the feedback and is driving the temperature lower.

After the trigger, temperature rises and then CO2 starts to rise too. Eventually it gets back up to X but now the theory says that a CO2 level of X is driving temperature UP. That's a problem as X cannot do both. At this point I can only go on using Calculus.

The feedback term in the differential equation is that the derivative of temp with respect to time (dT/dt) is a function of X, not dX/dt. I think the technical folks here who are not skeptics/deniers will confirm this. There are other forms of feedback beside dT/dt being a function of X but this is the one everyone's thinking of. So, Houston, we gotta problem.

The only way I can see this working out is if the trigger isn't transient. That is, whatever force started the reversal is still pushing the whole way up. Then the response of the system makes sense.

But if the trigger is durative, then we no longer need the CO2 feedback to sustain the process. The trigger is just pushing it up (or down in the next phase). These swings neither prove nor disprove the feedback (which is fine since everyone agrees that there's some feedback).

Can you source the equations you are referring to so that the technical folks here who may well be skeptics/deniers (I've never heard of one's ability to follow calculus to be impacted by their scientific leanings) can see more precisely to what you are referring? It sounds to me as though your presumption still is that CO2 is the primary forcing for global temps, which the paleoclimatic evidence contraindicates.

One can certainly demonstrate a calculus that will reproduce any curve one wishes, as long as one puts the proper values in their desired places. However if one examines this graph, based on Scotese 2002, Ruddiman 2001 and Pagani et al 2005, I think you'll see the difficulty creating a consistent set of equations to explain the evidence.

Geological Timescale: Concentration of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations

1053 Optimizer  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:06:35pm

I guess I'm late to this party, but when I saw this video a week or so ago (when somebody posted it as a link) my impression was that it made a lot of hay from a pretty minor point, and that one could easily spend an hour (and more) pointing out all the various inconsistencies in it's own arguments on other points.

The minor (and legitimate) - point that it makes is that it's not legitimate to look at the peak temperature in 1998 vs. today and announce that a "cooling trend" is in progress. Clearly the 1998 peak was an anomaly (from a "Super El Nino") and shouldn't be considered as part of any trend.

What it seemed to be in denial of, however, is that the temperatures leveled off early in this decade - and that none of the climate models that we're supposed to stake $Trillions on "called it".

In that way, it's another straw man. It sets up that "the Earth isn't cooling, like they say" when the real point is that it's not warming right now, either, hasn't for almost a decade, and that contradicts what their models said would happen.

It's also more than a tad one-sided, of course, in its presentation. Back in 1998, the AGW alarmists were MORE than willing to point to that anomaly and declare that it was evidence that the Earth's temperature were spiraling out of control. We were supposed to ignore the El nino, and expect that evil CO2 was going to make the temperature shoot up at a fast clip indefinitely, destroying the Earth as we know it. I'm still amazed at how many people on this blog close ranks with these shameless Chicken Littles.

[BTW, I wouldn't be interested in anything George Will has to say about it, either.]

1054 freetoken  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:12:15pm

re: #1050 Pythagoras

Graphs do not "cause" anything. Pointing to a supposed "lag" infers a single cause leads to a single effect, where in reality there are many real physical causes and effects happening simultaneously. This is why trying to quantify the individual components of the climate system becomes so complex, and why LVQ keeps talking about non-linear systems and dynamic equilibrium.

Let's take another analogy - cement. In nature there are natural binders, perhaps not too dissimilar to what humans use. Indeed, rock collectors have all sorts of sedimentary rocks in their collections made of particles bound together by various binders.

Therefor, one can clearly establish that bound, aggregated material is natural, and is found all over the world.

So, if I go downtown and look at all the concrete structures... I have to conclude that man had nothing to do with making any of those buildings, since aggregate material can clearly be shown in the geological record for hundreds of millions of years.

Correct?

Well, that is how the "lag" argument about CO2 sounds to anyone who is studied in climatology.

Anyone who thinks the "lag" argument disproves AGW simply hasn't worked out the whole cause and effect sequence correctly.

The addition to the atmosphere of gasses such as CO2 by man is called a perturbation for a very good reason. That is, the climate processes already existed before man started to make any changes; thus the changes man makes are perturbing the course of events.

Thus, the effort (and btw the IPCC was very clear about this in the last reports) becomes one of attribution, that is, determining the relative effects of various causes, in a system with both positive and negative feedbacks.

1055 freetoken  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:18:03pm

re: #1052 EndlessBob

Again, you mixing up various arguments.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that has nothing to do with any geological record.

Secondly, the period in which we have best confidence in data is the Quaternary, which is important because the other factors affecting climate such as the distribution of continents on this planet today are similar only to the Quaternary period.

1056 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:20:57pm

re: #1045 EndlessBob

The "what caused the Vostok core warming" question, is irrelevant, to the current situation, and I will tell you why, in simplified terms.

If you disagree with any of these givens, then we'll have to back off to even more basic principles.
Given: CO2 is a forcing factor for warming. Increased CO2 traps more heat in the atmosphere.
Given: Warming oceans release CO2.
Given: There are natural cycles, such as Milankovich that drive warming and cooling on kiloyear cycles. These cycles may be stronger forcings than a few percent carbon, but they operate very slowly over much longer spans of time.
Given: Human industry has increased atmospheric CO2 by close to 100ppm over the last century plus.

In the geologic past, other forcing factors, such as orbital and spin variations of the earth, cause shifts in the climate, warming or cooling the earth. One such shift may warm the oceans over slowly over hundreds or thousands of years, eventually enough to release CO2, which adds and additional warming forcing, increasing the temperature rise and the final equilibrium temperature.

But CO2 all by itself is a forcing factor. If you put enough of it in the atmosphere, it starts the warming all by itself, by simple physical principles. That is what we are doing when we pump that measly extra 3% into the atmosphere. If we warm the oceans enough from our influence, then they will release additional CO2 just like they did with the orbital forcing in previous cycles.

Now, I'm not claiming this is exactly how it works, but it is analogous to how it works. It doesn't matter what previous mechanisms were when we know the current one in operation. On tho other hand, it seems to me that Milankovich forcing might good correlation with the cores. One other thing to consider, is that current CO2 levels are higher than any of those measured in the various cores - even at the hottest periods, and have gotten there on the vanishingly small time scale, geologically speaking, of a century. This is a significantly different forcing from natural events.

1057 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:24:34pm

re: #1051 Charles

Your position is reasonable and the "bad conservative" thing just might explain the amazing (to me, anyway) reaction to your post on Van Jones. I don't deny AGW, I just think it isn't catastrophic and the raw data seems to support my contention that the trends are holding linear and not "tipping" or accelerating. (I posted some raw data links in #137.)

Getting back to the video that is the basis of this thread, I don't care if the temps since 1998 are down, flat, or slightly up; they are a regression to the mean that gets the long term trend back to its regression line. The next zig in the zigzag will surely be up and it'll just keep us on track. Thus, for example, the one inch per decade rise in sea level will continue until further notice. Since the low end of the IPCC range is 7" by 2100, this is not a radical prediction.

The heart of the whole CAGW thing is that the current trends will get worse and that will be a problem. Unlike all the other AGW points, this one really isn't well supported. This has been going on long enough that a lot of pessimistic predictions have already failed. The global warming march just continues at a steady, non-catastrophic pace.

By the way, if anyone has a reference to a real (mathematical/quantitative) explanation of the 800 year lag and how the feedback works out in those cases, I'm interested.

1058 Coracle  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:30:12pm

re: #1052 EndlessBob


Geological Timescale: Concentration of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations

Do note that current CO2 levels are in fact higher than your cited plot lists for the Cretaceous period, where temps were consistently more than 6 degrees warmer than now. The horizontals scale of the plot is too compressed to show a near asymptotic rise in CO2 concentration in the late holocene, dirven by human industry.

1059 Optimizer  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:32:50pm

re: #1050 Pythagoras

... The video, like lots of things, constrains itself by avoiding the vocabulary of Calculus. ...

Suppose temperature is falling and then some trigger reverses it. While it was falling, CO2 was also falling and passed through a value X. This value X is part of the feedback and is driving the temperature lower.

After the trigger, temperature rises and then CO2 starts to rise too. Eventually it gets back up to X but now the theory says that a CO2 level of X is driving temperature UP. That's a problem as X cannot do both. At this point I can only go on using Calculus.

The feedback term in the differential equation is that the derivative of temp with respect to time (dT/dt) is a function of X, not dX/dt. I think the technical folks here who are not skeptics/deniers will confirm this. There are other forms of feedback beside dT/dt being a function of X but this is the one everyone's thinking of. So, Houston, we gotta problem. ...

I appreciate the calculus reference, but this is clear as mud. For one thing, you define X as a threshold (which would be a constant), and then refer to dT/dt as a function of it, and also refer to dX/dt.

What "positive feedback" implies is that dT/dt = +k * T (at least in a linearized, incremental sense. With my "+", I'm indicating that the costant of proportionality, "k", is positive. So what this equation says is that the higher the temperature is, the faster the temperature will increase (because of increased GHGs caused by the increased T).

The solution to that differential equation is T(t) = T(0)*exp(k*t). In other words, the system is unstable, and the temperature increases exponentially without bound.

In the real world, all it takes is the least little blip to set off an unstable mode like this one. Since even 1998 didn't set it off, it clearly doesn't exist (and, therefore, those end-of-the-world models that rely on this effect are clearly wrong).

1060 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:38:27pm

re: #1052 EndlessBob

Can you source the equations you are referring to so that the technical folks here who may well be skeptics/deniers (I've never heard of one's ability to follow calculus to be impacted by their scientific leanings) can see more precisely to what you are referring? It sounds to me as though your presumption still is that CO2 is the primary forcing for global temps, which the paleoclimatic evidence contraindicates.

One can certainly demonstrate a calculus that will reproduce any curve one wishes, as long as one puts the proper values in their desired places. However if one examines this graph, based on Scotese 2002, Ruddiman 2001 and Pagani et al 2005, I think you'll see the difficulty creating a consistent set of equations to explain the evidence.

No, I can't source what I'm talking about -- other than just referencing a textbook. The basic concept of the greenhouse effect (explained quite nicely in the video Charles linked in #1044) is that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses block long-wave radiation (scatter, really) and thus keep heat energy from leaving Earth and escaping into space. This extra energy warms things (that is T rise, or dT/dt is positive). If X is the concentration of CO2, dT/dt is (partially) driven by X. This becomes a term in the differential equation.

1061 Sam N  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:51:06pm

re: #1057 Pythagoras

You're working on a rather incomplete set of knowledge (as am I). Now you may be correct, and your hypothesis seems reasonable, but there is also a possibility that buffers have, thus far, prevented acceleration in temperature. For example, as CO2 increases in the oceans, it becomes less able to soak up the increases in our atmosphere, and only then will the more rapid increases in CO2 (and thus temperature) become apparent.

It seems that if we take your simple model predicting a linear increase in temperature as correct, but include oceanic buffering of CO2 as a factor, then we can expect an acceleration of temperature in the future.

50 years is pretty short in the geologic sense, and I have no idea what other sorts of non-linearities exist in the system. I presume climate scientists have a better, though still imperfect, understanding.

1062 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:51:08pm

re: #1059 Optimizer

I appreciate the calculus reference, but this is clear as mud. For one thing, you define X as a threshold (which would be a constant), and then refer to dT/dt as a function of it, and also refer to dX/dt.

What "positive feedback" implies is that dT/dt = +k * T (at least in a linearized, incremental sense. With my "+", I'm indicating that the costant of proportionality, "k", is positive. So what this equation says is that the higher the temperature is, the faster the temperature will increase (because of increased GHGs caused by the increased T).

The solution to that differential equation is T(t) = T(0)*exp(k*t). In other words, the system is unstable, and the temperature increases exponentially without bound.

In the real world, all it takes is the least little blip to set off an unstable mode like this one. Since even 1998 didn't set it off, it clearly doesn't exist (and, therefore, those end-of-the-world models that rely on this effect are clearly wrong).

No, I didn't mean X as a threshold. Maybe I should have said, "any X." My point is that for any intermediate X, the CO2 will hit that value both on the way up and on the way down . Does it, at level X, contribute positively to dT/dt or negatively? How can this answer reverse depending on whether you're on the way up or on the way down?

As for your exponential result, that is the right solution for the DiffEq you present. However, the blackbody radiation formula (which has T4 in it) is a big term too. That is, in the limit, dominant over all lower order terms so we know the instabilities can't go off to infinity. Still, there can be regions that are locally unstable.

My point is NOT that there's no feedback -- there most definitely are some positive feedback terms in the equation. My point is that the video did not address this well.

1063 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 6:56:04pm

re: #1050 Pythagoras

You waffle with suppositions. There are multiple factors at play, but the simplest one is clearly and simply verifiable. CO2 and others like methane are clearly and simply greenhouse gases (presumably you know what that means). Close to 7 billion humans are releasing what took nature hundreds of millions of years to lock up, and doing it in a human generation or two, all the while paving over or converting forest biomass to seasonal crops on a massive scale thereby reducing the absorption capacity of the planet; and I haven't even mentioned the other factors we influence in the oceans.

To think we can't have an effect on this scale is to be thinking very small indeed.

1064 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:01:29pm

re: #1062 Pythagoras

No, I didn't mean X as a threshold. Maybe I should have said, "any X." My point is that for any intermediate X, the CO2 will hit that value both on the way up and on the way down . Does it, at level X, contribute positively to dT/dt or negatively? How can this answer reverse depending on whether you're on the way up or on the way down?

As for your exponential result, that is the right solution for the DiffEq you present. However, the blackbody radiation formula (which has T4 in it) is a big term too. That is, in the limit, dominant over all lower order terms so we know the instabilities can't go off to infinity. Still, there can be regions that are locally unstable.

My point is NOT that there's no feedback -- there most definitely are some positive feedback terms in the equation. My point is that the video did not address this well.

Publish and request your peer review, then post your links. Thank you.

1065 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:05:24pm

re: #1061 Sam N

You're working on a rather incomplete set of knowledge (as am I). Now you may be correct, and your hypothesis seems reasonable, but there is also a possibility that buffers have, thus far, prevented acceleration in temperature. For example, as CO2 increases in the oceans, it becomes less able to soak up the increases in our atmosphere, and only then will the more rapid increases in CO2 (and thus temperature) become apparent.

It seems that if we take your simple model predicting a linear increase in temperature as correct, but include oceanic buffering of CO2 as a factor, then we can expect an acceleration of temperature in the future.

50 years is pretty short in the geologic sense, and I have no idea what other sorts of non-linearities exist in the system. I presume climate scientists have a better, though still imperfect, understanding.

Very good! Yes, there are lots of "buffers" (which I'd describe as inertial terms, but they could be negative feedbacks with a limited range).

My overall point is empirical. All of the feedback effects are already in play. Methane is already bubbling up in the Arctic, ice is shrinking -- which reduces albedo. In the presence of all these effects the data is amazingly linear. Plots of temperature and sea ice area do NOT show the curvature that was predicted a decade or two ago. With every wobble, the side favored by that wobble gets all excited. Then the zig, zags the other way and the other side gets excited. Some of the alarmist prediction about the next 100 years started 30 years ago. I will NOT give them a mulligan. They've only got 70 years left and they are now way behind schedule.

1066 Sam N  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:13:31pm

re: #1062 Pythagoras

My understanding is that the glaciation cycles are triggered by changes in solar radiation, S. Decreasing T when X is high would require much lower S than decreasing T when X is low. So presumably the difference in whether a level of X will result in + dT/dt or - dT/dt is in other factors.

This does not in anyway diminish the ability of X to act in a positive feedback loop. For example, remove X from the atmosphere, now T is set by S (in this very simple model). Now add in X, in a case where there is plenty more CO2 sequestered, which can be released as T increases. Now if S increases, it will trigger an increase in T, which in turn will increase X. The interaction of X and S will further increase T eve more, etc. Now, even if S declines a little, the increase in X means T can keep rising, unless S declines enough to lower T again.

1067 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:13:32pm

re: #1064 Naso Tang

Publish and request your peer review, then post your links. Thank you.

I am flattered that you think my musings are worth publishing. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do a scholarly write-up. If others here want to use any thought I may have presented, they are welcome to do so freely -- I need no credit or reference. It's just a chat really and not worthy.

And Pythagoras isn't my real name.

1068 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 7:34:40pm

re: #1066 Sam N

My understanding is that the glaciation cycles are triggered by changes in solar radiation, S. Decreasing T when X is high would require much lower S than decreasing T when X is low. So presumably the difference in whether a level of X will result in + dT/dt or - dT/dt is in other factors.

If S is the trigger for glaciation, we may be in big trouble. If you're just talking about solar energy, it looks like the variation is very small. However, Svensmark's theory could get interesting. He contends that the solar flux throughout the heliosphere deflect cosmic rays and the cosmic rays help turn water vapor into clouds. If so, the low solar flux could lead to more clouds with a significant cooling effect (because they would block incoming radiation more than outgoing. This is all quite new and unsettled but we may be about to find out. The current solar minimum has exceeded absolutely every prediction -- with no end in sight. Then there's this:

[Link: science.nasa.gov...]

1069 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:00:17pm

re: #1067 Pythagoras

I am flattered that you think my musings are worth publishing. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do a scholarly write-up. If others here want to use any thought I may have presented, they are welcome to do so freely -- I need no credit or reference. It's just a chat really and not worthy.

And Pythagoras isn't my real name.

I suppose your sarcasm and mine cancel out then. As to the rest, I'll assume it is just a chat, and not worthy.

Not Pythagoras? No kidding?

1070 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:01:44pm

re: #1066 Sam N

My understanding is that the glaciation cycles are triggered by changes in solar radiation

Really. Where did you understand this from?

1071 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:04:28pm

re: #1069 Naso Tang

I suppose your sarcasm and mine cancel out then. As to the rest, I'll assume it is just a chat, and not worthy.

Not Pythagoras? No kidding?

This is fun. I'm thinking that's not your real picture either.

1072 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:09:12pm

re: #1071 Pythagoras

This is fun. I'm thinking that's not your real picture either.

Fun is relative.

1073 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:15:14pm

re: #1072 Naso Tang

Did you know that Naso Tang is an anagram for "Ann's toga"?

1074 Sam N  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:25:43pm

re: #1070 Naso Tang

Some general searches on ice ages, including:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
[Link: culter.colorado.edu:1030...]

I simply meant amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, or more specifically the ground where ice can more easily become more permanent. Meh, I'm not a climate scientist I'm a neuroscientist, I may state things improperly from time to time.

1075 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:26:24pm

re: #1073 Pythagoras

Puns are the name of the game here.

1076 Pythagoras  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:02:23pm

re: #1074 Sam N

Some general searches on ice ages, including:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
[Link: culter.colorado.edu:1030...]

I simply meant amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, or more specifically the ground where ice can more easily become more permanent. Meh, I'm not a climate scientist I'm a neuroscientist, I may state things improperly from time to time.

Wow, I didn't realize that the Wikipedia entry was so good.

I think both Naso Tang and I misinterpreted your comment. I know I was thinking of S as just the solar activity.

1077 Reginald Perrin  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:07:10pm

This is hilariousre: #941 Zoomie

Could you please ask God to speak up, I'm a little hard of hearing and have never heard his voice. Is he a bass or alto?

BTW, is God the only voice you hear in your head, or are there others?

1078 californiabrowser  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:07:15pm

Charles,

re 914

Most of what you just posted is completely false.
It absolutely has been proven beyond all doubt that CO2 is:
1) a greenhouse gas (I can't believe you're going to dispute that!), and
2) a cause of global warming.
I have no idea why you folks think you can get away with stating outright falsehoods as if they were unquestioned facts.


1) is not controversial.
2) is vague--do you mean that in a controlled experiment in a laboratory--in a flask, say, that CO2 is warming, then yes, and that is NOT disputed. BUT, and then but here is the crux of the matter, the question is both attribution: (a) how much (and with what level of uncertainty) of the observed change in temperature can be attributed to human activity (CO2 and GHGs, aerosols, land use, etc) and (b) how reliable are future predictions of climate under various assumptions ('scenarios'). The answer to these questions is in dispute. For example, see the online petition and the list of scientists who have signed it. Sadly, your assertions of the certainty in what is known on climate change are only reducing your credibility among many of us who have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the AGW problem. Why would anyone rely on your judgment when you write with about other topics? Are you missing the point there as you are here?

1079 Reginald Perrin  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:08:23pm

oops...disregard This is hilariousre in my last post

1080 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:09:52pm

re: #1059 Optimizer

I appreciate the calculus reference, but this is clear as mud. For one thing, you define X as a threshold (which would be a constant), and then refer to dT/dt as a function of it, and also refer to dX/dt.

What "positive feedback" implies is that dT/dt = +k * T (at least in a linearized, incremental sense. With my "+", I'm indicating that the costant of proportionality, "k", is positive. So what this equation says is that the higher the temperature is, the faster the temperature will increase (because of increased GHGs caused by the increased T).

The solution to that differential equation is T(t) = T(0)*exp(k*t). In other words, the system is unstable, and the temperature increases exponentially without bound.

In the real world, all it takes is the least little blip to set off an unstable mode like this one. Since even 1998 didn't set it off, it clearly doesn't exist (and, therefore, those end-of-the-world models that rely on this effect are clearly wrong).

Except that the system is neither linear or singe variable, so your final conclusion is completely false. You are just wrong because you have over-simplified it to the point of not reflecting the real system at all. . It is also false in the Earth's geological history where other things than man made causes have indeed caused great non-linear responses.

1081 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:15:25pm

re: #1059 Optimizer

If you care for a real and legitimate discussion of this, look here.
[Link: www.sussex.ac.uk...]

1082 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 9:37:14pm

re: #1078 californiabrowser

Interesting link. Interesting because the proposed amendment is in complete contradiction to the APS statement as proposed and also that it presents no contradictory evidence to the statement "the evidence is incontrovertible", and that evidence is readily available to anyone with internet access.

In addition the amendment makes primarily the case that climate has changed in the distant past, without any evidence that it was for the conditions today, and it makes the disingenuous suggestion that more CO2 is good for plants and animals anyway (which I have previously labelled as the moron argument).

I can't comment on the signatories to this petition. The credentials sound cool, but I do notice that many of their reference dates make them sound like they could be my dad or mom, and I'm no spring chicken.

Bottom line, the signatories are all APS members and as such they should be addressing one simple statement and should be quite competent to refute it in recognized scientific terms, but they don't.

That statement is simply, "the evidence is incontrovertible". How hard can it be to destroy that statement, if the counter evidence is even partly incontrovertible?

I'll go with the people younger, and probably smarter, than me.

1083 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:45:04pm

re: #1078 californiabrowser

Charles,

re 914


1) is not controversial.
2) is vague--do you mean that in a controlled experiment in a laboratory--in a flask, say, that CO2 is warming, then yes, and that is NOT disputed. BUT, and then but here is the crux of the matter, the question is both attribution: (a) how much (and with what level of uncertainty) of the observed change in temperature can be attributed to human activity (CO2 and GHGs, aerosols, land use, etc) and (b) how reliable are future predictions of climate under various assumptions ('scenarios'). The answer to these questions is in dispute. For example, see the online petition and the list of scientists who have signed it. Sadly, your assertions of the certainty in what is known on climate change are only reducing your credibility among many of us who have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the AGW problem. Why would anyone rely on your judgment when you write with about other topics? Are you missing the point there as you are here?

Umm you do realize that your list of "scientists" is bogus and filled with cranks, TV weathermen, talking heads for right-wing foundations and well, no real scientists?

You do realize that this has been debunked here and many other places many times and is a complete propaganda ploy.

As to your discussion of what is in a flask, you are just completely insane. Look at post #14 to see real links from real scientists who take the time to carefully explain the science. It has actual data and actual facts.

Please take the time to look at it.

1084 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:46:56pm

re: #1078 californiabrowser

Again with the lists.

1085 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 10:48:53pm

re: #1084 Charles

Again with the lists.

LIke the lists of "scientists" who support ID.

The fundamental flaw for these people is that they see science as an appeal to authority. So, they figure that if they falsely create authority, they have won.

1086 Canyonman  Tue, Sep 8, 2009 11:41:21pm

re: #1085 LudwigVanQuixote

Frankly, Ludwig, I think trying to link people on the "other" side of the climate debate with the ID crowd is pretty weak on your part.

You too Charles.

Kind of like that Sinclair guy claiming in one of the videos LGF posted earlier, that the "deniers" are the SAME people who made the claim of WMDs! - cue the scary background music - and this videos claim of "secret" corporate funding.

Weak

Frankly, look at current global temp charts for the past 5 plus years. Not very impressive for the alarmist AGW cause no matter how Sinclair spins the reasons.

Me - I'll wait and see.

1087 Pythagoras  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:55:55am

re: #1083 LudwigVanQuixote

Help me out on this. I looked over the list and was blown away by the impressive credentials. I assume that APS is now weighing their request very seriously. Are we looking at the same list?

That said, I'm not into this "appeal to authority" thing anyway. But your criticism of the list has me scratching my head.

1088 californiabrowser  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 7:05:52am

re Charles 1084

Again with the lists.

The point of the lists was to show you that there are leading physicists---APS Fellows, NAS members, ex-lab directors, Maxwell Prize winners, and so forth--
who do not accept AGW story. Their is absolutely no such comparable list for ID. I hope Ludwig [1083] takes a look at the list a bit more carefully. These are practicing scientists.

Many on this list are very well known. Furthermore, there are plenty of physicists who prefer the proposed statement I linked to the current APS statement that is under revision. [see my post 1078]. The signers are not young, in part because young people avoid such a politically charged topic and want to gain scientific credentials before standing out like the signers of this petition do.
But the leaders are mainstream well-respected physicists and are not being ignored by the APS.

Re Ludwigs' comment that I should look at the consensus scientific websites: I have, many times. They give reasons why one would be worried about AGW--they do not prove anything. The the word 'proof' has some technical meaning. So does 'falsehood'. Running GCMs with and without CO2 and comparing to the 20th century climate is not proof. Not even for the IPCC. Nothing justifies the APS 'incontrovertible' statement. It goes beyond the IPCC and, I suspect, will fall if the statement is rewritten. No physicist I have talked to about it supports the inclusion of 'incontrovertible'.

1089 Pythagoras  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 7:19:44am

re: #1088 californiabrowser

I suspect LVQ and Charles were thinking of a different list.

1090 californiabrowser  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 7:32:02am

A quick additional comment on LVB's post 1085.

re: #1084 Charles
Again with the lists.

LIke the lists of "scientists" who support ID.

The fundamental flaw for these people is that they see science as an appeal to authority. So, they figure that if they falsely create authority, they have won.

The appeal to authority is precisely what many of us object to--it is the main reason that the consensus opinion is accepted by so many people. My point is that there are many physicists who do not agree with the AGW
arguments, and this is an example of some of them. Many more are out there.

1091 LibertyvilleMike  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 8:04:39am

re: #1044 Charles

I've seen it before, but I watched it again to specifically reconsider your point. The explanation is driven by the desired goal, which is to buttress the CAGW argument. Positive feedback is necessary for CAGW models, because CO2 absorption is limited to certain wavelengths, and shows a logarithmic response. I think others have addressed this issue as well.

CAGW is a faith, and I'm not going to be able to change anyone's mind who has drank the Kool-aid. Give me good, solid arguments and I'll consider them. Sooner or later everyone will know the truth, because CO2 levels will continue to rise, and the climate itself will prove the models so inconsistent with nature it will be self evident. I hope the damage we do with policy changes won't be irreversible at that point.

1092 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 10:27:14am

re: #1090 californiabrowser

A quick additional comment on LVB's post 1085.

The appeal to authority is precisely what many of us object to--it is the main reason that the consensus opinion is accepted by so many people. My point is that there are many physicists who do not agree with the AGW
arguments, and this is an example of some of them. Many more are out there.

OK let's look at some people from your list... First off out of 143 raging signatures, as opposed to the thousands, who actually work in the field, who say otherwise... Here are some that might be a bit questionable.

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs
ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)

Andrew Kaldor
Distinguished Scientific Advisor
Manager of Breakthrough Research
ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)

Timothy D. Calvin
President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired)
Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries

Jerry M. Cuttler
President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc.
Engineering, consulting, and licensing services for the nuclear power industry

Rodger L. Gamblin
Managing Director
Corona Color, LLC

John M. Kennel
Autonetics Division,
Boeing North American (retired)

Michael D. Lubin
Colonel,
United States Air Force

Gordon C. Oehler
Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

Rusty S. Towell
Professor of Physics
Abilene Christian University

Now to continue, there are people on the list who sound quite credible - retired people who are not in the field, and who are not personally convinced of the evidence yet. OK so what? There are also the far right of the physics world here. What do you think older retired plasma guys from LANL work on? These are people who thought it was cool to build thermonukes. They are as hard right as they come. And yes, it does cause one to question their biases.

But without trying to completely shred everyone on the list, and without pointing to the tens of thousands of scientists who are actually involved in this and would say different...

Where is the hard evidence that these people might have to create a counter claim?

I search the names and I find no papers by them with any hard data... If they are going to make a scientific claim about this, such that it they are contradicting the massive evidence already established, where are their papers? It is a bold thing to dissagree with the established consensus without data of your own.

NOT a single one of them has a paper out there in a peer reviewed journal that contradicts the science on AGW.

1093 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 10:31:29am

re: #1083 LudwigVanQuixote

Now to be fair, I thought you were talking about a different list in my first rebuttal of you. However, yor list which I have now read does not impress me.

See 1092 for why.

Again,

I search the names and I find no papers by them with any hard data... If they are going to make a scientific claim about this, such that it they are contradicting the massive evidence already established, where are their papers? It is a bold thing to dissagree with the established consensus without data of your own.

1094 Sam N  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 10:33:44am

Instead of lists of scientists, what I would really like, from a skeptic, is to see a dialogue between, not simply an open letter--an actual dialogue between a renowned skeptic (i.e. someone with real scientific credentials) criticizing the most widely accepted climate model(s) showing AGW and a renowned climate scientist defending that model.

It is easy to say there are all sorts of flaws with a model, and without getting the climate scientists response I have no idea whether the criticism is even relevant or not.

I am a scientist. If some older nobel prize winning biologist started to criticize my research, because it proposed controversial policy, he would probably know jack-shit about why my findings are solid, because no such biologist knows my specialization better than me and maybe 5 other people in the world. If those 5 other people and I agree on something in my research, it's probably true.

My real-world experience in the scientific community is why I am so skeptical of random skeptic claims. I spend every day of my life thinking about the scientific problems and contingencies. I know the worst criticisms someone could make of my work better than any potential critic, and I constantly work to address them in further experiments. Instead of targeting these relevant weaknesses, most (but not all) criticisms are completely irrelevant, because my colleagues don't even really understand the system.

This is not to say skeptics can't have good points, just that there is a good chance they are lacking an enormous amount of relevant information, making the response from climate scientists crucial in evaluating their evidence.

1095 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 10:37:01am

re: #1087 Pythagoras

Help me out on this. I looked over the list and was blown away by the impressive credentials. I assume that APS is now weighing their request very seriously. Are we looking at the same list?

That said, I'm not into this "appeal to authority" thing anyway. But your criticism of the list has me scratching my head.

See my 1092.

The APS has many more than 143 members, and quite a few who actually work in this or related fields, and have actual research of their own to back their opinions. The APS is not changing it's position, because for every one of these there are ten much bigger names who say the opposite.

Again, where are these people's papers refuting AGW?

Again, how many on this list are working for - or worked past tense, for groups that are opposed for political or economic reasons to the research?

1096 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 10:41:46am

re: #1094 Sam N

Instead of lists of scientists, what I would really like, from a skeptic, is to see a dialogue between, not simply an open letter--an actual dialogue between a renowned skeptic (i.e. someone with real scientific credentials) criticizing the most widely accepted climate model(s) showing AGW and a renowned climate scientist defending that model.

It is easy to say there are all sorts of flaws with a model, and without getting the climate scientists response I have no idea whether the criticism is even relevant or not.

I am a scientist. If some older nobel prize winning biologist started to criticize my research, because it proposed controversial policy, he would probably know jack-shit about why my findings are solid, because no such biologist knows my specialization better than me and maybe 5 other people in the world. If those 5 other people and I agree on something in my research, it's probably true.

My real-world experience in the scientific community is why I am so skeptical of random skeptic claims. I spend every day of my life thinking about the scientific problems and contingencies. I know the worst criticisms someone could make of my work better than any potential critic, and I constantly work to address them in further experiments. Instead of targeting these relevant weaknesses, most (but not all) criticisms are completely irrelevant, because my colleagues don't even really understand the system.

This is not to say skeptics can't have good points, just that there is a good chance they are lacking an enormous amount of relevant information, making the response from climate scientists crucial in evaluating their evidence.

Exactly...

The truth is that the kind of thing you are looking for does not (as far as I know) exist on the skeptic side anymore.

In the eighties there were tons of valid questions that people raised.

Those questions have been answered in the intervening 20 years.

If you want to look at the consensus views, please look at post #14.

If you want to look at a more mathematical take look at the link in #1081.

If you really want a feel for where the science is, go to google scholar - or if you are at a UNiversity, one of the better databases, and type in search terms like Ice melt, or Climate Change. See what you get.

Thes folks have no papers at all to back them up. At tis point, all scientific authority from the "list" evaporates.

1097 Pythagoras  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:15:01pm

re: #1095 ludwigvanquixote

See my 1092.

The APS has many more than 143 members, and quite a few who actually work in this or related fields, and have actual research of their own to back their opinions. The APS is not changing it's position, because for every one of these there are ten much bigger names who say the opposite.

Again, where are these people's papers refuting AGW?

Again, how many on this list are working for - or worked past tense, for groups that are opposed for political or economic reasons to the research?

1093 was good. As for the actual use of this list to make a point, that's not my interest. I am no more interested in an appeal to authority than I would be if someone said that 43 +19 = 62 and someone else challenged them to find it in a peer-reviewed article. I'm not ruling on a case here; I'm curious and trying to understand something.

1098 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:14:27pm

re: #827 Coracle

Cleanest my ass. And yes, I do snipe. They are cutting off their own futures and ours for their 30 month - or shorter - bottom lines. Exxon/BP/You name it, they should be the ones building the solar farms in NV and AZ. They should be the ones siting wind farms east of the rockies. But they've decided to go the other way instead.

Very well said.

1099 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:02:36pm

What does it cost the global economy to try to head off global warming vs. what does it cost the global economy to adapt to its effects? What are the opportunity costs involved in either alternative?

Definitions of 'opportunity costs":

[Link: www.google.com...]

As I have repeatedly stated before, and for both economic and other reasons (mitigation of toxic pollution, attenuating terrorist petrofunding, saving declining petroresources for other uses), I personally consider the most reasonable alternative so far proferred to be a combination of transitioning to electric cars and nuclear powered electrical power plants. I also am not pre-emptively opposed to other ideas that might emerge.

Here is an article that argues specifically against the economic feasibility and efficacy of both the carbon market and carbon tax alternatives that are currently championed by many:

[Link: reason.com...]

1100 OldNavy73  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:33:58pm

I still can't buy the argument considering Sinclair provides but a mere 20 year "snapshot" of global temperatures. Can anyone tell me what the optimal temperature of the Earth should be anyway?? Not many learned experts have that answer. Nothing I have yet seen can change my opinion that this climate change hysteria is specifically designed to redistribute wealth throughout the world. With all of the environmental scientists in existence, why can't they come up with a consensus on the cause of climate change??? Just sit down and design an experiment to prove, unequivocally, what is causing climate change. Shouldn't that be done BEFORE we divert trillions of dollars to 3rd World countries that will inevitably squander it in the first place?

1101 californiabrowser  Wed, Sep 9, 2009 7:19:59pm

re ludwigvanquixote 1092. My point, again, is that there is a debate in the scientific community. Many of physicists on this list are highly respected (and some are less known, sure). There are many more who are skeptical who did not sign (and in general stay away from politics and stick to physics).

You may wish to impugn the motives of the signers with the 'right wing' label. I do not know their politics, but I would guess many might be libertarian. You may have a few democrats, too. But if you wish to go down this road (I don't) you should note that the vast majority of physicists and climate scientists are certainly Democrats--do you wish to then question their motives as well?

You are concerned that they have not published in the 'field of climate science'. Do you think they are unqualified to have an opinion? I think the leaders of this group are clever people and their arguments will be heard
within the APS (which sadly does not have much transparency in its inner workings).

By framing the issue of AGW as you have, you relegate us to be at the mercy of large codes. To an outsider, this may seem odd to say, so let me expand a bit. The attribution of the rise in 20th century temperature to GHGs is made by running codes with and without GHGs and comparing results. This exercise shows that there is 'good agreement' with the temperature record when the GHGs are included. Therefore, the argument goes, the GHGs are responsible for the change in the temperature. If you chose to believe the codes, you have bought in to the AGW paradigm. Many of us do not believe the claim of predictive accuracy at 50-100 year time frames. Both proponents and opponents do not believe GCM codes are accurate at 10 year time frames. What time frame are they good at? We will see. It would be great if this concept of collecting a bunch of codes, performing a bunch of runs, doing averaging first with each code (over different initial conditions) and then over the different codes (which make different model assumptions, include different effects, and thus make different predictions) yields an accurate climate prediction. I am skeptical.

The 'climate science' of AGW is such that it can only be checked on long time scales. The noise of natural variation is too great. The answer will come, but this could take many years (See also this article).

The problem with the codes is not that somewhere on some line of fortran is an error--this is of course the case in million-line codes!--but rather that the codes are tuned to get the correct answer. They have not demonstrated predictive power. In fact, with five more years of approximately flat temperature (stop howling--that the temperatures have been roughly flat is simply a fact--it is not the same statement as 'global warming has stopped') the codes (or the models that they use) will be seriously challenged.

You want someone to disprove AGW. I don't know what you want disproved. What do you mean by this? They cannot prove on first principles essentially anything in such a complicated system. They cannot prove a given climate sensitivity (change in T for a doubling of CO2). They cannot prove a minimum sensitivity. They can run codes, and they can make estimates as in the Charney Report. The estimates give a feedback and climate sensitivity. But saying that these estimates have yet to be proven correct is not promoting a 'falsehood' (Charles' word, which annoyed me).
It is not the signers of the petition who are against debate--it is the climate scientists who claim they already have the all answers and those who argue are deniers, right wingers, and don't know anything.


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
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 73 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
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
4 days ago
Views: 170 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1