Video: The Arctic Icecap is Not ‘Recovering’

Environment • Views: 2,468

Here’s Peter Sinclair’s video on the scientific evidence showing that the decline in the Arctic icecap is very real, is not due to “natural causes,” and is not reversing (as several people tried to argue in recent LGF threads on climate change). On the contrary, in the past two years the extent of the polar icecap has reached its lowest points in recorded history by a very large margin — and the ratio of old ice to young ice continues to fall.

Youtube Video

Also see
The Arctic Ice is Getting Younger

Jump to bottom

200 comments
1 Four More Tears  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:07:41pm

But all the new shipping lanes will be great for the economy!

/spin

2 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:09:30pm

I’m on the fence. And occasionally confused about this.

Richard Lindzen (who admittedly meant nothing to me until this morning) from MIT was written off as a kook on an earlier thread.

What makes him a kook, and not Sinclair?

3 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:13:21pm

Depressing news because Americans at heart don’t care about this issue, despite being trendsetters with national parks and admiration for nature. These days Americans are essentially anti-urban, and this bodes poorly for low-impact carbon lifestyles going forward. What’s worse is that now China is leading the way developing green technology. The US has the brainpower and resources but there is atavistic luddite hostility to it. We’re damning our children to being consumers of Chinese crap just like we are.

4 Kragar  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:13:41pm

The real question is do we stick or heads in the sand or try unknown and untrustworthy methods to restore an arbitray balance or do we prepare for a worst case scenario to supply drinking water and farm lands.

5 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:15:36pm

re: #2 Ben Hur

Lindzen is a well known scientist who made a name for himself many years ago. He is now essentially in semi-retirement, and he has made it his end-of-career goal to try to keep poking holes in various AGW theories. While willing taking the attention of denier organizations such as Heartland, Lindzen himself has expressed frustration at the ultra-hard-core deniers - people who deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, for example.

Unfortunately for Lindzen his various critiques of AGW theories haven’t held up. That is the point. His endowed chair at the prestigious university at which he is tenured means that he is impervious to any negative professional fallout from his failure to punch holes in AGW theories… so he can keep on doing what he is doing.

6 AllanHateMe  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:17:38pm

Or how about we use real science and ignore this bullcrap. Peter Sinclair is not a scientist. This video is nothing but a PR piece from Ben & Jerry! Haha. The models are provenly flawed. And even if the climate is warming, there is no proof it will be detrimental. The geological record shows that temps have been both much higher and much cooler than now and than “predicted”. Highest levels of biodiversity have come when temps were higher than now. I am so tired of this ignorant bullshit.

7 Captain America 1776  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:19:00pm

For every one of these Sinclair links that Charles is so kind to provide, I’ll gladly submit information refuting the pro AGW argument:

“A new paper, to be published in Science, confirms that glacial terminations are caused by Earth’s orbital cycles, not carbon dioxide.”

[Link: theresilientearth.com…]

“A new study has confirmed the astronomical theory of the ice ages, but with a new twist: The shutoff of the meridional ocean circulation, or MOC, and an associated southward shift of tropical monsoon rain belts seems to play an integral role in the melting of glacial period ice sheets. These changes cause warming of the Southern Hemisphere and a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn provides a positive feedback loop that helps drive glacial termination. This is why, every 100,000 years or so, the great Northern Hemisphere ice sheets collapse and glacial conditions give way to a warm interglacial period, such as the Holocene warming humanity is currently enjoying. This, however, does not support recent claims that global warming is causing the Southeast Asian monsoon to fail.”
[Link: theresilientearth.com…]

8 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:19:45pm

Here they come again.

9 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:19:45pm

This sea ice “debate” is very much like the temperature “debate” in that to understand both one must rely on a knowledge of measuring physical systems and statistics. Most lay people cringe at this sort of stuff, so I don’t blame them for avoiding the issue if it confuses them. I’m not intending to be patronizing here, but there does require a certain level of study to keep on top of the issue.

My beef is with the denial-industry and their all too willing patsies in the media and the right-o-sphere.

10 Four More Tears  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:20:45pm

re: #8 Charles

Here they come again.

They work fast.

11 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:23:52pm

There may not be an answer to “what came first - the chicken or the egg” but you can darn well believe that the answer isn’t “I don’t believe in Colonel Sanders”.

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:23:55pm

re: #2 Ben Hur

I’m on the fence. And occasionally confused about this.

Richard Lindzen (who admittedly meant nothing to me until this morning) from MIT was written off as a kook on an earlier thread.

What makes him a kook, and not Sinclair?

Lindzen is not a complete kook. He is someone with an alternative hypothesis to some effects that we are attributing to AGW. Most of the scientific community doubts his hypothesis. He has no real evidence to support it as yet.

I personally think he is wrong based on the science and so do many thousands of others of actual scientists.

What makes him a partial kook is is willingness to continue to accept money from espoused anti AGW cook organizations and to speak at their events. He is on the borderline of going over from scientist to advocate for the bad guys.

13 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:24:17pm

re: #7 Captain America 1776

You know, you’re exactly like the creationists who claim, whenever an intermediate stage fossil is discovered, that evolution is still not proven because now there are two gaps in the record…

Exactly like them.

If you knew anything about climatology, which you don’t, you would know that the orbital mechanics of the Earth have long been accepted as a key driver of the climate, especially the temporal nature of ice ages.

14 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:26:30pm

re: #12 ludwigvanquixote

Lindzen is not a complete kook. He is someone with an alternative hypothesis to some effects that we are attributing to AGW. Most of the scientific community doubts his hypothesis. He has no real evidence to support it as yet.

I personally think he is wrong based on the science and so do many thousands of others of actual scientists.

What makes him a partial kook is is willingness to continue to accept money from espoused anti AGW cook organizations and to speak at their events. He is on the borderline of going over from scientist to advocate for the bad guys.

Is all his published papers peer reviewed?

15 MtnCat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:26:35pm

It most assuredly is due to “natural causes”. The sooner we accept humanity as a part of the natural world, the easier it will be to adust individual and corporate behavior in line with ethical and ecological concerns.

16 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:27:25pm

Is there a good source of info on the degree to which GW is AGW and what we can do about it (in a practical sense given the realities of the world economy and population of emerging countries like China and India).

To be quite blunt I don’t trust the agenda of the denial or the cap ‘n trade advocates and I can see both sides impeding real innovation that could reduce carbon emmissions much more quickly than artificial limits or ignoring the issue.

17 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:28:03pm

What I would like very clearly heard. If I had one thing that I could wish was clearly heard from this video it is the scientist talking about what we know.

I have said again and again here that the science is more mature than is given credit for, and in true heartland institute, tobacco company, ID denier fashion much is made by attempting to create the illusion of a false and non-existent controversy.

There was debate - real debate in the eighties. Long since then the points raised by legitimate scientific skeptics were addressed to the satisfaction of those researchers such that they themselves now share the consensus.

This is real.

It is as real as the bogs producing gouts of flame.

18 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:29:11pm

Update on the Obama/brainwashing thread: Students Thrilled By Obama’s Visit: “This Is The Best Day Of My Life…In School” (PHOTOS)

The kids were quite excited to see their famous visitor. One little girl, eight-year-old Maya, said, “This is the best day of my life - in school.”

Clustered at another table squealing and jumping up and down were Christian Torres, Jaina Mosely, Katherine Blanco, Rosa Alvarado and Marta Rostran. All are 8 and all in the third grade. Christian, who kept covering his face with his hands and jumping up and down, said he knew the president was coming “when we saw suits. And we saw police.” Jaina also was surprised to see all the police at school.

19 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:29:28pm

Heh. I like the clip of the scientists lighting the methane from the thawed permafrost. Kind of like lighting a fart. (Yes I am that juvenile and grown up enough to admit it).

20 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:30:40pm

re: #5 freetoken

Thanks for responding!

21 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:31:26pm

re: #14 Walter L. Newton

Is all his published papers peer reviewed?

Yes. That is what it means to be published - at least scientifically.

However, his papers that are actually scientifically published say things like : This effect may exist and it may contribute to this limited phenomena. So far so good. He is proposing a limited hypothesis to the community and people have looked into it.

That is how science works.

That is far different from he published endless proof he was correct, that it somehow debunks all of AGW, and is now somehow being denied. That is what his corporate sponsors want you to think.

22 KingKenrod  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:32:19pm

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Update on the Obama/brainwashing thread: Students Thrilled By Obama’s Visit: “This Is The Best Day Of My Life…In School” (PHOTOS)

There’s no one to brainwash in Silver Springs. Silver Springs / Takoma Park area is one of the most liberal in the country.

23 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:32:33pm

re: #21 ludwigvanquixote

Yes. That is what it means to be published - at least scientifically.

However, his papers that are actually scientifically published say things like : This effect may exist and it may contribute to this limited phenomena. So far so good. He is proposing a limited hypothesis to the community and people have looked into it.

That is how science works.

That is far different from he published endless proof he was correct, that it somehow debunks all of AGW, and is now somehow being denied. That is what his corporate sponsors want you to think.

Got it.

24 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:32:45pm

re: #18 Killgore Trout


…he knew the president was coming “when we saw suits”.

Yes that is always a pretty clear sign. You can tell the lobbyists from the Secret Service because the lobbyists have the expensive Italian suits and the Secret Serice talk into their sleeves.

25 Captain America 1776  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:34:23pm

re: #13 freetoken

Personal attacks aside, I am not going to make statements on defensive thinking.

Explain to me please the driving factors in the last dozen interglacial periods over the course of the last several million years that saw all types of lifeforms flourish. CO2 was not the primary driver, nor a major contributing component to hightened temps during these dozen plus interglacial events.

26 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:34:50pm

This is painful…
The People God Hates(video)

27 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:34:57pm

re: #21 ludwigvanquixote

Yes. That is what it means to be published - at least scientifically.

However, his papers that are actually scientifically published say things like : This effect may exist and it may contribute to this limited phenomena. So far so good. He is proposing a limited hypothesis to the community and people have looked into it.

That is how science works.

That is far different from he published endless proof he was correct, that it somehow debunks all of AGW, and is now somehow being denied. That is what his corporate sponsors want you to think.

So, the paper mentioned in re: #7 Captain America 1776 has probably been peer reviewed?

28 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:35:50pm

re: #22 KingKenrod

Silver Springs / Takoma Park area is one of the most liberal in the country.


You haven’t been to the West Coast for a while, eh?

29 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:36:58pm

re: #2 Ben Hur

I’m on the fence. And occasionally confused about this.

Richard Lindzen (who admittedly meant nothing to me until this morning) from MIT was written off as a kook on an earlier thread.

What makes him a kook, and not Sinclair?

Lindzen is not a kook, although many of his claims about global warming have been discredited. Christopher Monckton, however, definitely falls into the kook category.

30 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:38:20pm

re: #26 Killgore Trout

This is painful…
The People God Hates(video)

We discussed this in an earlier thread. You like to rake muck don’t you?

31 BetterLuck  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:38:33pm

Is new ice less cold than old ice?

32 billbrent  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:38:35pm
#17 ludwigvanquixote:
It is as real as the bogs producing gouts of flame.

What do you propose as a solution?

33 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:40:22pm

re: #32 billbrent

What do you propose as a solution?


Therin lies the rub I think. Can we propose some solutions that innovate and encourage emerging economies (China, India, Pacific Rim) to be a part of the solution. Creating a cap ‘n trade bureaucracy to make money off of pollution doesn’t seem like a viable alternative to me.

34 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:41:11pm

re: #26 Killgore Trout
BTW I agree that it is painful and abusive.

35 Kronocide  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:42:34pm

re: #29 Charles

Christopher Mockton, however, definitely falls into the kook category.

That is the ‘Lord Monckton’ person, same? Or somebody different?

36 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:42:59pm

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Update on the Obama/brainwashing thread: Students Thrilled By Obama’s Visit: “This Is The Best Day Of My Life…In School” (PHOTOS)

Well, gee. This is nice in the sense that our President is inspiring to young people, as should be the case and it’s nice that it is for the moment, but as a general principle, adulation of political figures as people is distasteful.

Obama is a nice sensible smart guy, and he’s a huge relief to have in office after years of Bush, but please, do we have to love him? It doesn’t matter if we support what the guy stands for (a bit of a moving target in Obama’s case anyway) or not — politicians should be regarded with a healthy skepticism. Now, I don’t mean all the insanity that comes at Obama over his birth certificate all that hateful garbage, which is way beyond the skepticism I mean and based in hatred and small-minded fear.

It’s cute to see these kids now and then, but why continually dwell on it as if it were an aww shucks moment? All of this adulation is why slack-jawed Beck-watching morons who don’t know what the word fascism means are suddenly using the term. I believe fear and hatred are behind most of the ad hominem and other attacks on Obama, but I think what is behind the love is naivete and hope, rather than a rigorous hopeful skepticism which is, I think, the bulwark of democratic society.

37 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:43:16pm

re: #29 Charles

Thank you!

38 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:45:06pm

re: #12 ludwigvanquixote

You too!

39 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:45:28pm

re: #20 Ben Hur

You can find more on Lindzen and some of his stretches here. Basically he has a outre hypothesis that’s not well supported by real data, and his points have been mostly debunked. He keeps stumping for it, but it’s probably not correct.

[Link: www.realclimate.org…]

40 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:45:36pm

re: #31 BetterLuck

Is new ice less cold than old ice?

Thinner and thus less stable. Watch the vid it is very instructional.

41 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:46:00pm

re: #39 Thanos

Thanks, T

42 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:46:03pm

re: #36 SeaMonkey

All of this adulation is why slack-jawed Beck-watching morons who don’t know what the word fascism means are suddenly using the term. I believe fear and hatred are behind most of the ad hominem and other attacks on Obama, but I think what is behind the love is naivete and hope, rather than a rigorous hopeful skepticism which is, I think, the bulwark of democratic society.

The slack-jawed Beck-watching morons are using the term facism because Beck does. I doubt it has anything to do with Obama glad-handing with small children.

43 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:46:19pm

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

So, the paper mentioned in re: #7 Captain America 1776 has probably been peer reviewed?

No that paper is not yet published.

It is not by Lindzen.

Further it is about Milancovitch cycles. That claim has been throughly debunked by several hundred papers as the source of the current warming.

What you will find is that Captain America went and linked to a cherry pick.

At best - there is a very small effect that is reported as something extra to take into account.

It is exactly like the ID people misquoting something about a gap and claiming that all of Darwin was wrong.

That would be a false tempest in a teapot made by ignorant fools to fool the uneducated.

44 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:46:25pm

I thought someone on an earlier thread said Lindzen was an industry shill or something like that.

45 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:47:03pm

re: #35 BigPapa

That is the ‘Lord Monckton’ person, same? Or somebody different?

Viscount Monkton is an ultra right Brit tabloid journalist. Look him up.

46 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:47:42pm

I posted this video in yesterdays thread because it uses more recent data than the other one in the thread. Guess what deniers, satellite radar data beats any data produced by a few people checking ice thickness at a few carefully cherry-picked spots. That German study that kept being referred to yesterday was a joke, the marvels of technology mean that we don’t even have to go there to know how thick the ice is.

It amazes me that so many people are happily willing to jump on the anti-science bandwagon, what is it, jealousy that someone else might be smarter than them? I just don’t understand these people at all…

47 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:47:44pm

re: #41 Ben Hur

Also more here

[Link: climateprogress.org…]

48 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:47:44pm

re: #43 ludwigvanquixote

No that paper is not yet published.

It is not by Lindzen.

Further it is about Milancovitch cycles. That claim has been throughly debunked by several hundred papers as the source of the current warming.

What you will find is that Captain America went and linked to a cherry pick.

At best - there is a very small effect that is reported as something extra to take into account.

It is exactly like the ID people misquoting something about a gap and claiming that all of Darwin was wrong.

That would be a false tempest in a teapot made by ignorant fools to fool the uneducated.

Doesn’t fool me one bit. I don’t understand enough about it to know one truth from one untruth, that’s why I ask questions.

49 Kronocide  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:49:01pm

re: #45 ludwigvanquixote

Viscount Monkton is an ultra right Brit tabloid journalist. Look him up.

I’m am. Just asking if it’s the same guy since I’ve seen various versions of that last name spelled differently, and sometimes it’s a Lord Monckton/Monkton/Mockton.

50 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:49:14pm

OT - 3 runners die competing in the Detroit marathon

I think we need to stop all marathons.

[Link: www.google.com…]

51 tradewind  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:49:28pm

Gordon Brown says we only have fifty days left to get our ice in gear…
[Link: news.bbc.co.uk…]

52 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:49:33pm

re: #44 Walter L. Newton

I thought someone on an earlier thread said Lindzen was an industry shill or something like that.

He is. He is playing a sort of jeckyl and hydye game with the science community. His actual papers are kosher -in as much as they are possibilities that might have a small effect - though it is considered very unlikely. His public speaking is on behalf of out and out shills and much is made of his work that it is not by them. He also does not debunk the false claims made about the scope of his work. Rather, he collects the money.

53 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:49:36pm

re: #43 ludwigvanquixote

No that paper is not yet published.

It is not by Lindzen.

Further it is about Milancovitch cycles. That claim has been throughly debunked by several hundred papers as the source of the current warming.

What you will find is that Captain America went and linked to a cherry pick.

At best - there is a very small effect that is reported as something extra to take into account.

It is exactly like the ID people misquoting something about a gap and claiming that all of Darwin was wrong.

That would be a false tempest in a teapot made by ignorant fools to fool the uneducated.

Did you know that your avatar looks like a baboon butt on my computer?

54 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:50:11pm

re: #25 Captain America 1776

Until you know why the Earth and the Moon have different surface temperatures, though both receive the same amount of light from the Sun, it would not be fruitful to pursue explaining anything else.

Put simply, you’re confusing (on purpose or not - I don’t know) several different concepts.

55 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:50:54pm

re: #53 Ben Hur

Did you know that your avatar looks like a baboon butt on my computer?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Sorry, couldn’t think of any response to your comment!

56 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:50:56pm

re: #26 Killgore Trout

I wouldn’t call it “painful”. I didn’t watch the last 2 minutes or so but I loved that video. 3 young marines, a young pastor, and a young lesbian part of a peaceful counter protest against the Phelps clan? Good for them, there needs to be more people in their (the phelps) faces. I take this video as good news.

57 tradewind  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:51:11pm

re: #50 Walter L. Newton

Every member of my brother’s family is running the NY this year( except my brother)…
I hate reading that stuff.

58 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:51:42pm

Lord Christopher Monckton on Glenn Beck Radio Oct. 19th, 2009 - Part 1

Youtube Video

part2
Youtube Video
59 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:51:55pm

re: #25 Captain America 1776

Personal attacks aside, I am not going to make statements on defensive thinking.

Explain to me please the driving factors in the last dozen interglacial periods over the course of the last several million years that saw all types of lifeforms flourish. CO2 was not the primary driver, nor a major contributing component to hightened temps during these dozen plus interglacial events.

Wrong thinking. Understand that the current cycle is CO2 driven.

60 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:52:00pm

re: #57 tradewind

I just forwarded to my bro. He’s running in NY also.

61 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:52:39pm

re: #7 Captain America 1776

Doesn’t it tell you something that they have an Oil price chart in their sidebar?

62 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:52:47pm

re: #53 Ben Hur

Did you know that your avatar looks like a baboon butt on my computer?

Really, it looks like a compass on mine…

63 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:52:51pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

You love it… admit it…

64 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:53:15pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

“World Government!”
“Dictatorship!”

65 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:54:01pm

That site is basically there to pimp a denialist book.

66 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:54:08pm

re: #57 tradewind

Every member of my brother’s family is running the NY this year( except my brother)…
I hate reading that stuff.

I think we should shut marathons down. If we could save one life.

67 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:54:18pm

re: #63 freetoken

You love it… admit it…

I don’t really get excited about the climate debate but I love the New World Order stuff.

68 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:54:51pm

“Communist World Government!”

69 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:55:12pm

[Pedant Mode On]

Charles - statements like

in the past two years the extent of the polar icecap has reached its lowest points in history by a very large margin

ought to be avoided. For one thing, this statement is incorrect - the current ice sheets covering both the north and south polar regions are relatively recent phenomena that have not always been present in the past, and have varied widely in size. The northern ice sheet only seems to be about 5 million years old, and plant fossils have been found in both Greenland and Antarctica demonstrating their past, more temperate climate. In more recent times, the northern ice sheet has changed dramatically in size, as little as 15,000 years ago covering most of North America and Europe. [Hyper-Pedant Mode On] Technically, there were several northern ice sheets separated by various features [Hyper Pedant Mode Off] but it’s more convenient and not horribly wrong to consider them as a single planetary “ice cap.”

For another, it’s precisely this sort of absolutist statement that winds up causing all sorts of problems, a point which seems to be lost on Ludwig. It gives opposition a handy hook on which to hang objections when even the slightest discrepancy is noted. Saying “The climate models are totally right!” opens the door to those raising objections to point out statements by scientists saying “The new data suggests that heating is happening differently than models predict” as proof of inaccuracy or outright lying on the scientist’s part. And there’s some validity to this: climate models are, at best, capable only of statistical predictions, and are based on both incomplete data and on mathematical models of processes that are not completely understood. Making an absolute declaration that the models or anything else in science is certain beyond doubt is foolish and fundamentally unscientific. A quick look at similar absolutist statements from “consensus” scientists that emanated when Wegener introduced his theory of continental drift would be worthwhile; I’ll see if I can locate some.

In the meantime, though, please be careful. You’ve already seen how a couple of demonstrably wrong statements - in the Limbaugh case - can wind up tainting everything else. The same is true here: accuracy is important, including accuracy over all timescales and about the limitations of climate modeling.

[Pedant Mode Off]

70 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:55:19pm

re: #62 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, it looks like a compass on mine…

Well, it’s a very small pic…

71 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:56:12pm

re: #7 Captain America 1776

For every one of these Sinclair links that Charles is so kind to provide, I’ll gladly submit information refuting the pro AGW argument:

“A new paper, to be published in Science, confirms that glacial terminations are caused by Earth’s orbital cycles, not carbon dioxide.”

[Link: theresilientearth.com…]

“A new study has confirmed the astronomical theory of the ice ages, but with a new twist: The shutoff of the meridional ocean circulation, or MOC, and an associated southward shift of tropical monsoon rain belts seems to play an integral role in the melting of glacial period ice sheets. These changes cause warming of the Southern Hemisphere and a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn provides a positive feedback loop that helps drive glacial termination. This is why, every 100,000 years or so, the great Northern Hemisphere ice sheets collapse and glacial conditions give way to a warm interglacial period, such as the Holocene warming humanity is currently enjoying. This, however, does not support recent claims that global warming is causing the Southeast Asian monsoon to fail.”
[Link: theresilientearth.com…]

By the way, the assertions that you are making have been completely debunked. Orbital cycles are well understood. They have been conclusively ruled out as the driving factor.

72 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:56:37pm

re: #59 LudwigVanQuixote

His approach to this whole topic, and thread, is out of the classic creationist playbook. Namely, through up a bunch of terms, sounds impressive… , and then jumble them all up.

It’s my belief that anyone can get a good understanding of AGW, if they spend the time.

But some people would rather flail.

My standard rejoinder, as seen above, is to request that somebody to give me a good one or two paragraph explanation of why the earth and the moon have different average surface temperatures. If they can do that then I feel they have a sound practical understanding of physics.

73 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:56:58pm

re: #26 Killgore Trout

This is painful…
The People God Hates(video)

I posted this downstairs. I could only watch about a third of it.

74 Kragar  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:57:02pm

US helpless in halting Taliban’s financial network

The eight-year-old US occupation of Afghanistan has neither halted the Taliban’s “sophisticated financial network,” nor their insurgent operations, a report confirms.

Taliban has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from the illicit drug trade, kidnappings, and extortion to finance their operations, the major US daily, The New York Times reported in its Sunday edition.

US and Afghan officials say the Taliban have imposed an elaborate system to tax the cultivation, processing and shipment of opium, as well as other crops, such as wheat.

According to officials at the Pentagon and the United Nations, Taliban’s annual revenue from the illicit drug trade alone range from $70 million to $400 million, the Times reports.

American officials acknowledge that their attempts to stop Taliban’s financing by using the military and intelligence gears were abortive.

75 Kronocide  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:57:29pm

What a delightful Brit. I’d be happy to buy a swiffer… um, yeah, I mean, he sounds very well reasoned and enlightened on NWO climate politics. He’s a Lord!

76 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:58:45pm

re: #73 SixDegrees

Yeah, I had a hard time watching it too.

77 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:59:01pm

re: #68 Killgore Trout

Yeah, that is his new gig, and Pat Buchanan’s… and a whole bunch of others. AGW = plan for world government.

78 tradewind  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:59:12pm

re: #71 LudwigVanQuixote

LVQ… with all due respect, your statements are invariably absolutely, positively imbued with the Voice of Climate Science Certainty… do you work for NOAA?

79 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 1:59:36pm

re: #69 SixDegrees

Scientist mode on.

Please cut the crap. Obviously any statements about this are in reference to the current cycle. At that point Charles is accurate.

As to the certainties of the science. Watch the video again. Just because you foolishly think that science never actually knows what it claims to know, does not make that the case.

We know full well that the Earth orbits the sun. We know full well that anthropogenic causes are driving the current cycle. We know full well that the feedbacks are real. We know full well that if left unchanged this currently leads to a much different earth. We also know full well that this happened in the past, only this time we are doing it.

80 dwells38  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:00:32pm

re: #7 Captain America 1776

Why was this downdinged? Is it BS or do the models already take this into account?

81 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:01:59pm

re: #77 freetoken

It’s going to supersede the Constitution too. It’s pretty funny but the more I listen it’s starting to make me nervous. People really believe this stuff and this is going to come to a head in a few weeks. I’m a little worried about nuts who might take drastic action to stop it. These guys really make it sound scary.

82 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:02:17pm

re: #73 SixDegrees

I had to double check to make sure I had watched the right video, but 6 out of the 7 mins talked about the counter protesters. You have marines, atheists, a christian pastor and some church members(of the church being protest), and lesbians all on the same side of an issue. I thought the video was cool.

83 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:02:50pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

Lord Christopher Monckton on Glenn Beck Radio Oct. 19th, 2009 - Part 1

[Video]

There’s no fraud too fraudulent for Glenn Beck.

84 Kronocide  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:02:55pm

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

Scientist Talk Show Host mode on.

Please cut the crap.

This isn’t talk radio, or football, LVQ. SD made a very good point.

85 drcordell  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:03:16pm

OT: Surprised I haven’t seen this pop up here yet. Jim DeMint watching our Nation’s pennies “the Jews”

86 drcordell  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:03:51pm

re: #85 drcordell

OT: Surprised I haven’t seen this pop up here yet. Jim DeMint watching our Nation’s pennies “the Jews”

errr… like “the Jews”

87 Kronocide  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:05:42pm

re: #85 drcordell

WTF? OMG!

88 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:05:53pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

At the start of the second “video” Beck makes the claim about sunspots and that is has been so cold. This after he raves about “facts” and how can anyone dispute them

Beck is such a dunce.

Sept 09 has been the second warmest September on record.

Jan-Sept 09 has been the 5th warmest similar time period on record.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

89 kittysaidwoof  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:06:08pm

1. I am not qualified to make an informed decision about climate change. While there are many things/theories/whatnot in science that can be relatively easily shown and are not that difficult to grasp with a little common sense - like evolution - there are also many other whatnots where I think one would be foolish to presume to understand the issues just because one has read a popular science article or watched a spiffy video. The video looked very convincing. Unfortunately I’m sure somebody could whip up another video that would look just as convincing to argue the opposite side.

2. The vast majority of people talking about climate change aren’t really qualified to make informed decisions either and are in this sense pretty much like me. This includes almost all of the politicians. This is why at least here the political measures sold to us on the premise of global warming hysteria often don’t seem to have much to do with combating global warming.

3. There’s a lot of money in climate change. You can have a nice stable income and lots of respect for whipping up horror scenarios. You can also make a lot of money by debunking the same. I know that on my day I can convince most ordinary people on the utter soundness and absolute correctness of both mutually exclusive sides of several common issues that spring up in my field of specialty.

4. We were taught in school in the early nineties that global warming would pretty much destroy the planet as we know it by 2000. They had nice videos then too. I believed them and was very afraid. What we were told would happen didn’t happen. Now, I’m skeptical of anyone telling me the world’s about to be destroyed. However, the third time the kid yelled wolf there actually was a wolf. The kid should have sacked his communications director.

5. There’s a song here that goes something like this “When I was 8 years old I thought the world is going to be destroyed in a nuclear duel between the superpowers, instead when I grew up it turned out wars are complicated matters where only a few people get killed at a time.” My daughter who is 9 loves the song. I get all nostalgic listening to it, as it reminds my own path of being afraid of and then learning to love the nuclear bomb.

6. Do I have a point? I am not sure. I’m European. Do I need to have a point?

90 dwells38  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:06:22pm

re: #50 Walter L. Newton

Better yet outlaw running or at least governmentally regulate it. I’m thinking warnings on tennies :)

91 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:06:46pm

By the way, to revisit the previous thread for a second, ‘astronmr20’ emailed me and said he was not the person who posted at the stalker blog, and apologized for misstating the evidence of the Catlin Arctic Survey. I’ve restored his account.

92 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:06:47pm

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

Thanks for providing an excellent example of precisely the sort of over-the-top non-answer I was talking about. You’ve successfully removed the “di-” from “discussion,” as is your habit.

Please look up the definition of “abrasive asshole” and ponder it. You’re not doing your cause a single bit of good with an attitude like yours.

When you’re done, maybe you could take the time to actually read what I’ve said, here and in the past, and note that I have never, even once, disagreed with your precious “science,” although whatever it is you’re practicing has little resemblance to the real thing. What I’ve consistently objected to is your incredibly arrogant, self-centered presentation of it and the self-defeating nature of such an approach.

You can’t even recognize you allies anymore, staring at the world through a toilet paper tube.

93 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:07:29pm

re: #83 Charles

Beck is going to schedule Lord Mongton and John Bolton to appear on his tv show together. That should be a good one.

94 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:08:01pm

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

Why can’t you debate anything without the snide remarks. “cut the crap” to Six Degrees, calling me “stupid” in the last thread, even though I was only making a point, not putting you down or anything.

You attitude something STINKS.

95 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:08:04pm

re: #82 RogueOne

I had to double check to make sure I had watched the right video, but 6 out of the 7 mins talked about the counter protesters. You have marines, atheists, a christian pastor and some church members(of the church being protest), and lesbians all on the same side of an issue. I thought the video was cool.

I had a hard time getting through the Phelps parade. I guess it gets better as it progresses.

96 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:08:50pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

The great 21st century meeting of the… minds…?

97 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:09:35pm

re: #95 SixDegrees

I had a hard time getting through the Phelps parade. I guess it gets better as it progresses.

I thought it was creepy. The responses were ok but I still think it is better to put kooks like this on permenant ignore until they act out in a manner that is illegal - then they should be put away with swiftness.

98 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:11:19pm

re: #85 drcordell

OT: Surprised I haven’t seen this pop up here yet. Jim DeMint watching our Nation’s pennies “the Jews”

Well that was awkward. I think they were trying to be complementary.

Speaking of pennies does anyone else think the new barely copper clad penny feels like monopoly money in your hand?

99 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:11:21pm

re: #89 kittysaidwoof

The answer to your points is: if you’re really interested in understanding the science behind climate change, don’t take anyone’s word for it. Go out and find the sources, read the books, and make the effort to form your own opinions.

That’s what I did, starting more than a year ago, because I realized that this topic was becoming important, and I began to distrust the talking points circulated by the right wing. After quite a bit of reading and research, I came to the conclusion that my previous skepticism had been drastically mistaken, that there really is a dangerous problem that needs to be addressed, that the science is very sound and convincing, and that the Republican Party is deliberately trying to confuse people and cloud the issues for political reasons.

100 billbrent  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:12:10pm

Ludwig,
The support-of-AGW-science in these comments seems to be driven mainly by you. And, I gather that you’re a climate scientist. Since I’m new to the LGF comment section, I’ve not seen what you propose as a solution to AGW. Could you direct me to, perhaps, a website of your own where I could see a summary of what you recommend? Or, would you give a summation here?

Thanks.

101 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:13:13pm

Listening to Glenn Beck interview Chris Walker (who likes to flaunt the title “Lord” according to the Viscounty he inherited from his grandfather) reminds me of when George Noory interviews one of his standard psychic guest… really, it does. The ignorant claims flow back and forth so quickly one can hardly catch them.

102 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:13:44pm

re: #80 dwells38

Why was this downdinged? Is it BS or do the models already take this into account?

Take what into account?

The article cited in Post #7 was discussed at some length downstairs, and found wanting. The core of it’s claims seems to be a paper which hasn’t yet been published; no citation for it was provided other than author and year, not even an “accepted for publication” notation. Here, it’s been asserted that it will be published in Science, but I haven’t seen any actual citation for that provided.

Once published, it’s certainly open for discussion. But until then, no one has any idea what it actually says, or whether the claims made for it are reasonable or not. Unfortunately, it isn’t completely unknown for folks on either side of this debate to be a bit overzealous in their claims, and especially so in their use of unpublished data, which often doesn’t pan out or in some cases even appear.

103 tradewind  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:14:20pm

re: #50 Walter L. Newton
I think that’s intrusive, but it might not be a bad idea to have every participant furnish a doctor’s waiver, like my kids had to have for camp and sports. Not a panacea, but anyone with an undetected condition might catch it with a check up.

104 researchok  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:15:43pm

re: #83 Charles

There’s no fraud too fraudulent for Glenn Beck.

Beck and Michael Moore have a lot in common.

They both share ideologies that pay- for as long as they pay.

105 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:15:52pm

re: #99 Charles
Charles, Ludwig, et al.,

It is very difficult for those of us who are part time visitors to this or any other blog to find unbiased sources and take the time to research.

Is there a recommended primer list of the best sources you have found that are free of the bias on either end of the political spectrum? I don’t trust the carbon trading profiteers any more than I do the “deniers”.

I realize you have posted a lot of resources, but I would like to find an easy to access site that I can learn from and share with friends. Would you recommend NASA or others?

106 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:17:11pm

re: #98 DaddyG

Well that was awkward. I think they were trying to be complementary.

Speaking of pennies does anyone else think the new barely copper clad penny feels like monopoly money in your hand?

I guess it was complimentary.

If you read it in a Jackie Mason accent, and not in a S Carolina accent.

107 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:17:52pm

re: #105 DaddyG
Also I apologise if this is a repeat request. I believe Charles shared some sites on an earlier thread that I neglected to bookmark.

108 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:18:15pm

re: #103 tradewind

I think that’s intrusive, but it might not be a bad idea to have every participant furnish a doctor’s waiver, like my kids had to have for camp and sports. Not a panacea, but anyone with an undetected condition might catch it with a check up.

Sorry, and in deference to your family members, I was being sarcastic. There has been a lot of talk about shutting down “sweat lodges” because of some mishaps (“gee, didn’t you know it is HOT in a hogan.”) and in general, I’m waiting for the namby molly boys to start screaming about marathons.

Just trying to make a point.

109 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:18:35pm

re: #103 tradewind

I think that’s intrusive, but it might not be a bad idea to have every participant furnish a doctor’s waiver, like my kids had to have for camp and sports. Not a panacea, but anyone with an undetected condition might catch it with a check up.

The odd thing here is that, although one guy was 65, the other two were 26 and 36, respectively - not what most would consider heart attack material, although it’s certainly not out of the question.

Autopsies have been ordered for all three, I understand. A cluster like this is unusual all by itself, and is made more so by the young age of two of the deceased.

110 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:18:38pm

re: #105 DaddyG

My recommendation for the primer:

The Discovery of Global Warming


You can buy the book… but it is all online there at the AIP website.

No, the AIP is not a world government conspiracy! It is the American Institute of Physics, which is the professional organization for people working a wide range of pure and applied physics. Their website has entries for the history of several physics developments, of which the “Discover of Global Warming” is just one.

111 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:20:54pm

re: #110 freetoken Many thanks - you did share this before I will save the link this time!!

112 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:22:50pm

re: #110 freetoken
Given my experience with organizations and people I theorize a substantive conspiratorial organization could last more than 5 minutes without someone screwing it up.

113 dwells38  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:23:02pm

re: #102 SixDegrees

Ah. Good point. I’m going to stay off this topic until I catch up on it. Charles description of where is was a year ago is kind of where I’m at I think.

It sounds like all the common sense attempts to punch holes in it have failed and I’m behind. I like the biological sciences but I have to admit much of the physical sciences interest me about as much watching paint dry. I suppose though I should just take my medicine.

Thanks for taking the time

114 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:23:36pm

re: #86 drcordell

errr… like “the Jews”

It’s actually an English proverb—‘take care of the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves’.

How thoroughly bizarre and unnerving.

115 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:24:00pm

I found it interesting to read that the average Antarctic sea ice cover has shown steady gains over the past 30 years, while over the same time frame Arctic sea ice cover has decreased, resulting in a steady or even slightly increased average global ice cover.

The causes for the Antarctic ice increase are hypothesized to include:
1. A decrease in upward ocean heat transport i.e. less heat is being carried up by ocean convection to melt sea ice; and,
2. The effects of the hole in the ozone layer.

To make matters even more interesting, it is forecast by the ozone layer theorists that the hole in the ozone layer is being repaired, and that once it disappears by around the end of the 21st Century, Antarctic ice cover will decrease.

The foregoing seems to provide some evidence that the hysterically feared increases in sea levels may not actually occur until at least the end of the 21st Century.

However, scientists seem pretty sure that the Arctic ice will continue the 30 year downward trend, notwithstanding that the past 2 years have demonstrated what they call a temporary slowdown.

As a layperson I find the subject interesting but by no means crystal clear. But the evidence does seem to point clearly to a thinning of the Arctic ice and a very strong possibility that the thinning trend will continue and perhaps even accelerate - that is, unless the very recent temporary slowdown actually turns out not to be temporary.

116 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:25:20pm

BIG JOR-EL IS RIPPING US OFF!

117 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:27:00pm

re: #116 Ben Hur

BIG JOR-EL IS RIPPING US OFF!

Just like you followers of Zod to blame science. /

118 Big Steve  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:27:27pm

re: #99 Charles

Have the Caitlin Survey results been published in a peer reviewed journal yet?

119 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:28:32pm

re: #106 Ben Hur

Yeah. I was hoping he meant “old jewish saying…” but I’m not either, so I don’t know. Otherwise, awk.ward.

120 abbyadams  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:29:13pm

And still we have elected members of congress not only denying AGW, but calling veterans who do so “traitors.”

Subject: Re: Veterans for American Power Bus Tour coming to your state

As a veteran,

I believe that any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath he or she took defend the Constitution of our great nation!

Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda.

Drill Baby Drill!!!

For Liberty,
Daryl Metcalfe
State Representative
Veteran U.S. Army


Linky

I do not know the tone of the politicspa.com site - has anyone seen this elsewhere…is it true? If so, I am totally disgusted. Just…totally.

121 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:29:14pm

Meanwhile, you think climate scientist are up against a possible disaster…

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk…]

122 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:31:05pm

re: #119 RogueOne

Yeah. I was hoping he meant “old jewish saying…” but I’m not either, so I don’t know. Otherwise, awk.ward.

I don’t think that’s what they meant.

123 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:31:22pm

re: #121 Walter L. Newton

Now that’s funny, …

124 RogueOne  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:33:10pm

re: #122 SanFranciscoZionist

I don’t know. I just sounds like a pretty lame/odd ethnic slur…”they save well”.

125 cliffster  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:33:15pm

re: #121 Walter L. Newton

Meanwhile, you think climate scientist are up against a possible disaster…

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk…]

Just sucking away trillions of taxpayer dollars

126 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:33:58pm

re: #124 RogueOne

I don’t know. I just sounds like a pretty lame/odd ethnic slur…”they save well”.

It’s an old and time-honored one.

127 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:35:19pm

re: #123 Thanos

Now that’s funny, …

I decided to cut the crap and stop being stupid and foolishly thinking about science and get right down to the “core” of the problem.

128 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:35:42pm

re: #111 DaddyG

It is a good reference.

Here is the dilemma that is so hard to us, as a society, to get our heads (and butts) around: We live but for a brief time, maybe 70 years. Our brains are hardwired to think about today (e.g., where is our next meal?) Yet we are affecting the lives of people near and far, both in space and time.

To arrange our lives for the sake of people who are not yet born is a monumental task. It is asking of us to do what is not natural, frankly. As animals what we want to do is eat, have sex, and sleep (not necessarily in that order.)

To ask an SUV driving, rayon-wearing, live-in-Riverside-county-but-work-in-downtown-San-Diego American to change their lives so people in, say, Bangladesh won’t die en masse in say 2070 is asking the impossible.

I’m not being snarky, I’m being serious.

The reasons the young man drives an SUV, wears stylish clothes, and commutes so far so he can get a better paying job are: (1) so he can eat better, (2) so he can increase his reproductive opportunities, and (3) so he can sleep safely. It is animal instinct.

To change that behavior is difficult. Not impossible, using the denotation of “impossible”, but it is nearly impossible.

I have a smaller carbon footprint than most Americans. Less than anybody else here, probably. But my life (semi-retired) allows that - if I were raising a family it would be different. Yet if everybody in the world had the same carbon footprint as myself we (the world) would still be raising CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to dangerous levels.

The only way out is to develop new energy sources that are not based on using the Carbon-hydrogen bonds as found in fossil fuels.

129 Dreader1962  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:36:52pm

re: #108 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, and in deference to your family members, I was being sarcastic. There has been a lot of talk about shutting down “sweat lodges” because of some mishaps (“gee, didn’t you know it is HOT in a hogan.”) and in general, I’m waiting for the namby molly boys to start screaming about marathons.

Just trying to make a point.

Exactly - people die doing ‘X’ and it makes the news; then we hear outcries for banning ‘X’.

Never mind the number of people who die TRAINING for a marathon, or running just to try and keep fit.

Nope.
- it’s on the TV news
- it’s the new ‘bright-shiny-thing’
- it gets over-covered (it’s especially enticing if there is video included!)
- we have a national ‘freak-out’

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

130 Big Steve  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:38:47pm

re: #128 freetoken

I think you under-estimate societies ability to think and adjust long term. Your arguments of eating better, better babes, sleeping well could equally have been applied to slave owners 150 years ago

131 kittysaidwoof  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:39:10pm

charles, around here no party dreams of making a stand against global warming. It is accepted as a dogma. By dogma I don’t intend to imply anything about climate change itself, only that all the mainstream politicians are convinced that it would be a political suicide to question it.

Even if I am not able to make an informed decision about whether the climate is indeed warming or whether it is man-made, I don’t mind taking precautionary actions to avoid the possible calamity. Unfortunately the bigger problem I see is that most of the measures proposed do really nothing to combat climate change or in some cases seem to actually undermine the goal. For example undercutting European industries and giving bigger competitive edge to Chinese is not going to help at all - on the contrary.

132 acwgusa  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:39:16pm

Climate Change is real and happening, ok.

What do we do to stop it?

As a side note, I think we need to go right to electric cars, and stop wasting time on hydrogen. Nuclear power and electric cars. Not a perfect solution, but a stop gap.

133 Kragar  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:40:49pm

re: #132 acwgusa

Climate Change is real and happening, ok.

What do we do to stop it?

As a side note, I think we need to go right to electric cars, and stop wasting time on hydrogen. Nuclear power and electric cars. Not a perfect solution, but a stop gap.

Who says we can stop it? We ought to spend more resources working around it.

134 DaddyG  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:41:30pm

Stilt subsidies? /

135 acwgusa  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:42:08pm

re: #133 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Who says we can stop it? We ought to spend more resources working around it.

Because I don’t want to end up in a bad Waterworld reality, thank you.

136 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:43:39pm

re: #130 Big Steve

Yes, they could and should be applied to people (all animals) at different times.

What happened about 150 years ago was the rapid exploitation of easily available energy. Coal had been in use for a while, but the industrial revolution was just getting underway. Then, 150 years ago, the first commercial oil well in the world was drilled, in Pennsylvania.

Thus the average human had available for their use much more energy per day, to use for all sorts of tasks. With this we built modern society.

The side effect, unknown at the beginning and unintended, is that the use of stored carbon would affect the biosphere in profound ways.

137 Pawn of the Oppressor  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:47:01pm

For a long time I considered climate change to be something so heavily politicized and confusing that aside from basic skepticism I stayed away from the subject entirely. However, for the doubters and the confused, I found NASA’s website to be a good primer on what’s going on.

Go here:

NASA’s Climate Change page

Read the complete pages for the categories Evidence, Causes, Effects, Uncertainties, and Solutions, in order. In the process of giving the reader an Executive Summary of what’s really going on, they almost casually knock down most of the climate change denial canards.

The truth is that most of the things we could do to affect climate change are things we should be doing as a country and a culture anyway - reducing consumption and waste, increasing efficiency, pursuing alternative energy sources, and generally pulling our heads out of our collective rear ends.

138 Jamie  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:47:02pm

OT, but it looks like the South Carolina GOP has resorted to outright anti-Semitism to defend Sen. Jim DeMint:

There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves. By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation’s pennies and trying to preserve our country’s wealth and our economy’s viability to give all an opportunity to succeed.

The conservative Palmetto Scoop gets it right:

It’s people like Ulmer and Merwin that make many folks fear for the future of the once Grand Ole Party.

139 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:51:53pm

re: #115 Spare O’Lake

I found it interesting to read that the average Antarctic sea ice cover has shown steady gains over the past 30 years, while over the same time frame Arctic sea ice cover has decreased, resulting in a steady or even slightly increased average global ice cover.

The causes for the Antarctic ice increase are hypothesized to include:
1. A decrease in upward ocean heat transport i.e. less heat is being carried up by ocean convection to melt sea ice; and,
2. The effects of the hole in the ozone layer.

To make matters even more interesting, it is forecast by the ozone layer theorists that the hole in the ozone layer is being repaired, and that once it disappears by around the end of the 21st Century, Antarctic ice cover will decrease.

The foregoing seems to provide some evidence that the hysterically feared increases in sea levels may not actually occur until at least the end of the 21st Century.

However, scientists seem pretty sure that the Arctic ice will continue the 30 year downward trend, notwithstanding that the past 2 years have demonstrated what they call a temporary slowdown.

As a layperson I find the subject interesting but by no means crystal clear. But the evidence does seem to point clearly to a thinning of the Arctic ice and a very strong possibility that the thinning trend will continue and perhaps even accelerate - that is, unless the very recent temporary slowdown actually turns out not to be temporary.

It just occurred to me that if the “hole in the ozone layer” theory is correct (i.e. that it is the cause of the steady increase in the Antarctic ice cover over the past 30 years), then there is a very simple fix for the Arctic ice melt, and scientists say it’s coming for sure:
SO LET’S WELCOME THE INEVITABLE HOLE IN THE ARCTIC OZONE LAYER, AND WE CAN WATCH THE ARCTIC ICE FREEZE UP REAL GOOD!
/?/?/

140 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:53:36pm

re: #138 Jamie

There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves.

That is such a bullshit stereotype, even though it perfectly describes my cheapass brother-in-law.

141 SixDegrees  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:53:39pm

re: #138 Jamie

OT, but it looks like the South Carolina GOP has resorted to outright anti-Semitism to defend Sen. Jim DeMint:

WTF? Everything is right about the analogy - even the old saw about watching your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves. Why attach it to Jews, though? I’ve never heard the adage associated with Jews in the past. How can you take a perfectly good statement like this, and wind up ruining it so badly and thoroughly?

Idiots.

142 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:55:20pm

re: #115 Spare O’Lake

I found it interesting to read that the average Antarctic sea ice cover has shown steady gains over the past 30 years, while over the same time frame Arctic sea ice cover has decreased, resulting in a steady or even slightly increased average global ice cover.

Well…that would all be very interesting if it wasn’t completely false according to all the NASA data.

[Link: www.nasa.gov…]

143 ibmkeyboard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:56:20pm

Charles-

People used to go to the North Pole and freeze to death.

Now you can go north dig a hole in an ice lake,
light a match and catch on fire.

Scary Shiite.

Personally I have always driven a car that gets 30+ mpg.

SUVs need to be banned.

144 TedStriker  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:56:24pm

re: #6 AllanHateMe

re: #7 Captain America 1776

Been keeping your powder dry, Mr. 14-posts-in-2-years and Mr. 5-posts-in 1.5-years (respectively)? Why pop out now?

/I think I already know the reason why…

145 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:57:28pm

re: #128 freetoken


To ask an SUV driving, rayon-wearing, live-in-Riverside-county-but-work-in-downtown-San- Diego American to change their lives so people in, say, Bangladesh won’t die en masse in say 2070 is asking the impossible.

I’m not being snarky, I’m being serious.

The reasons the young man drives an SUV, wears stylish clothes, and commutes so far so he can get a better paying job are: (1) so he can eat better, (2) so he can increase his reproductive opportunities, and (3) so he can sleep safely. It is animal instinct.

To change that behavior is difficult. Not impossible, using the denotation of impossible”, but it is nearly impossible.

If we can’t reeducate people into changing their lifestyles, totalitarian measures will eventually be needed to ensure the survival of the human race. What you’re pretty much saying is that things are going to have to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

146 kittysaidwoof  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:03:21pm

Also the climate change is hardly the only urgent problem in the world. For example given my geographical location it is far more likely that me or my kids are going to be adversely affected my Russian military action than by climate change. So a more immediate concern from my perspective is the current withdrawal phase of the state of democracy in the world.

I’d say the two issues are interconnected for I cannot imagine how you could reach a sustainable global solution when large part of the major players are not in the same game. But I might say that just because I’m biased for democracy.

Thus from my perspective it is very disturbing to notice that many climate change activists don’t care about the democracy issue at all. In fact if I got a penny for every person whom in private discussions have been very passionate about climate change and turned out to be proponents or idolize some sort of enlightened autocracy system, I would have more than a dozen pennies (which goes to show that I should go out more).

147 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:05:46pm

re: #142 ausador

Well…that would all be very interesting if it wasn’t completely false according to all the NASA data.

[Link: www.nasa.gov…]

Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2009) — Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole, according to new research.

The new research helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in both polar regions.
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com…]


Notice NASA’s participation in my source?
Very very strange, no?

148 Liberal Classic  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:09:14pm

re: #135 acwgusa

Because I don’t want to end up in a bad Waterworld reality, thank you.

While global warming threatens great disruptions to human civilization, it’s pertinent to note that Waterworld was merely a bad movie and does not reflect any kind of reality with regard to climate change. Recall that during the age of dinosaurs the global temperature was much warmer than now. There were no polar icecaps, yet many, many dinosaurs were land animals. Global warming threatens human civilization with rising seas that will inundate our cities, changing growing seasons, changing habitats, etc. In the fullness of time human civilization will witness palm trees and alligators in Vancouver. But it is important not to panic. It does not represent the catastrophic destruction as does an asteroid impact or the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera.

149 kittysaidwoof  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:09:23pm

re: #145 Conservative Moonbat

If we can’t reeducate people into changing their lifestyles, totalitarian measures will eventually be needed to ensure the survival of the human race.

Ah, this is what I meant by disturbing. Frankly, if I have to choose I’d risk the biblical floods, serial eruptions of volcanoes and flash ice age before totalitarian measures. An unknown natural disaster vs. known human disaster? hmm. I’ve tried a mellowed out version of totalitarianism and I didn’t like it.

150 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:09:49pm

re: #145 Conservative Moonbat

What you’re pretty much saying is that things are going to have to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

In so many words, yes. This is no different than what we can see in the lives of people around us. I know a guy who only started to lose weight after he had a heart attack (actually, I know a couple.)

Changing human behavior is the toughest nut to crack. That is why Obama’s campaign message of “Change” always struck me as odd: the last thing people want to do is to change.

151 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:12:43pm

re: #132 acwgusa

Climate Change is real and happening, ok.

What do we do to stop it?

As a side note, I think we need to go right to electric cars, and stop wasting time on hydrogen. Nuclear power and electric cars. Not a perfect solution, but a stop gap.

Nah, let’s go straight to “beam me up, Scotty”.
Seriously, why not pursue every promising alternative to oil and gas? Who knows what research will be most successful?

152 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:15:19pm

Yes but the sea ice is a completely seasonal phenomena, the ice comes and goes each year, as opposed to the ice shelves that last for decades or centuries. The glaciers and the ice shelves of antartica are losing ice volume at an accelerating rate. Take a look at what is happening to the “permanent” ice shelves on top of that last glacier study I linked.

[Link: earthobservatory.nasa.gov…]

The seasonal sea ice means pretty much nothing in the large scale of things, it is the land ice and ice shelves disappearing that lead to seawater level rising.

153 Bob Levin  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:18:09pm

I just have a few questions, and I’d appreciate it if someone could put these into context. If you are familiar with the work of James Burke (Connections, The Day the Universe Changed, After the Warming), he speaks of a time in the earth’s history where Greenland was mostly farmland, England was the best place to grow grapes for wine, he speaks of a Little Ice Age that I’ve read apparently just ended in the 19th century, and a time during a boom in English agriculture of, paraphrasing, ‘remarkably good weather’, meaning warm weather.

So my question is that since there was apparently a time when the normal weather patterns of the earth were quite different, how do these different patterns fit into the present predictions and analysis? In other words, how was that warming and cooling different from today’s warming and cooling?

154 Pepper Fox  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:19:43pm

I’m all for common sense stuff, using public transit and recycling and as soon as I can afford to get into a home and out of an apartment, I’m sittin’ my ass on a well and putting up wind and solar power generators. I think a great idea would be to put small helix wind generators on homes. I’m a tad apprehensive on this whole “global warming” thing though. Shouldn’t we do common sense stuff like above anyway? It’s not hard lol. Besides if anyone is responsible for this climate change stuff its India and China. Go over there and bitch at them, just hope you don’t wind up in prison/mass grave.

155 eachus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:20:03pm

IMHO the pro AGW scientists are their own worst enemies. They argue:

1. Atmospheric CO2 is at levels it has never reached since humans came down from trees. (I definitely agree, and anyone with a smattering of chemistry experience can verify this—or buy a nice indoor weather station that monitors temperature, relative humidity, CO2, and particulate levels.)

2. Anthropogenic increases in CO2 are causing greenhouse warming that is forcing climate change. (Definitely not proven, due to confounding of variables. No I, am not saying that it isn’t getting warmer. I’m also not saying that men have nothing to do with it. I am saying that there are other contributions to global warming, and that the balance is close enough that one of these other factors could be causing more global warming, or preventing more global warming than is being caused by CO2. In fact, by my reading of the data and just about everyone agrees now, air pollution was causing global cooling in the middle of the last century. Cleaning up the air removed this effect. I certainly don’t argue in favor of killing people by pollutiing the air enough to counteract greenhouse gases (GHGs). Also, there are several much more effective GHGs than CO2, and one of them is water vapor.

3. That the climate change caused by GHG will be bad for the entire human population of the planet. Definitely wrong. There are areas that will benefit, there are areas where there will be flooding or the climate will get worse. Scare tactics like the movie claiming that New York City would freeze instantly as an effect of global warming are so over the top, that it results in much of the population rejecting the whole argument.

But what about point 4?

4. Humans did not evolve to handle high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are, of course, lethal levels which will not be reached under any conceivable AGW scenario. But the current levels of CO2 may be causing morbidity and mortality already. Continuing to add CO2 to the air, especially without studying the effects on humans, is a form of Russian roulette that I would prefer not to play. Remember years ago the “sick building syndrome” in the news? Most cases today are cleaned up pretty quickly, and the NIOSH has recommended standards which most buildings comply with today. The NIOSH standard for CO2 is less than 1000 ppm. What do we do when outdoor air exceeds this level, which it may reach within a hundred years? Hmm. Atmospheric CO2 levels have gone from 313.2 ppm in September 1958 to 384.78 in September 2009. I’d love to see the level capped at 500 ppm, but I don’t think it is possible even with the most aggressive caps on CO2 emissions.

So if the pro-AGW scientists skipped points 2 and 3, and jumped right to point 4, I think the world would already be acting rationally to reduce CO2 levels. Instead we get things like the Kyoto Treaty which was based on so much bad science that the US did not sign it.

No, I’m not talking pro or con on AGW here. The issue was that rather than setting reasonable goals for all GHGs, it chose a small set of GHGs and imposed limits on emitting them. First this omitted the most important GHG, water vapor, but more important it focused on emission of GHGs, not on limiting GHG levels. So emission of methane (CH4) was considered ten times worse than CO2 emissions, when methane seems to have a lifetime of less than one year in the atmosphere. So the right answer for methane is at worst to count it as 2.5 times (by weight) as bad as CO2, to allow for a slight bias against methane then count it pound for pound (or kilo for kilo) of carbon.

The US probably should have signed Kyoto to get it out of the way, then worked on a better agreement. After all, without trying, the US may make the Kyoto limits, primarily due to reductions in CFCs to protect the ozone layer.

156 kittysaidwoof  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:25:19pm

I don’t think getting people out of SUV’s is that difficult. You just make cool alternative means of transport and people will want those. After all people haven’t always driven SUVs. Personally I cannot imagine why anybody would want to drive an SUV. They’re big and cumbersome and not much fun to drive, especially in winter. Not at all the fun they’re portrayed to be by Hollywood.

Bob, it is hardly likely that Greenland was mostly farmland a thousand years ago. I think somebody put way too much credit on the yarn a few vikings spun to get recruits. While there have been series of extra nice summers and extra cold winters over the last thousand years or so in Europe, the changes have not been that drastic.

157 ibmkeyboard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:34:54pm

30 And there shall also be heard of wars, rumors of wars, and earthquakes in divers places.
31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceiving, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it matter not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.

We need to do all we can do to save our planet or stand before God and explain-

Why?

158 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 3:40:19pm

re: #153 Bob Levin

…he speaks of a time in the earth’s history where Greenland was mostly farmland, England was the best place to grow grapes for wine, he speaks of a Little Ice Age that I’ve read apparently just ended in the 19th century, …

Sorry, but that is just nutty. Think about this: Greenland is mostly covered by an ice sheet currently. If it “was mostly farmland” as recently as just a couple of centuries ago, do you think scientists could be drilling ice cores all over Greenland, that go back thousands to hundreds of thousands of years?

England is not the best place to grow grapes. That someone could grow grapes there in the medieval period is hardly an endorsement that it was the best place. BTW, one can grow certain varieties of grapes there now.

The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling for a few centuries.

Please see the AIP link up thread, on the Discovery of Global Warming, where you will find the facts.

159 billbrent  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:15:22pm

The Sinclair video raises a number of questions.

Katey Walter, Asst. Professor at the University of Alaska says that there is as much carbon in the permafrost as in the atmosphere. She says, “If all that carbon is converted to greenhouse gases, it would double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

I assume she’s talking about the carbon in methane gas, is that correct?

For the climate scientists here, what is the mechanism by which methane is converted to CO2 in the atmosphere? Is it simply that the sunlight (solar energy) breaks it down? Would all of the methane be converted to CO2? If not, what percentage?

When speaking of the methane being released by thawing permafrost, Walter states, “But, much of the permafrost thaws beneath lakes. We estimate that the amount of methane that can come out of lakes is ten times the amount of methane that’s now in the atmosphere.”

There seems to be a non-sequitor here. In the first comment she talks about the carbon in the permafrost being converted into CO2. But in the second comment, she seems to be implying that the greater danger is that the permafrost methane is not converted to CO2, but simply rises up into the atmosphere and multiplies the current atmospheric concentration of methane by 10.

Further, she implies (but doesn’t explain) that there is some kind of multiplication of the methane if it’s under a lake. At that point, the video switches to Sinclair’s voice-over where he says something about a “methane feedback,” but he does not explain how that feedback works.

From table 7a-1 on this web page:
[Link: www.physicalgeography.net…]
methane makes up 0.00017% of the atmosphere. If none of the methane in the permafrost is converted to CO2, then the potential amount of methane in the atmosphere (taking Walter’s ‘ten times’ figure) would be 0.00170%. But if some of the methane is converted to CO2, then this percentage would be somewhere between 0.00017 and 0.00170. Have there been studies made to determine what concentrations of methane in the atmosphere produces what amount of global temperature increase?

Is it true that methane breaks down into CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? If so, and this happens over the arctic, will that result in increased cloud cover that warms the arctic, or increased precipitation (as snow) that cools the arctic, or increased precipitation (as rain) that contributes to thawing and melting?

160 Bob Levin  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:21:38pm

I didn’t mean that Greenland was farmland just a few centuries ago. I’m saying that Burke talks about times in the Earth’s history where the climate was quite different than our climate right now, and civilizations lived and even thrived in these different environments. So, I can’t get into who is the best scientist or which scientific findings are accurate—I’m just not qualified to analyze it. But Burke is a pretty trustworthy historian. I’m asking, how is this situation different than the past?

For instance, there was another historical debate about the Sphinx—a geologist was showing patterns of both wind erosion and water erosion. The geologist concluded that this meant the Sphinx was quite a bit older than archaeologists thought, going back to a time when Egypt was like a forest. Well, the archaeologists wouldn’t have any of this, basically dismissing on principle the patterns of water erosion.

Now, despite my questions, I wholeheartedly support a technological change in the way that our present world deals with fuel and energy.

161 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:23:27pm

re: #159 billbrent

Methane itself is a greenhouse gas, i.e., it absorbs infrared light, and it does it very well. Indeed, the absorption of IR by methane is a troublesome factor.

Methane combines (i.e., “burns”) with oxygen, to create water and CO2.

So there is a double whammy with methane. First it acts like a very effective greenhouse gas, then it combines with oxygen and makes the long-lived CO2 molecule.

162 Bob Levin  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:23:56pm

And the faster we get on with the change the better.

163 koedo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:25:58pm

I wonder at what point in the melting process we will start to notice higher sea levels on the US coasts. The article says that the polar ice caps are the lowest in recorded history. I live on the coast in Massachusetts and I haven’t noticed any appreciable rise in sea levels. The sea shore is the same as I remember as a child.

Will we see a sudden rise in sea level when the ice caps melt past some critical percentage?

164 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:30:25pm

re: #160 Bob Levin

Please visit the AIP site I linked up thread. It discusses earlier periods’ climates, and how we discovered them.

The difficulty with discussing the far distant past is that the Earth’s surface was significantly different, with land masses in different locations than now.

The best knowledge we have is of the recent times, the Pleistocene and the Holocene. A great deal has been learned about climate in these periods, from ice core samples, sea floor core samples, lake bed core samples, etc. Again, please read about it at the AIP summary site.

All too often people confuse the idea of causes and effects, usually because the thinking is that one cause has one effect. However, in the real world there are very complex relationships between physical elements. Climate is one case where there is great complexity, even if the underlying physics is straightforward. The best method forward is to read well written and well researched sources. That is why I suggest the AIP site over the book you are reading.

165 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:32:41pm

re: #163 koedo

So far the thermal expansion of the sea has been measured in a couple of millimeters per year, so unless you have a gauge set somewhere it is unlikely you will notice it.

Furthermore, sea level rise will not be uniform around the world… even now “sea level” depends upon where you are located.

166 koedo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:51:03pm

165: freetoken,

Many thanks.

167 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 4:51:53pm

Isn’t it wonderful how well the junk science sites are doing at giving otherwise intelligent people reasons to disbelieve/deny climate change?

///

For every cogent and straightforward study done on the subject by real scientists 5 counters are published by industry shills. I guess nothing will be done to prevent CO2 rise until the dire effects are obvious even to the common man in the street. Of course by then we will have already set off several self-reinforcing feedback loops, that the real scientists are attempting to warn us about now without really being heard.

By the time the deniers get on board with the rest of us that steps need to be taken it will be far too late. It would be nice to be able to look forward to seeing them eating their words, but no reasonable person could wish for that future.

168 oh_dude  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:03:59pm

Oh Really? What are the “natural causes?”

169 billbrent  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:09:23pm
re: #161 freetoken

Thanks.

Do you understand, and can you explain, the mechanism of the “methane feedback” - where methane in the thawing permafrost is somehow multiplied by being under water - mentioned in the Sinclair video?

170 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:25:48pm

re: #92 SixDegrees

Thanks for providing an excellent example of precisely the sort of over-the-top non-answer I was talking about. You’ve successfully removed the “di-” from “discussion,” as is your habit.

Please look up the definition of “abrasive asshole” and ponder it. You’re not doing your cause a single bit of good with an attitude like yours.

When you’re done, maybe you could take the time to actually read what I’ve said, here and in the past, and note that I have never, even once, disagreed with your precious “science,” although whatever it is you’re practicing has little resemblance to the real thing. What I’ve consistently objected to is your incredibly arrogant, self-centered presentation of it and the self-defeating nature of such an approach.

You can’t even recognize you allies anymore, staring at the world through a toilet paper tube.

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

171 woodentop  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:50:12pm

And yet, the more we discover, the less we know:

A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings
Sigrid Dengel, Dominik Aeby and John Grace
Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science, School of GeoSciences, Crew Building, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK

ABSTRACT

* •

Here, we investigated the interannual variation in the growth rings formed by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) trees in northern Britain (55°N, 3°W) over the period 1961–2005 in an attempt to disentangle the influence of atmospheric variables acting at different times of year.
* •

Annual growth rings, measured along the north radius of freshly cut (frozen) tree discs and climatological data recorded at an adjacent site were used in the study. Correlations were based on Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients between the annual growth anomaly and these climatic and atmospheric factors.
* •

Rather weak correlations between these variables and growth were found. However, there was a consistent and statistically significant relationship between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Moreover, there was an underlying periodicity in growth, with four minima since 1961, resembling the period cycle of galactic cosmic radiation.
* •

We discuss the hypotheses that might explain this correlation: the tendency of galactic cosmic radiation to produce cloud condensation nuclei, which in turn increases the diffuse component of solar radiation, and thus increases the photosynthesis of the forest canopy.

[Link: www3.interscience.wiley.com…]

The science is far from settled, as some would have you believe.

172 daddycrack  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:55:36pm

re: #14 Walter L. Newton

are yours?

173 eachus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:56:55pm

ausador said: For every cogent and straightforward study done on the subject by real scientists 5 counters are published by industry shills. I guess nothing will be done to prevent CO2 rise until the dire effects are obvious even to the common man in the street. Of course by then we will have already set off several self-reinforcing feedback loops, that the real scientists are attempting to warn us about now without really being heard.

By the time the deniers get on board with the rest of us that steps need to be taken it will be far too late. It would be nice to be able to look forward to seeing them eating their words, but no reasonable person could wish for that future.

Sigh. This is the point I was trying to make above. If you are convinced that there is a problem caused by increasing CO2 levels, it doesn’t matter if you are worried about rising ocean levels, I am worried about respiratory effects on children and the elderly, and someone else is concerned about Polar bears. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are bad, and getting worse. So do something.

What something? First everyone who is convinced that CO2 is a problem should be a fanatic for building more nuclear power plants. They are the most cost efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions now. Yes, fusion might be nice, and I might prefer molten salt reactors to pressurized water reactors. But compared to not building new nuclear plants, that is in the noise today. The next generation can sort it out. (And again, if you have your head on straight, nuclear waste is a non-issue. Coal burning power plants emit significantly more radioactive waste into the air per kilowatt than nuclear plants.* Not to mention the CO2.)

Second, don’t buy a new car today, if you can hold off—sorry Detroit. Well there are a few cars like the Prius which are from the next generation of automobiles. It doesn’t matter whether they are hybrids, electric only, or fuel cell powered, the electric transmission reduces the power use, and thus CO2 emissions, whether from the car or the electric power plants, to one third of what most of today’s cars use. Whatever version wins out, cutting the transportation sector’s use of oil in half is worth doing as fast as possible.

Next, don’t try to ban use of oil, or for that matter tax it—coal is worse in terms of pounds of CO2 per kilowatt. And, oh yes, all the talk about using “clean coal” where the CO2 would be sequestered is politics. A lot of CO2 is being put into the ground as a part of enhanced oil recovery. There is a site, in Norway, I think, where CO2 is removed from North Sea gas, and pumped back underground. So, yes, putting CO2 underground is doable. But except for the cases mentioned above, it is uneconomic.

If burning coal and putting the CO2 produced underground was economical, everyone would be doing it. Well, not everyone, but your average coal burning power plant could run a pipe into the ground instead of building a smokestack. The problem is, it won’t fit. You take coal, which is mostly carbon out of the ground, combine it with more than twice the oxygen and try to fit it back where it came from. Even if the CO2 is liquefied, and the coal plant was built right next to a (now empty) coal mine, keeping the CO2 liquefied would be a problem.

* The fly ash from coal plants contains Thorium-232, Potassium-40, some Uranium, and fission by-products. The K40 is the largest radioisotope present, and in spite of its very long half-life, is about the only significant radiation source from coal plants. On the other hand, the carbon in coal has been sequestered long enough that it his miniscule amounts of carbon 14. So you get less radiocarbon in your diet once the CO2 from the coal plant is taken up by food crops and other plants. ;-) My point is not that you should not worry about the radiation hazard from power plants, just realize that it is the CO2 from coal plants which is the huge threat.

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 6:28:08pm

re: #105 DaddyG

Charles, Ludwig, et al.,

It is very difficult for those of us who are part time visitors to this or any other blog to find unbiased sources and take the time to research.

Is there a recommended primer list of the best sources you have found that are free of the bias on either end of the political spectrum? I don’t trust the carbon trading profiteers any more than I do the “deniers”.

I realize you have posted a lot of resources, but I would like to find an easy to access site that I can learn from and share with friends. Would you recommend NASA or others?

The best site for this I believe is:
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu…]

175 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 6:43:12pm

re: #78 tradewind

LVQ… with all due respect, your statements are invariably absolutely, positively imbued with the Voice of Climate Science Certainty… do you work for NOAA?

No I do not. I am a physicist who works in non-linear dynamics and chaos. I specialize in problems of turbulence. It is a closely related field and I have been following this for some years closely. By following, I mean actively reading the actual journal papers.

176 AtadOFF  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 6:47:14pm

re: #29 Charles

Gotta agree with that one…

What about these guys…

[Link: www.sciencecentric.com…]

Not trying to troll just seeking opinion.

177 Buck  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 7:58:56pm

Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was probably “a mistake.”

Youtube Video

All I am saying is that he doesn’t take a lot to shake him. He can’t be very convinced if he is willing to denounce it after such a shot exchange.

I don’t know, does Arctic sea ice include Greenland?

178 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:11:51pm

re: #7 Captain America 1776

Um, our current position within the Milankovitch cycles does not support the idea that the current warming is due to those cycles.

The influence of the Milankovitch cycles has been known for a long time, and in fact is one of the main reasons there was as much uncertainty in the ’70s about the direction of climate change as there was (~40%).

Those cycles have not been ignored, they have been examined and rejected.

179 eoin  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:14:31pm

Ever since I lived in Spain I have been clicking on LGF for useful info. It remains one of the best blogs out there. Recently I noticed links to articles about global warming that were not jokes. When did we make the shift here at LGF to believing that Co2 is harmful. I remember Charles linking to Glenn BEcks “exposed, the climate of fear” and of course the Global warming swindle. I have never seen someone do a complete 180 on such an imporant issue. Maybe i was not actually reading the links that were posted.

On a side note charles was also happy when Rush mentioned him on his show. Its sad to see hom trash rush so much when both people think alike on so many issues!

180 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:17:55pm

re: #16 DaddyG


To be quite blunt I don’t trust the agenda of the denial or the cap ‘n trade advocates and I can see both sides impeding real innovation that could reduce carbon emmissions much more quickly than artificial limits or ignoring the issue.

What agenda do you believe the scientists studying and reporting their findings on climate change have? Do you believe the IPCC is funding them? Who makes the decision to fund the science? Why would they impede innovation?

Compare what scientists make to what the astroturf members make. The real money is in denial.

181 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:27:40pm

re: #25 Captain America 1776

Personal attacks aside, I am not going to make statements on defensive thinking.

Explain to me please the driving factors in the last dozen interglacial periods over the course of the last several million years that saw all types of lifeforms flourish.

What does the cause for previous climate change have to do with current changes? Are you saying that because previous changes were caused by non-anthropogenic events that all changes have to be because of the same causes? There is no room for a different cause?

The recovery of diversity was over geological time spans. My children, grandchildren and I will not live for that length of time. I’m concerned what will happen in the next 100 or so years.

CO2 was not the primary driver, nor a major contributing component to hightened temps during these dozen plus interglacial events.

Do you have any evidence that GHG feedbacks did not exist?

182 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:33:50pm

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

So, the paper mentioned in re: #7 Captain America 1776 has probably been peer reviewed?

Here is the abstract for the paper:

“Variations in the intensity of high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, driven largely by precession of the equinoxes, are widely thought to control the timing of Late Pleistocene glacial terminations. However, recently it has been suggested that changes in Earth’s obliquity may be a more important mechanism. We present a new speleothem-based North Atlantic marine chronology which shows that the penultimate glacial termination (Termination II) commenced 141,000 ± 2,500 years before present, too early to be explained by Northern Hemisphere summer insolation but consistent with changes in Earth’s obliquity. Our record reveals that Terminations I and II are separated by three obliquity cycles and that they started at near-identical obliquity phases.”

You will note that it is talking about changes some 141,000 years ago. Not now.

It is not talking about the current trend. It’s telling that the blog author pointed to by Captain America doesn’t realize this. I doubt the paper gives any support to his/her denialism.

183 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:36:09pm

re: #31 BetterLuck

Is new ice less cold than old ice?

No, but it is thinner so melts faster. It is an indication that the summer melt is bigger than the winter recovery.

184 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:39:34pm

re: #46 ausador

Anti-intellectualism seems to be in fashion. Stupid people don’t like smart people.

185 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:43:58pm

re: #72 freetoken


My standard rejoinder, as seen above, is to request that somebody to give me a good one or two paragraph explanation of why the earth and the moon have different average surface temperatures. If they can do that then I feel they have a sound practical understanding of physics.

Great point. I’ll have to use it.

186 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:52:46pm

re: #100 billbrent

Ludwig,
The support-of-AGW-science in these comments seems to be driven mainly by you. And, I gather that you’re a climate scientist. Since I’m new to the LGF comment section, I’ve not seen what you propose as a solution to AGW. Could you direct me to, perhaps, a website of your own where I could see a summary of what you recommend? Or, would you give a summation here?

Thanks.

I hope you aren’t suggesting that if Ludwig (or any other scientist) does not have a solution handy that the problem isn’t real.

187 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:10:53pm

re: #153 Bob Levin


So my question is that since there was apparently a time when the normal weather patterns of the earth were quite different, how do these different patterns fit into the present predictions and analysis? In other words, how was that warming and cooling different from today’s warming and cooling?

There is no need for the pattern of current warming to be different than previous warming periods. The causes of the warming can be independent of the pattern which means different initial events can result in similar feedbacks and have the same general pattern. It isn’t the pattern that tells us it’s anthropogenic, it is the physics involved in GHGs and the source of CO2.

188 b_sharp  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:14:28pm

re: #158 freetoken


England is not the best place to grow grapes. That someone could grow grapes there in the medieval period is hardly an endorsement that it was the best place. BTW, one can grow certain varieties of grapes there now.

You can grow grapes in Canada.

189 dmjboose  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:37:03pm

I once heard that the Arctic ice was shrinking, but the antarctic ice was growing. Is this true? Anyone able to back this up/refute it?

190 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:17:05am

re: #189 dmjboose

This is discussed up thread a bit. Short answer: Arctic sea ice is shrinking in area and volume. Antarctic sea ice has, at maximum extent (their winter) grown a bit in area (due it is believed to the ozone hole and a long period Antarctic circumpolar current cycle), but this should not be confused with the ice on Antarctica, the continent, which is being lost.

Look here:
[Link: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu…]

191 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:04:51am
192 billbrent  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:52:38am

re: #186 b_sharp

I hope you aren’t suggesting that if Ludwig (or any other scientist) does not have a solution handy that the problem isn’t real.

Ludwig is a scientist -

“…a physicist who works in non-linear dynamics and chaos.”

He says the problem is very, very real. In his worst case scenario, where the arctic bogs thaw, sea levels rise as much as 200 feet.

With a problem this real, the next step is to figure out solutions. I’m simply interested in hearing what Ludwig has in mind for solutions.

193 billbrent  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:16:51am

re: #180 b_sharp

Compare what scientists make to what the astroturf members make. The real money is in denial.


At this page on the website of the National Council for Science and the Environment, [Link: tinyurl.com…] the Council advertises their Handbook of Federal Funding for Environmental R&D. It contains the following description of the Handbook:

The updated handbook now includes:

* A comprehensive survey of $8 billion in federal funding for environmental research and development

$8 billion seems like real money to me.

194 b_sharp  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:25:04am

re: #193 billbrent

$8 billion seems like real money to me.

And what does it say inside the handbook? How much of that goes to climate scientists? How much does each scientist get?

I suspect, after talking directly and indirectly to climate scientists, that their average income is substantially less than $100,000/yr. How much does Monckton make? Tim Bell? Any of the others?

The denialsphere keeps claiming scientists push AGW for the money. This is nonsense, they can get more money by being in the pocket of astroturf organizations and their financial supporters.

195 billbrent  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:20:55am

re: #194 b_sharp

I think you’ll find that there’s far, far more money available for research that supports AGW than there is available for research that might express some skepticism about AGW.

As a point of reference, here is a Greenpeace report from 2007 about ExxonMobil’s funding of the “Global Warming Denial Industry:” [Link: tinyurl.com…]
Table 3 shows that ExxonMobil gave a total of $22.8 million to the “Denial Industry” from 1998 to 2006. That’s an average of $2.5 million a year.

I’m not certain, but I think that $8 billion in federal funds available for environmental research is per year. So ExxonMobil’s per year expenditures for the “Denial Industry” is 0.03% of that available for environmental research from the feds. You’d need 3200 companies (astroturf organizations?) spending as much as ExxonMobil spends per year to equal federal spending. I don’t think that’s happening.

I’m not familiar with Tim Bell, but to my knowledge, Monckton is not a climate scientist. Still, I’ll bet you could add up the amount Monckton, Bell, and all the most hated climate denialists make from “astroturf organizations” and it would not equal the amount Al Gore is making.

196 longrunningfool  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:11:07pm

AGW is a tough sell with multiple hard winters under your belt. And a year without summer int he midwest.

197 GalloPinto  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:14:37pm

Nothing is said about the increase in cloud cover due to the higher water partial pressure in the system. As more liquid water is available and higher evaporation will occur. More water vapor results in higher convective cooling hence a natural regulating effect. Not to mention the giant ball of fire in the sky.

198 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:22:12pm

re: #197 GalloPinto

Nothing is said about the increase in cloud cover due to the higher water partial pressure in the system. As more liquid water is available and higher evaporation will occur. More water vapor results in higher convective cooling hence a natural regulating effect. Not to mention the giant ball of fire in the sky.

Ahh rubbish rubbish rubbish.

Try some actual science.
[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov…]

199 billbrent  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 4:10:44pm

re: #198 LudwigVanQuixote

From the link you provided (point #10):

There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

200 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:40:39pm

re: #199 billbrent

Most scientists readily admit the limitations of their knowledge. Propagandists see such an admission as an exploitable weakness.

It’s a sad state of affairs when established research scientists are expected to defend themselves against bloggers who accuse them variously of lying, plagiarizing, cherry picking and only being in it for the money.


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
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
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
2 weeks ago
Views: 277 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1