Global Warming Hasn’t Stopped

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Environment • Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 7:14 am PDT • Views: 246

The Associated Press commissioned a review of years of temperature data by independent statisticians, and they’ve definitively refuted the often-repeated canard that the temperature of the Earth is decreasing: Statistics experts reject global cooling claims.

The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time. And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.

Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.

“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

Advertisement

324 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 laZardo  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:18:14am

WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!

/ :B

2 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:19:06am

re: #1 laZardo

WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!

/ :B

True that, I'm still trying to get the red out from my trip to Jamaica.

/sparing gory details

3 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:24:05am

From another article on this subject:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

The denialists won't stop with their cherry-picking because it's the only way they can make their claims. Even when called out on this technique, they keep going because they don't have facts to support their position, and they are counting on folks not checking back later to see if the data is still accurate.

4 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:25:48am

I linked a more complete article yesterday in the spinoffs, but there's one thing that has to be kept in mind. The data sets are limited to the last 10 years, and to the last 30 to 100+ years. One could rightfully argue that such sample sizes are too small to judge temperature changes or long term changes, but within those sample sizes examined, the AP sponsored examination of the data finds no decrease in temperatures in the last 10 years.

That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the way some data is gathered at some ground sites, where temp sensors are in close proximity to HVAC units, parking lots, or other similar items that would cause temps to rise (and which would skew results).

What the AP article also doesn't mention is what precisely was the temperature increase during the past decade. It merely states that an increase was found. It would have been nice to attach a number to the statement. Was the temp increase in the past decade one degree? 1/10 of a degree? A fraction of a percent? It doesn't say. That also amounts to a curious omission given that their statisticians had to produce a number to provide the answers to AP.

Moreover, the article high temp years in the past decade are linked to El Nino and cooler years to La Nina. Stronger and weaker El Nino/La Nina cycles affect global temps, but that isn't fully addressed in the article either.

It's a good start at debunking the question of cooler/warmer for the past decade, but it still misses some key information.

5 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:26:24am

Job losses haven't stopped either. The economy is still cooling. Here is an impending announcement by certified assholes:

Gov't May Say Recession Over but Not Job Losses

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:40 AM

The government will release figures this week expected to show that the economy has awakened from its deepest slump since the 1930s and is in the early stages of a recovery. But the following week, the government will issue another set of figures expected to show unemployment continuing to rise toward and possibly above a clearly recessionary 10 percent.


Link.

And now, back on topic.

6 CommonCents  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:30:07am

re: #5 Ojoe

The trend these days isn't to change the situation, just re-label things to make them sound better.

I'll call it economics by warm fuzzies.

7 KingKenrod  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:30:24am

NASA to launch a new ARES rocket.

[Link: interactive.foxnews.com...]

Projected launch time right now is 10:54 Eastern.

8 KernelPanic  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:31:43am

The full story is really interesting, they take care to point out how the cooling people always include or start with 1998. It turns out if you look at the data and start your range with 1997 or 1999 you get radically different results.

9 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:32:03am

Is this the AP's effort to set the record straight? Pretty feeble. No wonder they're going out of business. The article is dry and lifeless. I fell asleep halfway through and just woke up to find the world... the same temperature.

They'd do better to profile denialists and show what total frauds and head-in-the-sand loons they are, not to mention terrific God-fearing patriots (witness the proud eagle in the logo of globalwarminghox dot com.)

10 in excess  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:33:08am

What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1890's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1900's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1910's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1920's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1950's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1960's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1970's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1980's?

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

11 badger1970  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:33:38am

Everything that farts, barks or bellows, contributes to the ecosystem. To what extent, no one will ever come up with an accurate means of measuring it. A plowed field turns into a Wal-mart parking lot, wham. Wooded forest is succumbed by urban sprawl, wham. China opening yet another coal burning plant, wham. Al Gore flying and opening his manbearpig mouth, double wham.

Point is, what percent to we contribute v. what nature contributes? And I'll be damned to hell if I have to pay for nature if cap and trade passes.

12 KernelPanic  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:33:38am

re: #6 CommonCents

Or one could just say that jobs are almost always a trailing indicator when looking at the economy as a whole.

13 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:33:47am

re: #10 in excess

What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1890's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1900's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1910's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1920's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1950's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1960's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to drop in the 1970's?
What did humans do to cause the temperature to rise in the 1980's?

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

It's the cows' fault. Blame the cows.

14 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:34:07am
Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

I think this goes to show just how misleading some of these "reports" have been as of late that the analysis is that dependent on a start date. The ultimate in cherry-picking data, imo. And it matters because of this:

Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

The anti-science forces are winning.

15 CommonCents  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:35:53am

re: #12 KernelPanic

Or one could just say that jobs are almost always a trailing indicator when looking at the economy as a whole.

I suppose one could, but I'd rather not.

16 cenotaphium  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:37:23am

re: #4 lawhawk

That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the way some data is gathered at some ground sites, where temp sensors are in close proximity to HVAC units, parking lots, or other similar items that would cause temps to rise (and which would skew results).

I believe this is a debunked anti-AGW talking point. They took out the questioned sites from the data set, and it still produced the result that was expected.
I think Ludwig was the one who provided the citations last time.

17 kobra_55  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:37:55am

My favorite is when someone remarks that it was cold last Wednesday, which definitely means all of that global warming talk is nonsense.

18 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:39:13am

re: #17 kobra_55

My favorite is when someone remarks that it was cold last Wednesday, which definitely means all of that global warming talk is nonsense.

But it was cold last Wednesday! Clearly global warming is a complete fraud! It's not nonsense!

19 badger1970  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:41:41am

re: #17 kobra_55

It's only unusually cold when Al Gore travels abroad to give his 100% man-made global warming power point presentation. His 20x energy use house is unavailable for comment.

20 laZardo  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:42:19am

I'll be honest. I find it distressing how the global warming debate seems only to be between the AlGorian alarmists and the bullshitting deniers.

21 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:43:55am

Well, I'm glad that everything is right on schedule.

22 Spider Mensch  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:52:39am

to quote the REM song..." it's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine..."

23 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:54:10am

re: #1 laZardo

WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!

/ :B

Just you wait, about 5,000,000,000 years from now when the sun turns into a red giant, you wont be using that sarc tag then buster!

/

24 kobra_55  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:54:59am

re: #20 laZardo

Very true. I find myself somewhere in the middle. Just looking at the sheer amount of emissions from man-made things (including livestock) leads me to believe that it's not good for the planet.

On the other hand, I don't believe the developed countries will be able to make a noticeable difference in said emissions at all with two-thirds (maybe more?) of the world's population living in countries that could care less about curbing emissions.

25 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:55:18am

re: #9 SeaMonkey

globalwarminghoax dot com I meant...

26 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:55:33am

re: #14 Sharmuta

Cherry picking data is even more relevant when you have a limited sample size. A decade is barely a blip in the scale of the planet's climatic history. Longer sample sizes are better able to show long term trends. The problem arises from the fact that we've been physically measuring global temps by satellite for only the past few decades, and temperature stations across the globe for the past 100 years or so. We've had to extrapolate on temps from older periods using other sources. They point to periods warmer than today, colder than today, and all points in between.

But putting all that aside, what are we supposed to do with the AGW? Hamstringing our economy for the possibility of reducing CO2 output isn't going to sit well with most people, and 3d world countries are even less receptive to that idea, figuring that it's 1st world countries that brought about the high CO2 rates through their domestic consumption.

Alt energy sources, like nuclear are not being seriously considered in the US, despite the fact that they alone would provide the needed generating capacity needed to replace coal and other fossil fuels. Renewables aren't nearly as reliable, and would require massive land use needs to happen. Environmentalists and NIMBY plays against building new nukes. They also oppose building new transmission lines that would bring power from elsewhere in the country, on dubious grounds (like it would thwart construction of alt-energy projects as in NJ).

All the while, China continues spewing out ever greater amounts of CO2 (and all other kinds of emissions from their factories, power plants, etc.) and is now the number 1 emitter of CO2. They're pushing ahead with a massive expansion of nuclear power, but they are building new coal plants practically 1 every 2 weeks just to meet existing and rising demand. The US has 120 or so nuclear power plants, and while there are plans for additional nukes here, there's no place to put the waste thanks to Sen. Harry Reid who is doing all he can to block efforts to open the nation's nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mt despite govt law requiring such (and taxes collected for such purposes).

27 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:55:34am

Let's go nuclear!

re: bosforus
Enviro's will never let it happen.

So what, let's push for it!

re: bosforus
Good luck with that.

Screw you.

28 redshirt  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:57:07am

So what? I find the likelihood of nuclear war much more likely this century. The world is allowing evil people to develop nukes and it is only a matter of time till some are used.
How much dust will be blown into the atmosphere from all the nukes, and how much will the dust cool the planet?
I could probably name a few other ways we are killing ourselves before a warmer planet will.

29 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:58:07am

re: #26 lawhawk

People have been down dinged for a lot less than that, buster :)

30 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:59:02am

re: #26 lawhawk

in other words we've been massively ripped off by our own govt...
we cannot deal with AGW, whatever that is, without a robust economy

31 cenotaphium  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:00:54am

re: #16 cenotaphium

re: #4 lawhawk

That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the way some data is gathered at some ground sites, where temp sensors are in close proximity to HVAC units, parking lots, or other similar items that would cause temps to rise (and which would skew results).


I believe this is a debunked anti-AGW talking point. They took out the questioned sites from the data set, and it still produced the result that was expected.
I think Ludwig was the one who provided the citations last time.

Some reading on the topic:
From RealClimate The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island.
A Few Things.. Warming is [not] due to the Urban Heat Island Effect
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

32 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:01:43am

re: #28 redshirt

How much dust will be blown into the atmosphere from all the nukes, and how much will the dust cool the planet?


So how many nukes would it take to blow enough dust into the atmosphere to make a difference in the earth's temperature? Let's hear some stats on that. How many nuclear/atomic/dust producing bombs were tested in the mid 20th century and how much earth cooling did that do?

33 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:01:50am

re: #27 bosforus

Let's go nuclear!


Enviro's will never let it happen.

So what, let's push for it!

re: bosforus
Good luck with that.

Screw you.

Once people realize that there are fuel-recovering nuclear reactors, this will no longer be an issue. Plus the fact that those reactors are designed to make it almost impossible to "melt down", they'll be everywhere!

/I wish people could understand this.

34 HoosierHoops  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:01:54am

I'm not a scientist...I have been reading the beginners guide to AGW over at newscientist.com Kindof a AGW for dummies.
[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

35 bofhell  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:02:03am

re: #19 badger1970

It's only unusually cold when Al Gore travels abroad to give his 100% man-made global warming power point presentation. His 20x energy use house is unavailable for comment.

Now ya see, if we could get all the pundits on all sides to stop blowing hot air, the Earth's temperature would return to normal in no time (geologically speaking).

Like Spider Mensch said...

36 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:04:41am

re: #33 MrSilverDragon

Once people realize that there are fuel-recovering nuclear reactors, this will no longer be an issue. Plus the fact that those reactors are designed to make it almost impossible to "melt down", they'll be everywhere!

/I wish people could understand this.

I know that, you know that, but get people like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club to understand that. Solar and wind are nice, but there is no way they can supply all of our needs.

37 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:05:26am

re: #35 bofhell

Now ya see, if we could get all the pundits on all sides to stop blowing hot air, the Earth's temperature would return to normal in no time (geologically speaking).

Like Spider Mensch said...

[Video]

In other words, muzzle Rush, Beck, Olby, etc.
:-)

38 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:05:52am

re: #11 badger1970

As someone living in a semi-rural area, I see more nature than city people, and I would say as a general thing, that nature almost always has a bigger effect on things than man, and that by several orders of magnitude.

39 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:05:53am

re: #34 HoosierHoops

I'm not a scientist...I have been reading the beginners guide to AGW over at newscientist.com Kindof a AGW for dummies.
[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

Thanks for that! There is also the links Ludwig and Freetoken give for those of us needing to start at the beginning with real science:

The Discovery of Global Warming
NASA: Global Climate Change

40 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:06:33am

re: #33 MrSilverDragon

Once people realize that there are fuel-recovering nuclear reactors, this will no longer be an issue. Plus the fact that those reactors are designed to make it almost impossible to "melt down", they'll be everywhere!

/I wish people could understand this.

The do understand this, and they are not going to let it happen. The anti-nuclear people sometimes remind me of the anti-agw and anti-vac people... not amount of science is going to convince them that it's viable and obtainable.

Really, if there is any corollary to AGW denial, it would be nuclear power deniers.

There is enough anti-science going on to cover all spectrums of political sides.

41 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:07:42am

Man!I wish I'd studied this better!
I wish I'd studied this before I split 2 cords of wood
this past weekend too...
/

42 Ascher  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:07:46am

[Link: trueslant.com...]
Throwing this link in here to fan the flames of discussion

43 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:09:06am

re: #32 bosforus
& Redshirt

You two sure found a spectacular way to get into climate modification! Take a peek at global dimming.
[Link: www.pbs.org...]
I sure would like to see where the climate would be going without us. Its changing all the time over the long haul. It seems to me we are poised to get into modification no matter who is at fault.

Hypothetically-I suspect if we had a ice age coming we would be looking for ways to warm, as we seek ways to undo the CO2 today.

44 MandyManners  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:09:17am

re: #19 badger1970

It's only unusually cold when Al Gore travels abroad to give his 100% man-made global warming power point presentation. His 20x energy use house is unavailable for comment.

[Link: www.snopes.com...]

45 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:11:30am

re: #36 Honorary Yooper

I know that, you know that, but get people like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club to understand that. Solar and wind are nice, but there is no way they can supply all of our needs.

wind mills are a huge bust with regard to cost, grid access, and the land use/noise/visual problems...smaller, new fangled turbins for home use have potential

46 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:13:01am

re: #45 albusteve

The cheapest solar energy is a cotton cord and clothespins.

Check the wattage on your dryer.

47 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:13:05am

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

The environmental folks can make the perfect the enemy of the good. Windpower? Too hard on migrating birds.
Nukes? No place to put the waste. Too dangerous.
Solar? We need an EIR for the habitat.
Hydrogen? Not if you power its manufacturing with coal or oil.
Hydro-power?-You ruin the river and its fish.

sheesh. Give a civilization room to work.

48 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:13:36am

re: #38 Ojoe

As someone living in a semi-rural area, I see more nature than city people, and I would say as a general thing, that nature almost always has a bigger effect on things than man, and that by several orders of magnitude.

We know small, natural causes like volcanoes and wild fires can affect the atmosphere and thus local weather conditions. We know the environment is a delicate balance- even a tilt in our axis can mean the difference between an ice age and a warm, life-teeming planet. We also know we do in fact contribute waste to this planet in a variety of forms, including CO2 emissions. Over time the CO2 has built up, and we know from science what it will do in the atmosphere- it will trap radiation, and keep the planet warmer. To think we're safe from AGW because nature can kick our ass is short-sighted. Nature surely can and will kick our ass, and we are helping to make that possible.

49 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:14:10am

re: #28 redshirt
You must be refering to this...

50 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:14:21am

re: #46 Ojoe

The cheapest solar energy is a cotton cord and clothespins.

Check the wattage on your dryer.

I don't use a dryer...the sun shines in NM over 300 days a year...I'm an old timey guy

51 Mike DeGuzman  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:15:34am

And the global warming debate goes on and on and on and on and on...

52 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:15:39am

re: #50 albusteve

I don't use a dryer...the sun shines in NM over 300 days a year...I'm an old timey guy

But you're blocking the plants on the ground against the sun with your clothes! You're making things worse!

/

53 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:15:57am

re: #50 albusteve

Good for you.

BBL

54 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:16:59am

re: #50 albusteve

But what about the BIRDS???
...and your skevvies for all to see?
...My eyes...my eyes...!
My wife had me reinstall the clothes line!!!

55 laZardo  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:17:00am

Heading to bed, and hoping I don't wake up on the wrong side of the coastal property line in the morning. Cheers.

56 Ascher  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:17:17am

This link has pretty much nothing to do with global warming, unless you are in London during the height of summer and in desperate need of man-made shade:

[Link: www.thisislondon.co.uk...]

57 Guanxi88  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:17:45am

re: #50 albusteve

I don't use a dryer...the sun shines in NM over 300 days a year...I'm an old timey guy

You lucky so-and-so! Been trying to move self and family to NM for a couple months now. Gotta secure a job there first, of course. The wife would get the wandering bug during a recession...

58 redshirt  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:17:49am

re: #49 reloadingisnotahobby

Darwin in action!

59 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:18:16am

re: #43 Rightwingconspirator

& Redshirt

You two sure found a spectacular way to get into climate modification!


Ha ha! Hey, it wasn't my idea. If we're going to "blow dust into the atmosphere" our way back to cooler temperatures we're going to need a meteor, not a nuke.

60 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:18:30am

re: #45 albusteve

wind mills are a huge bust with regard to cost, grid access, and the land use/noise/visual problems...smaller, new fangled turbins for home use have potential

I said it before, will point it out again. Wind and solar is not yet viable in any sort of way, EXCEPT, a total government sponsored program that would simply pay for it to exist, without any thought to the program becoming self supporting at some point in the near future.

After 35 years of research at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, there has been wonderful advances in the technology, but it is no where near affordable or self sustaining. And that element alone put s a road block into the whole concept of renewable. I worded there for 13 years, I spoke to the scientist all the time, they will tell you the same thing, all 900 or so scientist there.

Yes, it's on it's way to becoming part of the energy technology of the future, but it has a long way to go.

And evidently I am not against this sort of energy source or technology or research, I supported their mission for 13 years, and I still do in spirit.

But fact is fact, reality is reality, and no politician can just wave any wand and say "poof" and make renewables become the magic bullet that saves us.

61 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:18:44am

re: #55 laZardo

You have a problem with beach front property?
I DO!! Living in Utah ...who wouldn't?
/

62 Spider Mensch  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:19:21am

here's a good debateable question..which would man be able to cope with better with his knowledge and resources today? global warming? or global cooling? while both scenario's would have catastrophic consequences I would think warming, but it is a tough hypothetical question...

63 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:20:16am

re: #57 Guanxi88

You lucky so-and-so! Been trying to move self and family to NM for a couple months now. Gotta secure a job there first, of course. The wife would get the wandering bug during a recession...

there is no other place like NM...not even close...it's jaw dropping gorgeous, world class climate, quiet and peaceful...the mixed culture here may be the coolest attraction of all

64 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:20:53am

re: #33 MrSilverDragon

I truly suspect we would not have to keep the waste in Yucca for a thousand years. It may well be the fuel for distant technologies.

65 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:21:16am

re: #63 albusteve

there is no other place like NM...not even close...it's jaw dropping gorgeous, world class climate, quiet and peaceful...the mixed culture here may be the coolest attraction of all

And it has Steve... what more could you ask for?

66 Ascher  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:22am

NASA has scrubbed the ARES launch.

67 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:25am

re: #60 Walter L. Newton

I said it before, will point it out again. Wind and solar is not yet viable in any sort of way, EXCEPT, a total government sponsored program that would simply pay for it to exist, without any thought to the program becoming self supporting at some point in the near future.

After 35 years of research at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, there has been wonderful advances in the technology, but it is no where near affordable or self sustaining. And that element alone put s a road block into the whole concept of renewable. I worded there for 13 years, I spoke to the scientist all the time, they will tell you the same thing, all 900 or so scientist there.

Yes, it's on it's way to becoming part of the energy technology of the future, but it has a long way to go.

And evidently I am not against this sort of energy source or technology or research, I supported their mission for 13 years, and I still do in spirit.

But fact is fact, reality is reality, and no politician can just wave any wand and say "poof" and make renewables become the magic bullet that saves us.

so you disregard the golden tongued miracle worker and his army of minions to make reality out of fantasy?...just say it

68 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:26am

re: #62 Spider Mensch

here's a good debateable question..which would man be able to cope with better with his knowledge and resources today? global warming? or global cooling? while both scenario's would have catastrophic consequences I would think warming, but it is a tough hypothetical question...

Well, considering man is one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet, I'd say they have a good chance either way of surviving. We know man was able to survive the last ice age, since we're here today.

69 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:31am

re: #64 Rightwingconspirator

I truly suspect we would not have to keep the waste in Yucca for a thousand years. It may well be the fuel for distant technologies.

Some of it can be fuel now by simply reprocessing the rods. They do it in France, why the hell not here?

70 redshirt  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:41am

re: #59 bosforus

Ha ha! Hey, it wasn't my idea. If we're going to "blow dust into the atmosphere" our way back to cooler temperatures we're going to need a meteor, not a nuke.

Did I fail to mention Apophis?

71 Guanxi88  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:45am

re: #63 albusteve

there is no other place like NM...not even close...it's jaw dropping gorgeous, world class climate, quiet and peaceful...the mixed culture here may be the coolest attraction of all

Got the mixed culture - less Native American - here in Texas, but can't take the flat terrain and unspeakable heat.

72 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:22:49am

re: #65 Walter L. Newton

And it has Steve... what more could you ask for?

HOOT!

73 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:23:20am

re: #70 redshirt

Don't forget Yellowstone.

74 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:24:26am

re: #67 albusteve

so you disregard the golden tongued miracle worker and his army of minions to make reality out of fantasy?...just say it

Which golden tongued miracle worker? There is a whole lot of non-science people out there promoting something that they have no understanding of, or at least their politics are more important than scientific facts.

75 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:24:30am

re: #73 Rightwingconspirator

You watched the Histoy Channel episode too?
...The ring of fire...

76 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:24:42am

re: #73 Rightwingconspirator

Don't forget Yellowstone.

If that one goes, fuck AGW, fuck jihad, fuck the BNP, we've got a much, much bigger problem on our hands. If you think Ludwing's predictions are bad (and I think he's a pessimist), they're rosy compared to that.

77 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:25:17am

re: #69 Honorary Yooper

Some of it can be fuel now by simply reprocessing the rods. They do it in France, why the hell not here?

Politics.

78 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:25:37am

re: #74 Walter L. Newton

Which golden tongued miracle worker? There is a whole lot of non-science people out there promoting something that they have no understanding of, or at least their politics are more important than scientific facts.

politics is self sustaining...it trumps all else

79 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:25:51am

re: #69 Honorary Yooper

It seems to every expensive and or energetic metallic element can and indeed must be recycled. At my work we do gold. If they can do platinum and iron, why not radio actives? They worked with them a lot to make and use them. The tech is there.

81 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:28:07am

China is so polluted and desertified (up north) that they need to invest in water re-use and treatment technology. The city of Beijing plans to re-use 100% of its waste water by 2013. (Those of you scoffing and saying "Icky" must have forgotten the water cycle.) If China wants to keep growing (economically) at anything near its recent rate (which is pretty much impossible) they need to innovate wildly and throw lots of ideas at the problem to see what sticks. There is no such urgency here because we're not suffering from global warming (yet?)

But still, finally! Here's our chance to use our superior technological capacity to sell something BACK to China!... If by "our" we mean Canada's...

82 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:28:57am

re: #70 redshirt

Did I fail to mention Apophis?

That looks like it would certainly have done the trick!
The article says asteroids of this size have a probability of threatening the earth every 1300 years. Let's hope we all feel better about our atmosphere by then. :)
...or have at least developed very warm coats...

83 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:29:19am

re: #75 reloadingisnotahobby

re: #76 Honorary Yooper

Yes indeed. Civilization is already in the climate modification game. No matter the cause, no matter the details, we will attempt to change what we can to benefit ourselves and hopefully the greater biosphere.

Even if its just the air conditioning in our new underground lairs. LOL

84 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:29:43am

re: #80 FrogMarch

Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles of garden hose.

This better not link to a MacGyver episode summary...

85 subsailor68  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:30:27am

Morning all! My nic probably gives away the fact that I lived with nuclear reactors for a long time - in fact worked, slept, and ate within a few yards. I can attest to the fact that, even with that, I am not a walking night light.

Here's a pretty good site:

Nuclear Reactors

BTW: Thanks to Admiral Rickover, we used Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), while the Soviets went with Boiling Water Reactors (BWR). FWIW, they had many more problems than we did.

86 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:30:39am

"so you go and buy an brand new set of wheels,
just to show your family just how good it feels,
you love your wife and kids, just like your dad did"

John Hiatt
simple and true insight on the American mindset...it's generational and we have a long way to go Ludwig

87 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:30:55am

re: #80 FrogMarch

Great link!

88 albusteve  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:31:25am

my doctor needs me...I'm outski

89 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:31:30am

re: #79 Rightwingconspirator

It seems to every expensive and or energetic metallic element can and indeed must be recycled. At my work we do gold. If they can do platinum and iron, why not radio actives? They worked with them a lot to make and use them. The tech is there.

Well, the problem is that many people believe that waste material is barrels full of green glowing goo, thanks to propaganda and misinformation. They think it's an unrecoverable material, which of course has been proved to be recoverable. This is stigma which is going to take quite a bit of education to remove.

90 MandyManners  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:35:13am

re: #81 SeaMonkey

China is so polluted and desertified (up north) that they need to invest in water re-use and treatment technology. The city of Beijing plans to re-use 100% of its waste water by 2013. (Those of you scoffing and saying "Icky" must have forgotten the water cycle.) If China wants to keep growing (economically) at anything near its recent rate (which is pretty much impossible) they need to innovate wildly and throw lots of ideas at the problem to see what sticks. There is no such urgency here because we're not suffering from global warming (yet?)

But still, finally! Here's our chance to use our superior technological capacity to sell something BACK to China!... If by "our" we mean Canada's...

But, but, BHO said China had wonderful infrastructure!

91 bnichols10  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:36:59am

The problem is that the argument isn't really about global warming anymore - its about the government trying to control every aspect of our lives and this is the tool they think they can do it with.

I've read the studies that say we are getting warmer and the ice is melting in the Arctic. I also see studies that say the Antarctic ice is growing. There are plenty of studies that will tell you this is caused by man while other books like Henrick Svensmark's The Chilling Stars will show you that its a function of the sun and water vapor.

To further illustrate this I see the story today in the Times Online which says that we all have to give up meat to save the planet.

Give me a break. I'd rather die in the floods, famine, earthquakes and tsunamis that AlGore predicts we will see that give up my freedom to people who want to tell me everything from what I can eat, what light bulb I can use, what car I can drive and ultimately (by controlling and taxing all sources of power) how I can live my life.

I don't know if we are getting warmer, cooler or staying the same, or how much (if any) we humans are impacting it, but studies like this AP one are a major distraction from the real issue - ever increasing government control of all aspects of our lives.

92 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:37:02am

re: #81 SeaMonkey

One of the reasons we don't see the same predicament is because we started cleaning up our air and water decades ago under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. We've gotten ahead of the curve by cleaning up various pollutants and forcing emitters to reduce various particulate and other emissions.

China's environmental laws are poorly enforced, and the government put economic advancement ahead of all else. That's why so much of China is polluted; why so many rivers and waterways are noxious, and why the air is so thick you can see it. China's economic policies by the government have spurred many of the problems they're now facing. They now require massive expenditures to fix the problems that previously massive expenditures caused.

93 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:37:55am

re: #23 ausador

Just you wait, about 5,000,000,000 years from now when the sun turns into a red giant, you wont be using that sarc tag then buster!

/

Some estimates are that we have about 100 million years before the atmosphere warms up sufficiently that water vapor reaches the upper levels. At that point, solar radiation will disassociate the H2O molecules and our oceans will evaporate away.

Personally, I think that if we are around at that point that we'll have started shielding the Earth with reflective panels in geosynchronous orbits or something similarly fantastic.

94 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:39:37am

re: #93 Ray in TX

Some estimates are that we have about 100 million years before the atmosphere warms up sufficiently that water vapor reaches the upper levels. At that point, solar radiation will disassociate the H2O molecules and our oceans will evaporate away.

Personally, I think that if we are around at that point that we'll have started shielding the Earth with reflective panels in geosynchronous orbits or something similarly fantastic.

WRONG...

We only have 50 days to do something about it...

LONDON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday.

[Link: www.upi.com...]

95 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:40:46am

Ever looked into how much greenhouse gasses go into the atmosphere from the production of livestock for human consumption? Not to mention the resources required to produce and maintain livestock.

The greenest thing that people can do right now is go vegetarian.

Just sayin'.

96 gonecamping  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:41:22am

The old Doom and Quake computer games had barrels of radioactive waste and pools of green goo that were highly toxic. Perhaps the game companies need to make some games where the hero refines old nuke waste into new fuel cells, then all the kids could educate the parents that nuclear waste can be recycled.


I say this tongue in cheek, but many municipal recycle and water conservation programs are geared towards educating the kids, which educate the parents.

re: #89 MrSilverDragon

Well, the problem is that many people believe that waste material is barrels full of green glowing goo, thanks to propaganda and misinformation. They think it's an unrecoverable material, which of course has been proved to be recoverable. This is stigma which is going to take quite a bit of education to remove.

97 baier  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:41:53am

/Lets take the most expensive-industry killing option available to a cleaner environment!

If you're not talking Nuclear, at least in the short-term, you may as well not do anything.

98 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:43:07am

re: #94 Walter L. Newton

WRONG...

We only have 50 days to do something about it...

LONDON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday.

[Link: www.upi.com...]

That reminds of that South Park episode, "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow"

99 bofhell  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:43:38am

re: #54 reloadingisnotahobby

But what about the BIRDS???
...and your skevvies for all to see?
...My eyes...my eyes...!
My wife had me reinstall the clothes line!!!

This reminds me -- Soupy Sales (Milton Supman z''l) had a Crazy Naked Lady on his show. Talk about corrupting a generation! [Check the 1:10 mark]

100 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:43:44am

re: #95 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ever looked into how much greenhouse gasses go into the atmosphere from the production of livestock for human consumption? Not to mention the resources required to produce and maintain livestock.

The greenest thing that people can do right now is go vegetarian.

Just sayin'.

As I said earlier, it's the cows' fault. I say the best revenge is a steak dinner every night. Damn the cholesterol, full meat ahead!

/

101 baier  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:44:08am

re: #95 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ever looked into how much greenhouse gasses go into the atmosphere from the production of livestock for human consumption? Not to mention the resources required to produce and maintain livestock.

The greenest thing that people can do right now is go vegetarian.

Just sayin'.

I agree. My wife and I cut back on meat consumption for budgetary reasons last year, but it also helps the environment. I'd like to add that my cholesterol is the lowest it has been since I started having it measured, and diet is the only change I've made.

102 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:44:30am

why the statitians are busy crunching numbers from a small data set, here's a link to some informative graphs showing temperature data:

Image: All_Comp.png

[Link: junkscience.com...]

103 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:44:35am

re: #91 bnichols10

Give me a break. I'd rather die in the floods, famine, earthquakes and tsunamis that AlGore predicts we will see that give up my freedom to people who want to tell me everything from what I can eat, what light bulb I can use, what car I can drive and ultimately (by controlling and taxing all sources of power) how I can live my life.

If he's predicting tsunamis and earthquakes, he's off his rocker. They have nothing to do with climate, and climate has nothing to do with them.

104 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:45:14am

re: #98 Ray in TX

That reminds of that South Park episode, "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow"

I was not linking to that article because I saw it as some "South Park" styled parody . We have a problem and only 50 days to do something about it. It's worst than even Ludwig has pointed out.

Aren't you concerned? What are you doing in the next 50 days to prevent this?

105 bnichols10  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:45:32am

re: #95 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

That may be true and I fully support you and other vegetarians to continue to work to convince the rest of us of the moral argument to eat less meat and be greener. I think the line has to be drawn when we say that the government should come in and regulate what we eat.

106 Varek Raith  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:46:16am

re: #102 Captain America 1776

why the statitians are busy crunching numbers from a small data set, here's a link to some informative graphs showing temperature data:

[Link: junkscience.com...]

[Link: junkscience.com...]

Junkscience.com is, ironically, junk science.

re: #103 Honorary Yooper

If he's predicting tsunamis and earthquakes, he's off his rocker. They have nothing to do with climate, and climate has nothing to do with them.

He didn't. bnichols10 is just blowing smoke.

107 redshirt  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:47:31am

re: #95 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ever looked into how much greenhouse gasses go into the atmosphere from the production of livestock for human consumption? Not to mention the resources required to produce and maintain livestock.

The greenest thing that people can do right now is go vegetarian.

Just sayin'.

A lot of veggies give me gas.
Your theory is destroyed.

108 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:48:42am

re: #91 bnichols10

Give me a break. I'd rather die in the floods, famine, earthquakes and tsunamis that AlGore predicts we will see that give up my freedom to people who want to tell me everything from what I can eat, what light bulb I can use, what car I can drive and ultimately (by controlling and taxing all sources of power) how I can live my life.

Some people would prefer the option that does not involve dieing.

Let me put it this way. In a few centuries, we'll have either solved the atmospheric CO2 problem or society will have collapsed and no one will care. It's pretty freaking serious.

But since it's nothing's going to hell within the our lifetimes or those of our grandchildren, I'll admit that it's pretty easy to choose the option of doing nothing about it.

109 Varek Raith  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:49:09am

re: #102 Captain America 1776

why the statitians are busy crunching numbers from a small data set, here's a link to some informative graphs showing temperature data:

[Link: junkscience.com...]

[Link: junkscience.com...]

SourceWatch - Junkscience.com

110 gonecamping  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:49:18am

HAve you seen Algore lately? He might trigger an earthquake if he passes gas along a faultline, or make a large wave when jumping in the water...all that hot air he is full of is potential energy.
/

re: #103 Honorary Yooper

If he's predicting tsunamis and earthquakes, he's off his rocker. They have nothing to do with climate, and climate has nothing to do with them.

111 baier  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:49:26am

re: #105 bnichols10

That may be true and I fully support you and other vegetarians to continue to work to convince the rest of us of the moral argument to eat less meat and be greener. I think the line has to be drawn when we say that the government should come in and regulate what we eat.

I have an unpleasant surprise for you, the government already regulates what you eat through subsidies and taxes.

112 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:50:03am

re: #105 bnichols10
I agree 100%.

113 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:50:06am

re: #110 gonecamping

HAve you seen Algore lately? He might trigger an earthquake if he passes gas along a faultline, or make a large wave when jumping in the water...all that hot air he is full of is potential energy.
/

Why are you making fun of someone weight?

114 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:50:38am

re: #106 Varek Raith

He didn't. bnichols10 is just blowing smoke.

I disagree with your quick conclusion. Though the "junkscience" name might raise your ire, you would appreciate the large amount of information collected at that website from reputable sources such as these: UAH MSU %P% RSS MSU %P% NCDC %P% GISTEMP %P% Hadley CET %P% Armagh %P% Hadley CRUG %P% NOAA %P% and many more.

115 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:50:45am

We could use the depleated uranium as ammo for the A-10 warthog. Recycle, Reuse, Rearm!

116 cenotaphium  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:51:02am

re: #91 bnichols10

I've read the studies that say we are getting warmer and the ice is melting in the Arctic. I also see studies that say the Antarctic ice is growing.

A melting and growing ice is not mutually exclusive. The thickness of the ice is not the expansion of the ice. There was a post here on LGF recently: Arctic Icecap is Not Recovering which illustrates this.

To further illustrate this I see the story today in the Times Online which says that we all have to give up meat to save the planet.

It's not about "saving the planet". It's about civilization as we know it. The planet, even life will surely go on. That doesn't mean that millions or billions dying in starvation or war over resources isn't horrible and best avoided.. right?

Meat, as you should know from basic biology, is a very inefficient source of energy. It would naturally save a lot of resources to "give up meat".
If this is something that should be made law and enforced is another question entirely.

117 gonecamping  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:53:02am

Not his weight, it is his excessive hot air he is always spouting. It is his delivery that gives global warming such a bad image IMO.re: #113 Walter L. Newton

118 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:53:57am

re: #107 redshirt

A lot of veggies give me gas.
Your theory is destroyed.

Here's my delimma. Whether to:
quote Radiohead and say, "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..." (Paranoid Android)

or

Beam you to the planet surface for next security detail.

119 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:54:06am

re: #108 Ray in TX

Let me put it this way. In a few centuries, we'll have either solved the atmospheric CO2 problem or society will have collapsed and no one will care. It's pretty freaking serious.

Recently I saw a program which talked about man-made CO2 collectors. Basically, they've engineered "synthetic trees" with plastic leaves which ensnares carbon at a rate 1000x greater than real trees. Plus, they don't require sunlight. Now that's ingenuity.

120 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:54:27am

re: #117 gonecamping

Not his weight, it is his excessive hot air he is always spouting. It is his delivery that gives global warming such a bad image IMO.

I'll bet you also thought Gore said he invented the internet.

121 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:54:36am

re: #117 gonecamping

Quite frankly, Gore and others pushing the message are rather hypocritical, and that does tend to turn people off. They're rather famous for saying we need to change, but they fail to change themselves.

122 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:55:57am

re: #121 Honorary Yooper

Quite frankly, Gore and others pushing the message are rather hypocritical, and that does tend to turn people off. They're rather famous for saying we need to change, but they fail to change themselves.

Which shouldn't reflect on the actual seriousness of the issue, just that some people latching on to it are charlatans. The science speaks for itself, and doesn't change if al gore is a hypocrite or not.

123 MandyManners  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:56:08am

re: #121 Honorary Yooper

Quite frankly, Gore and others pushing the message are rather hypocritical, and that does tend to turn people off. They're rather famous for saying we need to change, but they fail to change themselves.

[Link: www.snopes.com...]

124 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:56:17am

re: #119 MrSilverDragon

Recently I saw a program which talked about man-made CO2 collectors. Basically, they've engineered "synthetic trees" with plastic leaves which ensnares carbon at a rate 1000x greater than real trees. Plus, they don't require sunlight. Now that's ingenuity.

That sounds neat. I'll have to look that up.

CO2 extraction in some form is going to be the solution, as opposed to some cooling method to counteract the warming effect.

125 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:56:34am

re: #90 MandyManners

But, but, BHO said China had wonderful infrastructure!

They're drowning in crap over there. What good will their money do them then?

126 redshirt  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:56:38am

re: #118 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Here's my delimma. Whether to:
quote Radiohead and say, "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..." (Paranoid Android)

or

Beam you to the planet surface for next security detail.

You know the human body releases all kinds of gas when it rots, right? better encase me in some carbonite, Han Solo style.

127 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:57:07am

re: #119 MrSilverDragon

Recently I saw a program which talked about man-made CO2 collectors. Basically, they've engineered "synthetic trees" with plastic leaves which ensnares carbon at a rate 1000x greater than real trees. Plus, they don't require sunlight. Now that's ingenuity.

Now THAT I would be very interested in. This is the sort of solution I envision whenever I think about "dealing with" the greenhouse gas problem. I always get rather irritated at people who think we need to go back to being cavemen in order to stop wrecking the planet.

128 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:57:29am

PETA sent a letter to Gore a while back about going vegetarian if he was serious about doing something about the "crisis". To my knowledge, he didn't respond.

But, this is one of the times that I agree with PETA (insert People Eating Tasty Animals joke here)... Eating a hamburger while proclaiming that we need to do something about global warming is sheer hypocrisy.

Not why I went vegetarian, but it is a very nice bi-product.

129 Varek Raith  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:58:21am

re: #122 Sharmuta

Which shouldn't reflect on the actual seriousness of the issue, just that some people latching on to it are charlatans. The science speaks for itself, and doesn't change if al gore is a hypocrite or not.

Bears repeating.

130 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:58:27am

re: #95 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ever looked into how much greenhouse gasses go into the atmosphere from the production of livestock for human consumption? Not to mention the resources required to produce and maintain livestock.

The greenest thing that people can do right now is go vegetarian.

Just sayin'.

There's a lot of truth in this, but the possibility seems remote. Let's look elsewhere first.

131 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:58:58am

re: #124 Ray in TX

re: #127 thedopefishlives

Here's a link about it.

132 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:59:19am

re: #128 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was a vegetarian for awhile... Perhaps it would help if I went veg one day a week. I'd go back all the way, but I enjoy my meat pizzas, FBV.

133 Baier  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:59:48am

re: #130 SeaMonkey

There's a lot of truth in this, but the possibility seems remote. Let's look elsewhere first.

It doesn't take government regulation to consume less meat. I'd rather do it myself than have it forced on me.

134 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:00:04am

Big Vegetarianism impacts Black Southern BBQ Pit operators disproportionately.

Vegetarianism is racism!

/

135 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:00:11am

OT:
Even Instapundit is taking notice of the BNP and their neo-Nazi ways. Faster, please.

136 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:00:12am

re: #127 thedopefishlives

Now THAT I would be very interested in. This is the sort of solution I envision whenever I think about "dealing with" the greenhouse gas problem. I always get rather irritated at people who think we need to go back to being cavemen in order to stop wrecking the planet.

Yet they do require a source of energy to be made and to make that CO2 collection possible, and that amount of energy may actually contribute
to more CO2 than these synth trees can absorb!

137 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:01:58am

re: #131 MrSilverDragon

re: #127 thedopefishlives

Here's a link about it.

Thank you!

138 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:02:41am

re: #133 Baier

It doesn't take government regulation to consume less meat. I'd rather do it myself than have it forced on me.

Eating less meat (which, as our country sinks further into relative poverty, will certainly happen) is a great way to easily "do your bit." If you do any reading at all about the beef industry, you'll be horrified, and angry. It's pretty awful and absurd what goes on, but people don't know and therefore don't care.

139 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:03:43am

re: #131 MrSilverDragon

re: #127 thedopefishlives

Here's a link about it.

That's truly one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen. True, the per-unit cost does seem a bit high, but supposing they are able to actually make fuel out of the byproduct, that could bring the operating cost down considerably - fuel is highly sought after, after all.

140 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:04:10am

re: #136 Captain America 1776

Yet they do require a source of energy to be made and to make that CO2 collection possible, and that amount of energy may actually contribute
to more CO2 than these synth trees can absorb!

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."

141 Baier  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:04:14am

Probably, if you're talking about government solutions, would be a mass transit renaissance in the US coupled with nuclear energy. Green energy is currently not scalable.

142 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:04:21am

re: #109 Varek Raith

SourceWatch - Junkscience.com

SourceWatch - criticism, more.

I trust them as much as I trust Discover the Networks - that is, not at all.

143 lrsshadow  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:04:38am

Ok now this makes sense. We do have global cooling in 2008 in many areas of the world to include a cooling of 3-4 degrees C.

Here is the graph sited by the AP article
[Link: climate.uah.edu...]

Look at "cooler than seasonally norms" for North America at -4.5 to -3.5 C.

So this might be the reason that many people think we have global cooling, because in Europe, North America, Antarctica, and some of southern Australia there actually have been temperatures that are much colder then norms.

Looking at most of the other graphs sited by the AP it would appear that we have had a temp increase of one half of a degree Celsius over the last 50 years.

144 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:04:40am

re: #136 Captain America 1776

Yet they do require a source of energy to be made and to make that CO2 collection possible, and that amount of energy may actually contribute
to more CO2 than these synth trees can absorb!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that we should just ignore that technology, not try to develop it, and give up altogether on it?

145 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:05:09am

re: #138 SeaMonkey

Eating less meat (which, as our country sinks further into relative poverty, will certainly happen) is a great way to easily "do your bit."

Poverty (or the relative less wealthy we experience in the West) will likely lead to more consumption of processed meats, fast food and other "cheap and easy" alternatives to vegetarian meals or more expensive cuts of meat.

If anyone is depending on the economic decline to produce better eating habits for health or the environment I wouldn't count on it.

146 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:05:19am

Once we find a cheap effective way to shoot all of our waste into space this will no longer be an issue.
:)

147 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:05:51am

re: #140 Ray in TX

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."


Is not! /

148 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:05:56am

ER update:

After one antibiotic pill, the infection has stopped spreading, the itching is better, and the swelling is going down. It's a miracle! Oh wait, no it isn't...it's SCIENCE! Yay science!

Meanwhile my hippie friends are telling me I should have slathered leg with honey (!) or some other "natural" remedy and waited to see if it helps. Everybody's a doctor.

149 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:06:09am

re: #131 MrSilverDragon

Interesting. Thanks for linking that.

150 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:06:29am

re: #138 SeaMonkey
Read "The Pig Who Sang To The Moon"

151 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:06:33am

re: #146 bosforus

Once we find a cheap effective way to shoot all of our waste into space this will no longer be an issue.
:)

It will be cheaper to bury it and let geothermal forces handle it.

However, we need to effectively recycle plastics as well.

152 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:07:01am

re: #122 Sharmuta

Which shouldn't reflect on the actual seriousness of the issue, just that some people latching on to it are charlatans. The science speaks for itself, and doesn't change if al gore is a hypocrite or not.

However, people don't see that. They see the hypocrisy of the messengers. Put yourself in the average person's shoes for a moment, and see what they see.

153 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:07:07am

re: #146 bosforus

Once we find a cheap effective way to shoot all of our waste into space this will no longer be an issue.
:)

I'm sure a neighboring atmosphere would be happy to consume our refuse.

154 KingKenrod  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:07:17am

re: #119 MrSilverDragon

Recently I saw a program which talked about man-made CO2 collectors. Basically, they've engineered "synthetic trees" with plastic leaves which ensnares carbon at a rate 1000x greater than real trees. Plus, they don't require sunlight. Now that's ingenuity.

[Link: www.popsci.com...]

Each tree costs the price of an automobile and can collect about 90,000 tons of carbon per year.

155 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:07:33am

re: #132 Sharmuta

They'll be soggy while you're standing waist deep in sea water!
/

156 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:07:39am

re: #152 Honorary Yooper

However, people don't see that. They see the hypocrisy of the messengers. Put yourself in the average person's shoes for a moment, and see what they see.

Actually- I think it's upon them to get past that and look at the real science.

157 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:08:39am

re: #148 Cato the Elder

ER update:

After one antibiotic pill, the infection has stopped spreading, the itching is better, and the swelling is going down. It's a miracle! Oh wait, no it isn't...it's SCIENCE! Yay science!

Meanwhile my hippie friends are telling me I should have slathered leg with honey (!) or some other "natural" remedy and waited to see if it helps. Everybody's a doctor.

They forgot the second part about laying on a fire ant hill.

158 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:08:55am

re: #147 DaddyG

Is not! /

"Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!"

//

(I'm having to look these up. My memory is not that good :)

159 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:09:02am

re: #151 Ray in TX

It will be cheaper to bury it and let geothermal forces handle it.

But not nearly as much fun.

160 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:09:21am

re: #156 Sharmuta

Actually- I think it's upon them to get past that and look at the real science.

Sure, just the way they get past Jerry Springer or Jackass.

161 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:09:32am

re: #158 Ray in TX

"Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!"

//

(I'm having to look these up. My memory is not that good :)

I thought it was "toffee-nosed"...

162 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:09:41am

re: #159 bosforus

But not nearly as much fun.

Especially when, sometime past the year 3000, a great big ball of stinking, flaming garbage comes crashing back to earth. /

163 gonecamping  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:10:17am

You are correct. I am not a big fan of global warming because some of the loudest voices do not practice what they preach and may in fact be making money on the whole concept.

I do believe in protecting the environment and chair a not for profit organization that promotes Pollution Prevention, we don't demand or require it, just encourage it. Today I'll be presenting an award to a company that has accomplished innovations in energy, recycling and waste, water conservation, purchasing, and communications.

I think it is more important to recognize good environmental practices than to assess penalties for excess carbon production.

re: #121 Honorary Yooper

Quite frankly, Gore and others pushing the message are rather hypocritical, and that does tend to turn people off. They're rather famous for saying we need to change, but they fail to change themselves.

164 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:10:35am

re: #162 thedopefishlives

Especially when, sometime past the year 3000, a great big ball of stinking, flaming garbage comes crashing back to earth. /

When did they send Michael Moore into space?

165 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:11:17am

One interesting way to capture carbon cheaply and get bio-diesel fuel out of it as a by-product:

[Link: www.ecohuddle.com...]

Now take the above idea and use the waste emissions from coal fired power plants to "feed" the algae while scrubbing the plant's emissions. So your making bio-diesel while cleaning up the power plant pollution, win-win as they say:

[Link: gas2.org...]

166 SpaceJesus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:11:44am

Speaking of anti-science, I'm still in an argument with a young earth creationist friend of mine via email, and he won't give up. His new tactic seems to be that because nobody was around in the beginning, scientists are assuming everything.

He says we can't verify the age of the earth because we don't know that the rate of decay for lead or carbon-14 was always the same. He says we've only been watching it for 100 years or so, and therefore don't know what the rate was at "the beginning."

He also says no one was there to measure the amounts of lead at the starting. He goes on to say that there are correcting measurements to determine determine the original ration, but they all rely on assumptions about when the rock was formed, and that these are not proveable or testable. He then says these man-made tests are based on observations made in the present, which is a circular reasoning.


Anyone out there no more about radiometric dating and how to explain it better to a young earth creationist like this guy? I've sent him links to talkorigins and he won't read them.

167 Guanxi88  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:12:04am

re: #161 Cato the Elder

I thought it was "toffee-nosed"...

yes, toffee-nosed, in reference to the stains from snuff around the nostrils of the dandies, whose noses were hel high so as to prevent drip from their snuff-taking soiling their shirts.

168 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:12:17am

So a Facebook friend announces her engagement and then tells us "I luv my Richy-Poo to pieces!1!"

If I were Richy-Poo, calling me that in public would be an instant dealbreaker.

169 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:12:29am

re: #156 Sharmuta

Actually- I think it's upon them to get past that and look at the real science.

I agree, but the average person won't do so, and that's a concern when you have messengers like Gore. It's also why you have problems with ID and anti-vax. Most scientists and engineers are technical people who prefer not to do public relations (I should know, I'm one of them). because of this, there is a lot of trouble trying to get accurate scientific information out to the public.

170 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:13:11am

re: #145 DaddyG

Poverty (or the relative less wealthy we experience in the West) will likely lead to more consumption of processed meats, fast food and other "cheap and easy" alternatives to vegetarian meals or more expensive cuts of meat.

If anyone is depending on the economic decline to produce better eating habits for health or the environment I wouldn't count on it.

No, not health. We're talking grocery store, not McDonald's. But the cost of food is rising. Witness Iceland -- an island, self-contained example, see Jard Diamond's Collapse -- closing McDonald's because beef is too expensive. This is Iceland, not America, but Iceland is a canary in a coalmine (insert Police YouTube here.)

171 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:13:40am

re: #166 spacejesus

Anyone out there no more about radiometric dating and how to explain it better to a young earth creationist like this guy? I've sent him links to talkorigins and he won't read them.


Your friend does not have a scientific issue with the age of the earth. He has a moral objection to the benefits of science. Not sure how to help you.

172 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:14:03am

re: #161 Cato the Elder

I thought it was "toffee-nosed"...

It was! Here's the video:

I can't believe the site I found transcribed it as "coffee-nosed" :(

173 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:14:06am

re: #166 spacejesus

If radio metric decay and quantum mechanics were wrong the computer he's using wouldn't work.

174 RogueOne  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:14:10am

re: #168 Cato the Elder

Cato-Poo just doesn't have a nice ring to it.

175 reine.de.tout  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:15:05am

re: #166 spacejesus

Speaking of anti-science, I'm still in an argument with a young earth creationist friend of mine via email, and he won't give up. His new tactic seems to be that because nobody was around in the beginning, scientists are assuming everything.

He says we can't verify the age of the earth because we don't know that the rate of decay for lead or carbon-14 was always the same. He says we've only been watching it for 100 years or so, and therefore don't know what the rate was at "the beginning."

He also says no one was there to measure the amounts of lead at the starting. He goes on to say that there are correcting measurements to determine determine the original ration, but they all rely on assumptions about when the rock was formed, and that these are not proveable or testable. He then says these man-made tests are based on observations made in the present, which is a circular reasoning.

Anyone out there no more about radiometric dating and how to explain it better to a young earth creationist like this guy? I've sent him links to talkorigins and he won't read them.

Why would the rate of decay have been different before?
I mean - whatever physical laws govern the decay rate - why would they have been different before?
I'm not understanding his line of "reasoning".

176 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:15:50am

re: #166 spacejesus

Anyone out there know more about radiometric dating and how to explain it better to a young earth creationist like this guy? I've sent him links to talkorigins and he won't read them.

I could, but if he won't read the Talk.Origins links, it won't do a damn bit of good. I've banged my head into that wall far too many times at talk.origins. Those links are some of the best out there for the typical non-techinical layperson.

177 subsailor68  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:16:07am

OT, but kinda fun. Looks like Chicago's pols have come up with a new idea:

Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

In other news, administration officials and congressional leaders, while recognizing the potential in the concept, were reluctant to implement it on a federal level.

"Good heavens," said one official, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, "can you imagine what would happen if we did this here in Washington? The administration and Congress would be decimated!"

(Okay, I made that last part up.)

178 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:18:20am

re: #144 MrSilverDragon

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that we should just ignore that technology, not try to develop it, and give up altogether on it?

Perhaps. As with the problem with ethanol i.e. that it takes far more energy to produce and distribute than it saves, these synth trees need to manufactured, installed maintained and energized. They may very well contribute to creating more pollution and CO2, rather than making less of it.

179 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:18:36am

re: #170 SeaMonkey

No, not health. We're talking grocery store, not McDonald's. But the cost of food is rising. Witness Iceland -- an island, self-contained example, see Jard Diamond's Collapse -- closing McDonald's because beef is too expensive. This is Iceland, not America, but Iceland is a canary in a coalmine (insert Police YouTube here.)

Iceland is a special example, and not a canary in any coal mine. They prospered with the financial markets, and then crashed and went bankrupt as a country. Their entire banking system failed, and that's somethign we avoided here with the TARP.

180 bunnymud  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:18:40am

DESTROY THE OCEANS!!!

181 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:18:52am

re: #175 reine.de.tout

Why would the rate of decay have been different before?

Fine, then go back 4 billion years in time and prove that it's been constant.
///

182 SpaceJesus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:19:11am

I cant believe I said no instead of know

183 SpaceJesus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:20:34am

re: #175 reine.de.tout

Why would the rate of decay have been different before?
I mean - whatever physical laws govern the decay rate - why would they have been different before?
I'm not understanding his line of "reasoning".

his line of reasoning is bizarre. here, sorry, but i'm just going to copy exactly what he said in the email to me.

"You still have the assumption that the observations we've seen in the last hundred years match the correspond to past events. That is an unprovable assertion.

1. No one was there to measure the amounts of lead at the starting. There are various other statements about “correcting” measurements so that we can figure out the original ratio, but they all rely on assumptions about condition when the rock was formed, assumptions that are not proveable or testable. However, those tests are all man-made tests based on observations made in the present. It is a circular argument. We know A because B. We know B because C. We know C because D. We know D because A.

The fact is all radiometric tests follow the same process. It stands to reason they all would yield similar results under similar conditions... Read More

Specific to the Lead-Lead dating, there is an assumption that no radiogenic lead was present in the rock originally.

2. We still have to assume that the decay rate is constant and unchangeable. Regarding 100 years worth of data, that is a very small sample size even in the context of a young earth view (only about 1% of time). Trying to use 100 years to project out to billions of years requires a big leap of faith. We can say with certainty the decay rate that we've measured, beyond that we must make an assumption that it was continual.

Science is limited to what can be observed in the present. That information is used to make assumptions about the past and predictions about the future. Those assumptions are dependent on the bias of the interpreter."

184 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:20:45am

re: #182 spacejesus

I cant believe I said no instead of know

You are centuries ahead of your time!

185 harrylook  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:21:07am

re: #143 lrsshadow

That's what I see here in the NE US. This year has been quite cool. One of the coolest summers ever, in fact. I'd love to hear an explanation of the mechanism. Personally, I skeptical of anyone who claims to undertand the climate, whether they be AGW advocates or anti-AGW advocates. Also, there's really nothing I can do as an individual about the earth's temperature, is there?

186 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:21:11am

re: #180 bunnymud

DESTROY THE OCEANS!!!


We are doing our best, you simply have to give us a little more time!

187 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:21:48am

re: #179 Honorary Yooper

Iceland is a special example, and not a canary in any coal mine. They prospered with the financial markets, and then crashed and went bankrupt as a country. Their entire banking system failed, and that's somethign we avoided here with the TARP.

You're talking about banking. This is about the cost of food. Islands are more expensive. Any Hawaiians here?

188 SpaceJesus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:22:33am

re: #173 Killgore Trout

If radio metric decay and quantum mechanics were wrong the computer he's using wouldn't work.

haha

189 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:23:21am

re: #175 reine.de.tout

Why would the rate of decay have been different before?
I mean - whatever physical laws govern the decay rate - why would they have been different before?
I'm not understanding his line of "reasoning".

That's a common creationist claim, that the rates of decay change. While there is a bit of change with carbon 14 (more due do variability in the amount of carbon in the air), it is known and can be worked with. The other radiometric dating systems do not change over time.

(The link for the claims has a listing of geology ones, starting with radiometric dating.)

190 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:23:54am

re: #166 spacejesus

Speaking of anti-science, I'm still in an argument with a young earth creationist friend of mine via email, and he won't give up. His new tactic seems to be that because nobody was around in the beginning, scientists are assuming everything.

He says we can't verify the age of the earth because we don't know that the rate of decay for lead or carbon-14 was always the same. He says we've only been watching it for 100 years or so, and therefore don't know what the rate was at "the beginning."

He also says no one was there to measure the amounts of lead at the starting. He goes on to say that there are correcting measurements to determine determine the original ration, but they all rely on assumptions about when the rock was formed, and that these are not proveable or testable. He then says these man-made tests are based on observations made in the present, which is a circular reasoning.


Anyone out there no more about radiometric dating and how to explain it better to a young earth creationist like this guy? I've sent him links to talkorigins and he won't read them.

It might be time to say, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." You might ask him to discuss just what is it about geology and evolution that he's afraid of.

191 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:24:03am

re: #185 harrylook

Also, there's really nothing I can do as an individual about the earth's temperature, is there?

This argument is what I like to call "Argument from Insignificance": Surely poor little ol' me doesn't play any significant role in the system, therefore my action or inaction will mean nothing. It's the same ploy used by people trying to depress vote counts for the other side in an election season: "You live in an overwhelmingly -controlled area, so why bother voting? It's just going to be thrown away." The reality is that even ONE person taking action can potentially spark a wave of action across a given subset. One person's actions should never be underestimated.

192 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:24:07am

How amusing, the Associated Press is now sponsoring “studies” to support their AGW bias.

193 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:25:19am

re: #183 spacejesus


2. We still have to assume that the decay rate is constant and unchangeable.

Radioactive decay is a nuclear process based on observed and repeatable measurements. Unless he has evidence to support that these processes vary over time, then the assumption that the decay rate is constant is very reasonable.

194 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:25:19am

re: #187 SeaMonkey

You're talking about banking. This is about the cost of food. Islands are more expensive. Any Hawaiians here?

SeaMonkey, you missed the point about Iceland. McDonald's is not pulling out of Hawai'i, but they are pulling out of Iceland. The banking situation is the major difference between the two. Hell, energy is far cheaper in Iceland than Hawai'i.

195 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:25:55am

re: #191 thedopefishlives

This argument is what I like to call "Argument from Insignificance": Surely poor little ol' me doesn't play any significant role in the system, therefore my action or inaction will mean nothing. It's the same ploy used by people trying to depress vote counts for the other side in an election season: "You live in an overwhelmingly -controlled area, so why bother voting? It's just going to be thrown away." The reality is that even ONE person taking action can potentially spark a wave of action across a given subset. One person's actions should never be underestimated.

Howard Dean.

196 harrylook  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:27:07am

re: #191 thedopefishlives

This argument is what I like to call "Argument from Insignificance": Surely poor little ol' me doesn't play any significant role in the system, therefore my action or inaction will mean nothing. It's the same ploy used by people trying to depress vote counts for the other side in an election season: "You live in an overwhelmingly -controlled area, so why bother voting? It's just going to be thrown away." The reality is that even ONE person taking action can potentially spark a wave of action across a given subset. One person's actions should never be underestimated.

I live in Boston. I should post my November ballot here - it's almost all unopposed Democrats. My vote matters zip, whether I like the candidates or not.

197 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:28:47am

re: #196 harrylook

I live in Boston. I should post my November ballot here - it's almost all unopposed Democrats. My vote matters zip, whether I like the candidates or not.

I live in Minneapolis. I'll see your ballot and raise you one. Doesn't mean I'm not going to vote.

198 SpaceJesus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:29:05am

re: #193 Ray in TX

Radioactive decay is a nuclear process based on observed and repeatable measurements. Unless he has evidence to support that these processes vary over time, then the assumption that the decay rate is constant is very reasonable.

I've already said that to him earlier. re: #190 The Sanity Inspector

It might be time to say, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." You might ask him to discuss just what is it about geology and evolution that he's afraid of.


he's afraid of it because he is a fundamentalist baptist, biblical literalist, and home-schooling parent. he's afraid this opens the door to legitimizing evolution. in fact, he says the idea that the earth is billions of years old is an 'evolutionist' idea.

199 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:30:21am

re: #178 Captain America 1776

Perhaps. As with the problem with ethanol i.e. that it takes far more energy to produce and distribute than it saves, these synth trees need to manufactured, installed maintained and energized. They may very well contribute to creating more pollution and CO2, rather than making less of it.

It just seems to me that nuturing the idea instead of forgetting it altogether would be the better course to follow. I do agree about ethanol as it stands now, but if the technology can be studied and enhanced to the point where it becomes viable, that's a road that should be travelled.

200 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:30:55am

re: #177 subsailor68

OT, but kinda fun. Looks like Chicago's pols have come up with a new idea:

Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

In other news, administration officials and congressional leaders, while recognizing the potential in the concept, were reluctant to implement it on a federal level.[...]

Can't wait for them to implement a similar scheme to combat voter fraud.

/collapses in hysterics at own joke.

201 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:31:14am

re: #183 spacejesus

Any fool knows that the "Begat" method of dating earth is superior to any scientific methods. Bishop Usher was infallibly directed by God, he simply could not possibly be wrong about the world being created exactly 4004 years before Christs birth.

/shame I need this here...

202 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:31:30am

re: #197 thedopefishlives

I live in Minneapolis. I'll see your ballot and raise you one. Doesn't mean I'm not going to vote.

How about Chicago!. I'll raise see your ballot box in Lake Michigan if you vote against the Daley Machine was the theme back then and today.

203 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:33:20am

re: #202 Captain America 1776

I used to live in the south Lake Michigan area, I know all about the Daley Machine and the fun times to be had therein. Once again, that shouldn't stop a person from voting - and it's all tangential to the point I was trying to make, which is that one person's actions CAN have an effect, no matter if they seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. World War I was started in principal cause by one man shooting an emperor.

204 MKELLY  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:33:44am

Given: IPCC formula dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) where C = latest CO2 reading and Co = pre industrial answer in Watts per square meter
present reading 385 pre industrial 280
1 Watt = 1 joule per second
specific heat of air = 1004 j/K/Kg
mass of 1 square meter column of air 10000 Kg
1 degree Kelvin = 1 degree Celsius
Q(heat) = m * specific heat * dT (m= mass dT is change in temp)
60 sec in 1 minute
60 minute in 1 hr
24 hr in 1 day
365 day in 1 yr

IPCC formula gives 1.7037 Watts per square meter sub in joule per second for Watt you have 1.7037 joules per second per square meter

Now get seconds per year and find how many joules are being put into that one square meter of air.

Calculate specific heat formula and you get 5.351 deg Celsius change in temperature per IPCC for the change in CO2 increase.

Where is the heat? If you want to say only half the world is in day light at one time then 2.67 degree increase is still too high. Where is the heat? If you want to say that the CO2 molecules can emit up or down so only half at one time are emitting toward earth won't work as (190/280) ln is a negative number.

The IPCC basis is wrong and everything that flows from that is wrong.
This is not guess work or a study it is science and math. If you want to quibble about rounding won't change the basic fact that there is not enough heat evident.

You cannot hide heat it is or it isn't. There is no extra hidden heat to show up later. Heat store in water (oceans) would be there with or without CO2.

Blaming CO2 is wrong.

205 harrylook  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:35:16am

re: #197 thedopefishlives

Oh, I vote, my friend. It's just a depressing exercise in futility. The Presidential election was terrible. Usually, when I vote, it's quick in-and-out. Last November, I had to wait in line for 45 minutes as all my neighbors - who clearly never vote - all clamored down in unison in their pajamas, with their Obama pins on. Same with the climate/environment. I consider myself environmentally conscious - or maybe just a typical frugal yankee - but I don't really think it's making a difference in the big picture. Teaching my daughter how to live right, maybe.

206 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:38:28am

Global warming hasn't stopped; nor has the Iranian nuclear program.

In related news, Ahmadinejad announced on Tuesday that his country would persist with its nuclear program, despite international concerns.

- source: The Jerusalem Post

From further on in the same article:

Iranian State TV reported later on Tuesday that Teheran opposes shipping its full stockpile of low-enriched uranium at once, and seeks changes to the UN plan.

The demand for a step-by-step approach Tuesday came as the world awaited Iran's decision on the plan, which seeks to ease Western worries about the country's ability to one day create nuclear weapons.

According to an unnamed Iranian official cited on Arabic-language television channel al-Alam, Teheran will agree to the "general framework" of the UN-drafted plan, but will seek "important changes" in the deal.

The UN plan envisages Teheran sending out most of its low-enriched stock to Russia for further processing, which would reduce its stockpile significantly and limit its potential capability to build nuclear arms.

If the above sounds confusing, I think it was supposed to be confusing.

Anyone care to say Captain Renault's line?

207 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:39:31am

re: #194 Honorary Yooper

SeaMonkey, you missed the point about Iceland. McDonald's is not pulling out of Hawai'i, but they are pulling out of Iceland. The banking situation is the major difference between the two. Hell, energy is far cheaper in Iceland than Hawai'i.

You're right, I don't see your point. No, the US is not Iceland (you say, thanks to TARP.) Things cost more to import to islands in any case. Iceland is an example of a country with a weak currency finding it expensive to import food. Therefore McDonald's is closing. The alternative would be to raise prices so high people wouldn't go anyway.

Food costs are rising rapidly worldwide, especially livestock. They "cost" more in water and biomass. Long-term, fast food prices will also rise. Long-term, people will eat less beef. There will be no choice. Short-term: no, not much. That's why the US does: nothing. The point is that fast food consumption is unsustainable long-term. And it's interesting to see McDonald's of all places closing because of rising food costs. Iceland is the canary because their currency is so weak.

208 kirkspencer  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:39:54am

re: #183 spacejesus

his line of reasoning is bizarre. here, sorry, but i'm just going to copy exactly what he said in the email to me.

"You still have the assumption that the observations we've seen in the last hundred years match the correspond to past events. That is an unprovable assertion.

1. No one was there to measure the amounts of lead at the starting. There are various other statements about “correcting” measurements so that we can figure out the original ratio, but they all rely on assumptions about condition when the rock was formed, assumptions that are not proveable or testable. However, those tests are all man-made tests based on observations made in the present. It is a circular argument. We know A because B. We know B because C. We know C because D. We know D because A.

The fact is all radiometric tests follow the same process. It stands to reason they all would yield similar results under similar conditions... Read More

Specific to the Lead-Lead dating, there is an assumption that no radiogenic lead was present in the rock originally.

2. We still have to assume that the decay rate is constant and unchangeable. Regarding 100 years worth of data, that is a very small sample size even in the context of a young earth view (only about 1% of time). Trying to use 100 years to project out to billions of years requires a big leap of faith. We can say with certainty the decay rate that we've measured, beyond that we must make an assumption that it was continual.

Science is limited to what can be observed in the present. That information is used to make assumptions about the past and predictions about the future. Those assumptions are dependent on the bias of the interpreter."

At this point I'd be asking him if he felt that gravity had remained the same prior to when we'd measured it. Likewise I'd ask him to defend the idea that a volume of gold has always been heavier than the same volume of lead. Oh, and the idea that water freezes at zero degrees C - who knows, it may have been freezing at 5 degrees C 2000 years ago.

209 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:40:24am

re: #199 MrSilverDragon

It just seems to me that nuturing the idea instead of forgetting it altogether would be the better course to follow. I do agree about ethanol as it stands now, but if the technology can be studied and enhanced to the point where it becomes viable, that's a road that should be travelled.

The physics of E=mc2 cannot be much "enhanced." When burning a gallon of gasoline, one BILLIONTH of the mass of the gasoline is completely transformed into energy, whereas when a uranium atom is split, the amount of energy released is 2 MILLION times greater than breaking carbon-hydrogen bond in fossil fuels.

210 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:40:30am

re: #198 spacejesus

he's afraid of it because he is a fundamentalist baptist, biblical literalist, and home-schooling parent. he's afraid this opens the door to legitimizing evolution. in fact, he says the idea that the earth is billions of years old is an 'evolutionist' idea.

That's sad. Because the kids will grow up, come into contact with all this stuff anyway, and feel guilty and bewildered. They may give up and imitate their father's know-nothingness. Or they may turn on him, demanding to know "what else did you lie to me about?"

211 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:41:25am

re: #182 spacejesus

I cant believe I said no instead of know

Know Space Jesus, Know Peace.

No Space Jesus, No Peace.

212 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:41:48am

re: #211 rwdflynavy


So good I posted twice!!
//

213 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:42:17am

re: #207 SeaMonkey

That's one aspect of the current international financial crisis that I haven't been able to parse: One year I default on my McMansion here in America, and the next year the economy of Iceland collapses. ...???...

214 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:43:43am

re: #204 MKELLY
Our Karma rankings always take a hit on the chin when we deviate from the AGW believers.

215 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:44:41am

re: #204 MKELLY
Where is the heat?
From: [Link: www.shbcbolivar.org...]
That's Southern Hills Baptist Church.
Agenda much?

216 ckb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:45:25am

They are using the wrong data. The satellite data is more accurate.

AGW would do itself a big favor by forgetting about the ground temperature data for the last 30 years and only referencing the satellite data. Until then, these charts will always be attacked. The data they are using is fine for describing weather, but not for describing climate. So...

they’ve definitively refuted the often-repeated canard that the temperature of the Earth is decreasing

They've done nothing of the sort. They've just offered their statistical analysis on a set of data they were given. A mathematical analysis that was readily apparent.

217 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:48:37am

I had two thoughts when saw this. My first was:

Good! This is yet more verification of the truth. The more that people see the truth the better.

It is not as if one simple look at the data to anyone with eyes would indicate a cooling trend.

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

But my second thought was WTF. The MSM in general can't be relied on to accurately report science at a 7th grade level. Who the hell are they to assume that they are going to fact check the scientific community? I'm just simply appalled that we've come to a place in this country where science is so politicized as to not be trusted.

It is not as if the scientific community stopped doing the scientific method. It is not as if it was ever lying that it would need the AP to tell us we did our math right.

I am not offended that AP reports on AGW. They have to. Everyone needs to know about it. I am not offended that they had statisticians verify a massive and visible to the naked eye, upwards trend. I am offended that the people know so little about science and how it works, that somehow, the AP is needed to fact check a community that fact checks itself to a vastly higher standard than any MSM outlet ever did.

Politically, there are people who think that not only do they have a say in what the science says (even though they are not scientists and could not analyse data if they had a gun to their heads) but that it is some sort of opinion like everything else. Of course, brain dead denier types will assume that this report is not true either.

218 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:49:05am

re: #204 MKELLY

I was told there would be no math.

219 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:49:54am

re: #217 LudwigVanQuixote

Ah. The Trollhammer has arrived.

220 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:50:30am

re: #215 bosforus

I retract that. Not the connection I thought it was. My apologies.

221 SpaceJesus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:52:36am

re: #210 The Sanity Inspector

That's sad. Because the kids will grow up, come into contact with all this stuff anyway, and feel guilty and bewildered. They may give up and imitate their father's know-nothingness. Or they may turn on him, demanding to know "what else did you lie to me about?"

he's actually a computer programmer, so I find it bizarre he can't think logically.

222 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:54:44am

re: #217 LudwigVanQuixote

My sentiments exactly. We have multi-billion dollar research on climate change being conducted by proper scientists using proper methodology. If the data sets or papers need confirmation of falsification this will occur within the discipline. The last thing we need is AP commissioning their own panel of "experts" to examine "data sets" and issue conclusions.

The AP are journalists/hacks, not scientists.

223 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:56:05am

re: #204 MKELLY

1. The watts per meter coming in is energy in the form of photons. It is not heat. If photons are absorbed, the energy can become heat though. However, there is not a 100% efficient conversion of all the incoming photons into heat. Not all of the radiant energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. In fact, a great deal gets reflected back into space. This is a good thing or we would fry.

BTW, the whole point of CO2 and other GHGs is that more photons are caught and turned into heat.

2. Getting heat from specific heat is going to have to be a volume integral. So, off the bat, you are doing the completely wrong math.

So briefly from these two points alone your analysis is completely wrong.

224 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:57:33am

re: #221 SpaceJesus

he's actually a computer programmer, so I find it bizarre he can't think logically.

That's funny that you should bring up the programming bit. When I was in college, I found the computer science majors to be most prone to creationism. I ran a survey in a class, and they were typically the ones who bought into the bullshit. One would've thought their logical programming would've led them to the opposite conclusion. However, they seemed to follow their religious group first and foremost.

225 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:00:50am

re: #222 Bagua

Pimf: If the data sets or papers need confirmation of or falsification this will occur within the discipline.


(not enough coffee in the brains yet this a.m.)

226 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:02:21am

re: #209 Captain America 1776

The physics of E=mc2 cannot be much "enhanced." When burning a gallon of gasoline, one BILLIONTH of the mass of the gasoline is completely transformed into energy, whereas when a uranium atom is split, the amount of energy released is 2 MILLION times greater than breaking carbon-hydrogen bond in fossil fuels.

Yes, I am a proponent of nuclear technology as well, as I stated earlier, but the reality of a technology that could potentially assist in scrubbing the atmosphere of CO2? Why not look into it? What other discoveries could come from it? How can we use it to our advantage? It seems that it doesn't benefit us from ignoring it. What if we had disregarded E=mc2?

227 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:04:13am

Just to continue on the theme of utter scientific ignorance. Consider MJ Kelly's post.

His argument is predicated on the fact that he does not know that there are different forms of energy and heat is only one form.

Photons are not heat.

Now this is something I would hope would be clear to a 7th grader. I am not picking on Mr. Kelly per se with this, rather, this tells you just how bad science education in this country is.

It also tells us something about the math education if one can not tell the difference between a volume and an area.

228 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:06:08am

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote

I was going to crunch the numbers on the math myself but did not have the time. Thx!

229 thedopefishlives  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:06:18am

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote


It also tells us something about the math education if one can not tell the difference between a volume and an area.

Here is where I most agree with you. Public education in this country is lagging badly behind, and it shows. Of course, indoctrination techniques by anti-science people have also been growing more potent.

230 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:10:09am

In other news - first snow of the season is falling in Salt Lake. Yay!

231 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:10:19am

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote

He did account for volume. Of course the assumption that all the heat remains in the atmosphere is going to yield nonsense.

232 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:10:33am

re: #229 thedopefishlives

Here is where I most agree with you. Public education in this country is lagging badly behind, and it shows. Of course, indoctrination techniques by anti-science people have also been growing more potent.

Plus the public schools are spending quite a bit of time indoctrinating instead of teaching.

233 transient  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:14:09am

re: #183 spacejesus
Yeesh. If you can't make conclusions without direct observation, then our judicial system could not function. How can you convict someone if there was no eyewitness to the crime? (Is your friend in favor of capital punishment?)

Your friend must live in fear that the sun won't rise tomorrow. I mean, just because we've observed the same activity over and over again doesn't mean we can assume it will be repeated, right? So if we observe and confirm radiocarbon activity going on today, we assume it will continue to act the same way tomorrow, as it acted over the last several eons (carbon 14 specifically has a limit to how far back it is effective because of the quantity in the specimen, but this does not necessarily apply to other radioactive dating techniques.)

If he won't read the talkorigins links you provide, perhaps you could
surreptitiously feed them one paragraph at a time in your exchanges.

Good luck. You'll need it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

234 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:15:18am

re: #228 bosforus

I was going to crunch the numbers on the math myself but did not have the time. Thx!

You would find actually crunching the number to be very difficult if you do not take a number of things into acount.

1. What are the odds of a photon getting absorbed on it's way down through the atmosphere?

1a. For a differential volume element of air to be heated, how many photons are taken out for each layer on the way down?

1b. How many are taken out on the way back up after they reflect? You also need an estimate of how many reflect vs, how many are absorbed by the surface.

2. Once you get an idea of how many are absorbed per volume element, how much heating will this cause - and how do you balance the rate of photons coming in to be absorbed with how many get re-radiated? Remember that half go down again.

3. Take into account secondary catches i.e. another molecule catches a photon that was re-radiated.

4. Take into account convection and conduction.

5. Integrated this over the whole Earth.

Now, believe it or don't we can do these sorts of calculations - at least professionals can and do as part of their everyday work. This is the sort of stuff that goes into the models - particularly the convection and conduction parts require a super computer.

When we do the math, you will not be surprised to find that yes indeed, more CO2 means a warmer planet.

Of course you could look at the melting caps, and the keeling curves and conclude that we have more CO2 and a warmer planet too.

235 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:16:15am

re: #183 spacejesus

There are other dating methods that go back far enough to prove the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Varves and dendrochronolgy are just two of them. If our ideas about carbon were wrong these several independent methods would not correspond to the degree they do.

You might ask him how an increased decay rate would affect the currently known laws of physics and how changes in those laws would affect the universe's past states. Let's just say the world would look a tad different.

236 Cineaste  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:17:08am

re: #38 Ojoe

As someone living in a semi-rural area, I see more nature than city people, and I would say as a general thing, that nature almost always has a bigger effect on things than man, and that by several orders of magnitude.

Yes, definitely, the observations of one person living in the suburbs (semi-rural?) is a good way to judge macro-environmental effects. I'm not even sure what your statement means... If you dam up a river and create a lake has nature had a bigger effect than a man? If you chop down a forest and build a Walmart has nature had a bigger effect than man?

But more to the point, if we heat the oceans by half of one degree it seems negligible. But when you have a hurricane developing that feeds off of warm sea water and trillions of gallons of water are carrying more warmth then you get a more powerful hurricane. It's basic physics. So, it's easy to say that the destruction of the hurricane is more powerful than man, but the power of that hurricane was affected by man.

237 cgrow  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:18:22am

Statistics can prove anything. 90% of all people know that!

238 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:20:21am

re: #231 MinisterO

He did account for volume. Of course the assumption that all the heat remains in the atmosphere is going to yield nonsense.

OK re-reading his post, perhaps he did incorrectly. I doubt his numbers for a column of air, (is it a one cubic meter block?) and more over, he no where takes flux at different latitudes into account.

He is still using the wrong math because he is assuming that nothing ever radiates, and he does not take any conversion from photons into heat into account.

239 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:20:24am

re: #236 Cineaste

Yes, definitely, the observations of one person living in the suburbs (semi-rural?) is a good way to judge macro-environmental effects. I'm not even sure what your statement means... If you dam up a river and create a lake has nature had a bigger effect than a man? If you chop down a forest and build a Walmart has nature had a bigger effect than man?

But more to the point, if we heat the oceans by half of one degree it seems negligible. But when you have a hurricane developing that feeds off of warm sea water and trillions of gallons of water are carrying more warmth then you get a more powerful hurricane. It's basic physics. So, it's easy to say that the destruction of the hurricane is more powerful than man, but the power of that hurricane was affected by man.


On a related note, hurricane activity has been extremely low on the Atlantic side. Did man affect that?
//

240 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:21:04am

re: #237 cgrow

Statistics can prove anything. 90% of all people know that!

Which is why it is always good to just look at the real world data.

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

241 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:21:06am

re: #237 cgrow

Statistics can prove anything. 90% of all people know that!


70% of the time, it works everytime!

/Sex Panther// Anchorman

242 Sheldon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:23:21am

re: 236
Sooo, then what happens when it cools one half degree?
( We are talking about a hundred years? Or is that every day?)

243 Noam Sayin'  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:27:35am

Curious. Does smog still form over LA and other large cities?

I remember a section of Minneapolis that used to have a smog cloud back in the 80s. It wasn't noticeable by the eye from the ground, but certain camera angles during sunrises and sunsets would show it clearly.

They redirected traffic into one-way streets to get cars through the area quicker and in a few years it went away.

244 countryjoe63  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:29:34am

Yesterday, in Connecticut, it was in the low 60s. Today, it's only 50. Therefore, using the same arguments as the global warming/climate change idiots, we are, in fact, cooling!

Yes, this is an absurd observation. But it is not more absurd than the garbage coming from these 'scientists'.

245 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:30:50am

re: #185 harrylook

That's what I see here in the NE US. This year has been quite cool. One of the coolest summers ever, in fact. I'd love to hear an explanation of the mechanism. Personally, I skeptical of anyone who claims to undertand the climate, whether they be AGW advocates or anti-AGW advocates. Also, there's really nothing I can do as an individual about the earth's temperature, is there?

Yet globally the (NH) summer was the second warmest June, July and August on record (GISS).

Having some areas warmer and some cooler, as well as drops in global averages, is expected and shows up in the models. If the average global temp is, say, .5C above the base period (1951-1980) average then if one area is above .5C there has to be some place below. Australia was hot, NA was cold. This year's avg temp is still going to be higher than 2008.

Yes, of course, if one person can't do anything then even lots of people, if taken as individuals, can't do anything either. How defeatist.

That's kinda why we try to organize and cooperate. One person may not be able to do anything significant, but a large cohesive group is another kettle of fish entirely.

246 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:38:04am

re: #192 Bagua

How amusing, the Associated Press is now sponsoring “studies” to support their AGW bias.

What, no answer to what the study found? Don't you have a problem with the methodology or the credentials of the statisticians, or the data given, or something else that will actually address the findings? Surely you're not just going to quit now. All you've done is impugn the messenger.

247 transient  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:38:33am

re: #198 spacejesus

he's afraid of it because he is a fundamentalist baptist, biblical literalist, and home-schooling parent. he's afraid this opens the door to legitimizing evolution. in fact, he says the idea that the earth is billions of years old is an 'evolutionist' idea.


Well, of course the reality of the age of the earth "legitimizes" evolution. He's denying reality because he doesn't like the conclusions. Doesn't make reality go away. You can close your eyes as your car runs off a bridge, but you're still going to hit the water.

He is factually incorrect that the idea of an old earth began with Darwin/ biological evolutionary theory. Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology was published in 1930, before Darwin set out on the Beagle. Lyell proposed the principle of uniformitarianism, the idea that small changes resulted in large effects over long periods of time. His ideas were in direct opposition to the prevailing belief in Genesis chronology and catastrophist Flood "geology." Darwin was greatly influenced by Lyell, because if geological processes occurred over a long period, then so could biological processes, which would give adequate time for evolution to occur.

Link.

248 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:42:13am

re: #204 MKELLY

Jeez, and you figure the scientists working on the problem, even the atmospheric physicists, couldn't figure that out?

I think you just debunked all of climatology. When can we expect your work to be published?

249 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:50:29am

re: #238 LudwigVanQuixote
re: #204 MKELLY

The IPCC formula for radiative forcing accounts for the complexities Ludwig cites.

MKELLY's calculation is bogus in that it assumes that all of the additional energy remains in the atmosphere forever. In reality much of it is absorbed by the oceans and the earth's crust. As oceans, crust and atmosphere warm together, they radiate more, and more of the energy escapes into space.

The IPCC does give a simple formula for change in equilibrium temperature due to change in forcing. The only parameter is climate sensitivity.

250 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:50:42am

re: #246 b_sharp

What, no answer to what the study found? Don't you have a problem with the methodology or the credentials of the statisticians, or the data given, or something else that will actually address the findings? Surely you're not just going to quit now. All you've done is impugn the messenger.

I explained my view further in #222, Ludwig made a similar point in #217.

You call this AP hack job a "study," if you wish to go their then you are simply debasing science.

251 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 10:54:07am

pimf: go their there

/Cato, your remedial tutoring lessons are required.

252 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:04:57am

re: #216 ckb

They are using the wrong data. The satellite data is more accurate.

So you are saying that measuring the lower troposphere's temperature through a half dozen temperature gradients by converting microwave energy into temperature for each layer is more accurate than a thermometer on the surface? The satellite temp measurements are inferred not observed. The UAH calculations and calibrations have had to be corrected a number of times.

I assume you like the UAH figures better than the RSS because they're lower. The other measurements correspond, the UAH doesn't and you figure it's the accurate one?

AGW would do itself a big favor by forgetting about the ground temperature data for the last 30 years and only referencing the satellite data. Until then, these charts will always be attacked.

Which satellite data should they consider, the RSS, which matches GISS and HADCRUT, or UAH which is lower?

The data they are using is fine for describing weather, but not for describing climate. So...

And you know this because you are a better scientist than those working in the fields. Right.

They've done nothing of the sort. They've just offered their statistical analysis on a set of data they were given. A mathematical analysis that was readily apparent.

If it is readily apparent then it must be right.

They took a set of numbers without knowing what they represented and pulled the trend from the noise by using well tested and appropriate procedures. You, and those pushing the cooling meme, are looking at the noise and denying there is a trend.

Prove it. Statistically.
Show that the years from 1998 reflect a trend. Furthermore, show that there is a method that can determine a trend out of such noisy data with such a small data set (short time period).

253 cygnus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:11:15am

re: #50 albusteve

I don't use a dryer...the sun shines in NM over 300 days a year...I'm an old timey guy

And there's nothing as nice as sleeping on clean, sun-dried sheets. Ahhh!

254 Cygnus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:13:27am

re: #230 bosforus

In other news - first snow of the season is falling in Salt Lake. Yay!

And in the Cascades! Wax 'em up, skiers/snowboarders!

255 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:16:43am

re: #244 countryjoe63

Yesterday, in Connecticut, it was in the low 60s. Today, it's only 50. Therefore, using the same arguments as the global warming/climate change idiots, we are, in fact, cooling!

Yes, this is an absurd observation. But it is not more absurd than the garbage coming from these 'scientists'.

Actually, just the opposite. Scientists are looking at the numbers statistically and they know that, while it is extremely difficult to predict anything about a chaotic system like weather for more than a few days, statistical analysis can determine trends within a noisy system. This is what statistical mechanics does.

They in fact say that it is nonsense to consider time periods too short to determine the trend. Your argument is the noise, or in other words, nonsense.

You might want to decrease your ignorance by checking out what the scientists are saying rather than making a straw man.

256 tradewind  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:27:06am

re: #240 LudwigVanQuixote
What makes up statistics?
Real world data.
It's just that data can often be manipulated to suit different points of view.

257 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:29:05am

re: #250 Bagua

I explained my view further in #222, Ludwig made a similar point in #217.

You call this AP hack job a "study," if you wish to go their then you are simply debasing science.

So, your argument is that the people who asked for the work to be done are hacks, so the results from three independent statisticians are bogus. Are those statisticians not scientists? Are they not competent?

Or are you saying that the statisticians gave the result they were payed for?

How is my consideration of the review of current science, by qualified scientists, debasing science? Would their work be less debasing if the organization asking for the work was not part of the MSM?

258 tradewind  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:30:10am

re: #4 lawhawk

That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the way some data is gathered at some ground sites, where temp sensors are in close proximity to HVAC units, parking lots, or other similar items that would cause temps to rise (and which would skew results).


(You're gonna so get smacked for that pesky attention to detail)...///
:)

259 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:32:11am

re: #256 tradewind

What makes up statistics?
Real world data.
It's just that data can often be manipulated to suit different points of view.

This argument is only pertinent to the AGW if climatologists are all either stupid or dishonest.

260 dwells38  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:34:22am

This was a good article because it engaged statistics experts blindly. They had no idea what data they were analyzing. Even if they all voted for Reagan and Bush the numbers do not lie. There is a warming trend whether or not you think it's humans. That it coincides with the massive increase in industry is certainly intrigueing. And that increase continues as emerging economies build up. Sadly totalitarian societies are no better stewards of the Earth than we capitalst pigs. At least so far.

Ludwig thanks for your explanations. And for linking to the NASA site. Last time I checked they put humans and robots on other planets and I'm doubtful they would post falsehoods just because they think capitalism sucks (not saying the do). That link answered another question I had about solar radiance which is in a down cycle (a Maunder-like minimum period) and will result in cooling. But that only gives us a reprieve and probably a short one.

Scary stuff. I hope technology can come to the rescue on this one because I don't see behavior changing on the scale it needs to. Just some thoughts.

261 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:34:41am

re: #258 tradewind

(You're gonna so get smacked for that pesky attention to detail)...///
:)

What detail? More like a red herring, bad smell and all.

262 Captain Faris  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:36:27am

Uh, don't we all agree that reduction in air pollution through CO2 (and methane) would be good for lots of reasons OTHER than simply forestalling catastrophic climate change?

If so, that would mean we ought to debate whether broad "government" policies will produce desired results better than local efforts aimed at specific polluters with provable and immediate outcomes.

Since, however, this thread is about "studies" and what they prove, there are excellent blogs out there in which scientists interact directly with other scientists about each of these reports. Spending some time reading those will show that these reports aren't really appropriate fodder for coffee house debates. In the end, I think they all show that we're being somewhat distracted from effective incremental progress in environmental protection by both GW and AGW hype. But every reader ought to go through that material for himself.

263 harrylook  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:41:03am

re: #245 b_sharp

thanks for your response. i still don't understand the mechanism, i.e., does the co2 pool in some areas of the globe, making those areas more susceptible to the greenhouse effect? and if so, why does the co2 pool in those areas?

as to my defeatist attitude, i'm working on it. :)

264 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:44:17am

re: #257 b_sharp

So, your argument is that the people who asked for the work to be done are hacks, so the results from three independent statisticians are bogus. Are those statisticians not scientists? Are they not competent?

That is not the issue. Of course the hacks are not "competent" scientists and are not qualified to conduct a study with scientific merit.

Or are you saying that the statisticians gave the result they were payed for?

No

How is my consideration of the review of current science, by qualified scientists, debasing science? Would their work be less debasing if the organization asking for the work was not part of the MSM?

You are equating the Associated Press doing a "study" with actual research studies done by qualified scientists. There is no comparison. '

Climate Science is done by scientists who publish their papers for peer review. If there was anything wrong with the statistical work in those papers it would be revealed in the review process. (And it is just silly to imply that such basic mistakes would not be uncovered.)

Journalists do not do scientific research and do not publish in peer reviewed journals. For the AP to state that they are confirming or falsifying Climate Science based upon their own studies is simply ridiculous. Their job is to report, not play scientist.

If some hack had published a report that he claimed indicated cooling based up his submitting “data sets” to “experts” you would be all over that like white on rice, and rightly so I would add, this works both ways.

265 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:51:50am

re: #264 Bagua

Right, but one thing which I would like you to notice, is that with the way you are phrasing this, particularly your first post about the MSM's bias towards AGW, you brush over four important points.

1. If the whole legitimate scientific community tells you, and keeps telling you that AGW is real, then there really isn't a bias in reporting that it is real.

2. In this case, the hacks are still reporting the truth. Don't obfuscate the fact that they are still saying the truth. I too am annoyed at the presumption of the AP on the world of science, but don't let that cloud the facts.

3. Note that the very first things that the denier crowd is going to do is shout things like media bias and try to discredit the facts.

4. This is why your posts vacillate from troubling me greatly to being great.
Too much of what you write, because you are not particularly careful yourself with language sounds like a denier.

266 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 11:53:56am

re: #249 MinisterO

re: #204 MKELLY

The IPCC formula for radiative forcing accounts for the complexities Ludwig cites.

MKELLY's calculation is bogus in that it assumes that all of the additional energy remains in the atmosphere forever. In reality much of it is absorbed by the oceans and the earth's crust. As oceans, crust and atmosphere warm together, they radiate more, and more of the energy escapes into space.

The IPCC does give a simple formula for change in equilibrium temperature due to change in forcing. The only parameter is climate sensitivity.

Or reflect out into space. Albedo is a big deal too...

267 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 12:09:22pm

re: #264 Bagua


That is not the issue. Of course the hacks are not "competent" scientists and are not qualified to conduct a study with scientific merit.

Are the hacks the AP journalists or the university professors?

You are equating the Associated Press doing a "study" with actual research studies done by qualified scientists. There is no comparison. '

Climate Science is done by scientists who publish their papers for peer review. If there was anything wrong with the statistical work in those papers it would be revealed in the review process. (And it is just silly to imply that such basic mistakes would not be uncovered.)

I agree.

The only reason this is getting the attention it does is because it debunks the denialist idea that there has been cooling and the IPCC gang are dishonestly playing with the stats to show warming.

Journalists do not do scientific research and do not publish in peer reviewed journals. For the AP to state that they are confirming or falsifying Climate Science based upon their own studies is simply ridiculous. Their job is to report, not play scientist.

That's what they did.

The journalists didn't do the work, the professors did and those three professors are fully qualified to analyze the data.

They didn't claim that AGW is confirmed by the work, they claimed that the global cooling meme has been falsified by highly qualified neutral specialists.

If some hack had published a report that he claimed indicated cooling based up his submitting “data sets” to “experts” you would be all over that like white on rice, and rightly so I would add, this works both ways.

If I was certain the analysis was blind, and the experts were qualified, I wouldn't bitch. What I would do is ask a climatologist to explain the discrepancy.

268 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 12:11:54pm

re: #265 LudwigVanQuixote

[...]

4. This is why your posts vacillate from troubling me greatly to being great.
Too much of what you write, because you are not particularly careful yourself with language sounds like a denier.

Well, we have to take our joys were we find them.

Rather than read into my posts in a search for purity of intent, I prefer that we discuss their actual merits. In this case, it seems clear we are in agreement.

In general I find the MSM to be lacking, not on this one issue only but on all issues. Often this is not bias or any intent to mislead, but rather, that they are lazy hacks. They have a story line or agenda and also a publication deadline, so they put together a couple of renta quotes and go with it. No doubt they are often correct, and also often wrong.

In this case, it looks like they are playing scientist. That they arrive at the "correct result" does not excuse this.

269 last turnip  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 12:27:38pm

I think the troubling things about the global warming issue are:
1. We do not have good data on temperature fluctuations over the past trillions of years, and our looking at temperatures over the past hundreds of years lacks context for interpreting "normal" and "periodicity"
2. We have mainly correlational facts (as CO2 goes up, temperature goes up) and so cannot know causality.
3. Like any natural event (earthquakes, erosion, fire, cyclones) we classify global warming as a disaster to be controlled. Yet it is a fact of nature that tectonic plates shift, houses built on cliffs fall into the sea, lightening causes fires, etc. We can avoid being in the way of some of these events, but we really cannot stop them.
4. People have a certain predilection to think that mankind has powers (or has access to powers) that are really quite beyond our scope. This belief (like religion) makes "disasters" feel less frightening --if we think we caused them, then it follows we can make them go away, and this sense of control calms us.
5. And so the emotionality behind the global warming debate looks like a debate about religion, or a debate about free will versus destiny, and people get very worked up about it.
6. The proposed solutions to global warming center on "stopping climate change". Sort of like "stopping tectonic plate shifts" in my mind.
7. Perhaps we would be better positioned if we figured out how to adapt to climate change, since we are not sure that our efforts to stop it will work. I know, many LGF readers will yell back that climate change is too big, too dangerous, too powerful for us to ever adapt to. Still, adaptation seems a wise back-up plan to have, in addition to the Gore Carbon Credits, relying on China and India to cooperate, etc.

270 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 12:28:49pm

re: #267 b_sharp

That is not the issue. Of course the hacks are not "competent" scientists and are not qualified to conduct a study with scientific merit.

Are the hacks the AP journalists or the university professors?

Hacks refers to reporters, not university professors. Clearly we agree on this point.

The journalists didn't do the work, the professors did and those three professors are fully qualified to analyze the data.

I realize that, but it appears the journalists chose the data sets and “commissioned a review” which is beyond their qualifications and not how science is conducted. If there were problems with the papers, those questions would be addressed through the peer review process and with additional studies.

I’ve said before and will repeat now, AGW theory will be confirmed, modified or falsified via the scientific process, as is all scientific research. What journalists, politicians and editorialists have to say on the matter is not actual science, accurate or not, it is opinion and reporting.

271 countryjoe63  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 1:12:11pm

re: #255 b_sharp

I just happen to have a doctorate in statistics and passing this off as a statistical argument is totally ludacris. My time interval of 24 hours is way too short, just as a time interval of 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, etc. is much too short when trying to extrapolate models to a system that is a billion years old. Any dishonest statistician will pick an interval that will provide support for his theory. This is one of the inherant problems with retrospective studies.

Here's another bit to keep all you man-made global warming alarmists awake at night: Did you know since June 20th or so, we've been losing about 2 minutes of daylight every day?!? At this rate, we'll be in total darkness in about a year from now! I'm sure that's caused by SUVs and burning coal too!

272 Bullskin  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 1:28:23pm

Global warming has not stopped nor will do, its hearth's nature. But ecologists, as totalitarians they are, always tried to insert fear in our lives as a way to hold some sort of power upon us.
In the 80's there was a glacial era coming. Later, the global warming, and now, they are switching to a 'climate change' position that is merely the same but allow them to choose the most comfortable position depending on forthcoming events.
I read the Antarctica is building up ice as ever before, and I wonder, what happened to the hole in the ozone layer?, they talked a lot time ago, but not now.
In my country, Spain we have seen snowfalls last winter never seen before, but ecologists have always an explanation for this: It is the global warming. Greenpeace admitted they lied about this.
There is always an unexpected fear, climate change, swine flu, anything valid to matrix .
But temperature is more linked to cloud formation, (remember the nuclear winter) than any other else factor. CO2 formation is not a piked graph, as solar activity is. Solar activity is more linked to nucleation, cloud formation, than any other factor. When solar activity arise, solar wind can blow our magnetosphere which prevents cosmic radiation to reach the earth. Cosmic radiation is linked to nucleation, therefore to cloud formation.

273 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 1:31:00pm

re: #271 countryjoe63

The argument that a statistically significant trend cannot exist in principle in 100 years of climate data is ludicrous.

274 MKELLY  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 2:00:38pm

If the IPCC formula accounts for all the complexities Ludwig cites then use of it to go one step further is valid. The answer is in watts per meter squared. There is no watts per meter squared for photons that is different than other watts per meter squared. A watt is a watt and it is a joule per second. If don't agree with the IPCC formula or think it is invalid say so.

Because it is now in w/m2 form it is valid to use it in the specific heat formula. It takes X amount of joules per Kelvin-gram to warm air. The IPCC formula tells us what CO2's heat input to the warming of air is.

MinisterO my calcuations are not bogus. I assumed nothing. And just so we are clear MinisterO there is a difference between heat and energy. Use of the word energy without a qualifier in front of it says nothing. A rock on top of a mountian has potential energy but may have no heat except what is supplied by the sun and it is above absolute zero.

275 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 2:05:23pm

re: #274 MKELLY

Your model offers no way for surplus energy from radiative forcing to leave the atmosphere. Think about it.

276 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 2:38:03pm

re: #269 last turnip

I think the troubling things about the global warming issue are:

Please enlighten us...

1. We do not have good data on temperature fluctuations over the past trillions of years, and our looking at temperatures over the past hundreds of years lacks context for interpreting "normal" and "periodicity"

It may surprise you to know that we do not have data for trillions of years because the universe is only about 13 billion years old. The Earth itself is at most, 4.5 billion years old. Your claim about lacking context though in terms of the last several hundred thousand years is ludicrous. We actually have very good data sets. More importantly, we know what has been going on in the last 100 years (a steady rise in temperature) quite well.

2. We have mainly correlational facts (as CO2 goes up, temperature goes up) and so cannot know causality.

On the contrary, we know that if you shine IR on CO2 it must get warmer and it must re-radiate IR. This is quantum mechanics.

3. Like any natural event (earthquakes, erosion, fire, cyclones) we classify global warming as a disaster to be controlled. Yet it is a fact of nature that tectonic plates shift, houses built on cliffs fall into the sea, lightening causes fires, etc. We can avoid being in the way of some of these events, but we really cannot stop them.

Unless of course we are the ones causing the problem in the first place. This is one of the more silly things I've seen written here.

4. ...--if we think we caused them, then it follows we can make them go away, and this sense of control calms us.

Except of course we are not taking the needed steps, largely because of the ignorance of people like you and the greed of the powers that be, who do not want to change the status quo. It's much easier to believe there is no problem.

5. And so the emotionality behind the global warming debate looks like a debate about religion, or a debate about free will versus destiny, and people get very worked up about it.

Except for all of the really hard data...

6. The proposed solutions to global warming center on "stopping climate change". Sort of like "stopping tectonic plate shifts" in my mind.

That is because you don't know the science.

277 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 2:43:44pm

re: #274 MKELLY

Again, you are neglecting radiation. I should have read your "calculation" more clearly, however,

You are assuming that all of the energy is converted into heat. This is not so.

Also, you need to integrate.

Further, I am very unclear about your column of air, you sure look like you are misconstruing volume and area.

But more to the point, if the answer is in watts/m^2, how are you converting that to temperature?

278 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:04:52pm

re: #276 LudwigVanQuixote

It may surprise you to know that we do not have data for trillions of years because the universe is only about 13 billion years old.

I hope you appreciate that I left that little low lying plum for you to enjoy.
:)

279 so.cal.swede  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:24:15pm

if it's a canard, why do they spend money refuting it? and don't give me the "people are questioning sound science so they were forced to do it!!!" type of lines.

My biggest offput in this whole discussion is that both sides call their opponents arguments ridiculous, off the wall, laughable, pointless, distractions, canards, flawed. And they both call their own arguments solid science, irrefutable, etc.

Are you playing poker, or what? Are you just cherrypicking your opponents arguments? ie picking the weakest, dumbest arguments, and highlight that as the only thing coming from their camp.. and then easily dismantle it.. almost kinda like a straw man.

All your posts are about how the other side is a big joke. Why don't you make the post to end all posts:

All people who don't believe in global warming and anything they have to say is a joke.

then you never have to post any more posts about GW ever again, and save yourself the headache.

280 freetoken  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:29:46pm

re: #279 so.cal.swede

He he... nothing like calling a canard a "canard" to get the dander up, is there?

281 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:32:02pm

re: #280 freetoken

I love the smell of frumious canards on the dead thread, smells like... victory!

282 Pythagoras  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:37:34pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

Hey. I've been away/busy and don't have much time tonight but I do have one complaint about this whole study -- they used the surface data. What's wrong with the satellite data? I can understand using the surface station record when you need to go back before 1979 but this is not the case here. The satellite data (RSS & UAH) are the better data sets for this time period.

The result wouldn't be much different anyway.

283 Last Turnip  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:50:36pm

I found your "responses" to be off target, which is unusual for you. The fact that this universe is only 13 billion years old does not negate the fact that our climate data covers a very, very small slice of time. And from a mere 100 or even 200 years of data one cannot describe the full system, for the periodicity of climate system could exist in the thousands of years, and could include influences beyond our universe. You eschewed the notion of the psychological utility of controllability as a factor in climate change thought, and avoided the final issue I raise which is whether global warming or climate change is something one can stop, given amoung other things the requirement of worldwide cooperation. I suggested that adaptation may be a more appropriate response to avoid extinction. Also, the last time I posted on this topic I said that this past year (which you took to mean 2008, but I meant 2009) seemed pretty cool, and with some unnecessary verbiage and snark, you linked me to a site that showed data through 2006, which did not help. I do hope that your next response will be more up to speed. Thanks.re: #276 LudwigVanQuixote

284 Last Turnip  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:53:49pm

re: #278 Bagua
So you think that a climate system only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding, or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

285 Last Turnip  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:54:26pm

re: #276 LudwigVanQuixote
see 283, which I meant to link to your comment, but failed.

286 Pythagoras  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:55:30pm

re: #283 Last Turnip

I gave you an upding for civility but mostly to get your grand total out of negative territory.

287 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:57:21pm

re: #284 Last Turnip

So you think that a climate system only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding, or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

No, I think you made a ridiculous mistake and are now trying to rationalise it.

288 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:01:33pm
289 Last Turnip  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:23:52pm

Thanks. I like civility, it takes less time, and is more clear. re: #286 Pythagoras

290 Last Turnip  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:32:17pm

re: #287 Bagua
I do not think it is useful to answer an either/or question with a "no". I personally think that time is endless and that the concept of a single universe that has a start/stop time is useless, and "trillions" was intended to get Ludwig to see how meaningless 100-200 years is, in a larger context. That you both decided to pounce on the age of this universe as my intended referent, rather than respond appropriately to the point does not further the debate, rather it distracts by lowering the level of comment.

291 bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:44:41pm

re: #290 Last Turnip

Good grief, are you really going to allege you intentionally said Trillions of years, and now posit as supporting your argument?

It is also helpful to consider the influence of fairies and extra-terrestrials in this discussion, just to see how meaningless we can get?

292 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:46:28pm

re: #290 Last Turnip

Yes, let's expand this conversation to other universes. Perhaps you know of one in which 2009 was one of the coldest years on record?
/

293 bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:52:16pm

re: #292 MinisterO

But... do you not see how meaningless that one universe is in a larger context?

294 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:56:03pm

re: #293 bagua

But... do you not see how meaningless that one universe is in a larger context?

How short-sighted of me.

Wow.Just.Wow.

295 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:31:22pm

re: #271 countryjoe63

I just happen to have a doctorate in statistics and passing this off as a statistical argument is totally ludacris[sic]. My time interval of 24 hours is way too short, just as a time interval of 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, etc. is much too short when trying to extrapolate models to a system that is a billion years old. Any dishonest statistician will pick an interval that will provide support for his theory. This is one of the inherant[sic] problems with retrospective studies.

OK, statistician, tell me, in a noisy system how do you determine the length of time necessary to pull a trend out of the noise?

I take it your argument means there was no global dip in temperature during each of the glaciations and no increase in global temperature during the many interglacials. In that case I guess we shouldn't bother figuring out the possible causes for those non-existent climate variations. Milankovitch cycles? Who needs them. Super volcanoes? Couldn't care less. GHGs? Just bad gas. Asteroids? Asteroids? Isn't that a game?

As a statistician you know that taking too long a time period makes the trend flatten and disappear. It then gives us no information of any worth.

We're concerned with time scales that affect us. We want to know if and when a new glaciation will start. We want to know if and when climate changes similar to those of the past will affect food production and living environment. Going back 4 billion years, or even 1 billion years, tells us nothing about any of that.

Looking for causes does tell us something, it gives us recognizable indicators, a 'heads up' notification of coming events. In the past the changes were initiated by several different processes, including GHGs. In the current case none of those causes is evident, so we look for something different, something new or unusual. Since humans have not been in a position to affect any of the causes until the industrial revolution we can't blame humans for anything that early, not even from SUVs. Modern technology changes that.

The evidence is there that we laid the last straw on the back of the climate camel, it has our signature. That CO2 is a GHG is a fact, that GHGs can increase global temps is a fact, that an increase in global temps, however slight, can melt ice, that reduced ice lowers albedo, that increased ocean temps will affect the land, and that albedo changes can add heat, are facts. To dispute these means disputing modern physics.

Here's another bit to keep all you man-made global warming alarmists awake at night: Did you know since June 20th or so, we've been losing about 2 minutes of daylight every day?!? At this rate, we'll be in total darkness in about a year from now! I'm sure that's caused by SUVs and burning coal too!

Who has ever claimed that CO2 is the only cause of increased temps? Seems you are building a straw man, a rather ugly, stupid one at that.

Happy burning.

296 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:55:39pm

re: #272 Bullskin

Global warming has not stopped nor will do, its hearth's nature.

Warming and cooling have causes. Variation in the Earth's climate is not cause free.

But ecologists, as totalitarians they are, always tried to insert fear in our lives as a way to hold some sort of power upon us.

Climatologists, physicists, atmospheric physicists, dynamic systems physicists and members of other specialties are scientists first and only some can be considered ecologists.


In the 80's there was a glacial era coming.


It was the '70s and it was pushed by the MSM. Only ~10% of papers published at the time were about cooling and even those were talking of geological time frames. The majority were talking about warming even then.

Later, the global warming, and now, they are switching to a 'climate change' position that is merely the same but allow them to choose the most comfortable position depending on forthcoming events.

The CC in IPCC stands for Climate Change.
The IPCC started in 1988.
Climate change predates AGW in the journals.
The IPCC reports, from '91 on, use both.
The change to 'Climate change' was in 2002 when Frank Luntz (Luntz Research Companies) wrote a paper for the Bush administration suggesting they change to using climate change because it is less threatening.

As it stands now, global warming is the upward trend of average temperatures, and climate change is what happens when the temp goes up. Think about it.


I read the Antarctica is building up ice as ever before, and I

Which part of the Antarctic would that be? The Eastern part is cold, the western part is warming. How can you make a blanket statement about something that large?

wonder, what happened to the hole in the ozone layer?, they talked a lot time ago, but not now.

Nope, it is still of concern because it affects the SAM, the winds of the pole.

In my country, Spain we have seen snowfalls last winter never seen before, but ecologists have always an explanation for this: It is the global warming. Greenpeace admitted they lied about this.

That may be, but the science is done by scientists, not Greenpeace.

There is always an unexpected fear, climate change, swine flu, anything valid to matrix .

Some are true problems that will respond to human intervention so we are told to do what we can to mitigate the effects. If this frightens you instead of move you to action, that is unfortunate.

But temperature is more linked to cloud formation, (remember the nuclear winter) than any other else factor. CO2 formation is not a piked graph, as solar activity is. Solar activity is more linked to nucleation, cloud formation, than any other factor. When solar activity arise, solar wind can blow our magnetosphere which prevents cosmic radiation to reach the earth. Cosmic radiation is linked to nucleation, therefore to cloud formation.

Where is the link between solar and current temps?

297 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:02:36pm

re: #279 so.cal.swede

if it's a canard, why do they spend money refuting it?

Logic is your friend.

Money is spent not because there is any truth to the denialist arguments but because the people who can and do form policy can be convinced the arguments are correct. The money isn't about the validity, it's about beliefs and policy.

298 Ghost of Insanity  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:05:29pm

Crap, I killed the thread.

299 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:29:27pm

re: #298 b_sharp

Crap, I killed the thread.

Once there is a new thread the discussion moves there. This would be considered a "dead" thread and it's generally only us fanatics.

If you see a thread listed below the "show links" button, this is a new thread.

Come join us here

300 LudwigVanQuixote  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:37:11pm

re: #283 Last Turnip

OK, if you care at all about geological processes and thinking about time in it's proper context, you would realize that all natural drivers of climate changes int eh past have taken many hundreds if not thousands of years to do their thing.

The fact that we have caused so very much warming in the eye blink of a century is already a smoking gun.

Finding up to ate data is not hard. It is published all the time. I know that the idea of actually looking things up yourself is anathema to you, so in the interests of not forcing you to do such a heinous thing here is the compiled data through 2008. It takes some time to compile all the data from al the sensors in the world to issue these reports.

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

Of course we are warming.

As to your discussions about other universes, I am afraid that I have to give the boring physics answer, which is, we are constrained to live in this one. I can only look at the physics here. The physics here says we are warming and that we are the cause of it.

I honestly have to say that it is difficult for me to respond to this level of insanity with a straight face.

301 bullskin  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 1:06:11am
302 Right Brain  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:54:10am

I would have felt more comfortable about this article if they had provided a graph of some sort that we can all look at that verifies their conclusions; as it is it is nothing more than an argument from authority, a notoriously faulty way to reason.

303 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:04:13am

re: #302 Right Brain

There are graphs aplenty. All you have to do is go to any of the three major organizations who study and distribute this information: NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, or the UKMET Hadley Center.

304 ulmsey123  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:40:37am

Um...CO is a minor greenhouse gas. Water is the main culprit. And that big shiny thing up in the sky. There is this thing called "weather". It always changes. There were these things called "ice ages". Where I live in lovely NJ, there used to be monstrous glaciers. There are actually places you can find glacial rock dragged down from Canada. As with all ice ages, this last one came to an end and the temperature of the earth and the sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.
Methinks the Gore crowd is just trying to tax the weather. Taxing the very air we breath. My parents used to joke about that. The government found a way to do it.
And regarding ice, here's two fun tests you can all do at home.
1. Fill an ice tray with water and let it freeze in the freezer. Check back in a month and you'll notice that the ice has shrunk. How can that be? The freezer is working fine?
2. Take a glass of water and add a big ice cube. Mark the water level and wait for the cube to melt. See how high the water level went up.

305 fed-up  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:57:48am

Just want to know why you are suddenly quoting and believing an AP piece when for the last half-dozen years you spurned them?

306 Bullskin  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:14:09am

re: #304 ulmsey123

In Europe, specially in socialist ruled countries politicians are rubbing their hands together with the new income. Some are already taxing for CO2 emissions. The overall trend except in Germany is to rise taxes, and this is the right excuse. Politicians care a lot about money and votes, not weather.

307 fed-up  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:21:23am

Follow the money and you'll find the core of global warming, er, I mean, "climate change."

308 saik0max0r  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:49:28am

More moving of the goal posts.

Isn't it curious that they start their trend from 1880 when the analysis should go back much much further?

Also:

"Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998."

So the answer depends on what data set you're looking at... isn't that called "Cherry picking" ? :)

309 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:30:27am

The trend is upward in every data set. Only by cherry picking the starting point can one claim a cooling trend with a straight face.

Why do you think 1998 is every denier's favorite starting point?

310 fed-up  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:41:23am

Oh ... I dunno ... maybe because that's when the warming ended?

311 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:51:05am

re: #310 fed-up

Oh ... I dunno ... maybe because that's when the warming ended?

So you are retarded right?

How about we look at the actual data...

I want you to notice that with time, the plot keeps going up...

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

312 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:52:05am

re: #308 saik0max0r

More moving of the goal posts.

Isn't it curious that they start their trend from 1880 when the analysis should go back much much further?

Also:

"Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998."

So the answer depends on what data set you're looking at... isn't that called "Cherry picking" ? :)

No, it depends on honestly looking the data and being able to read a graph.

Why don't you try it?

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

313 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 12:20:01pm
Oh ... I dunno ... maybe because that's when the warming ended?

If warming ended in 1998 then it started again in 1999.

Every year since 1999 has been warmer than 1999.

Oh teh stupid it burns.

314 saik0max0r  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 2:41:53pm

re: #312 LudwigVanQuixote

Hi Ludwig,

Yes, I've seen the NOAA graph. Unfortunately, as the article states they only did a blind statistical analysis of what appears to be an incomplete set of NOAA records, likely excluding certain data sets like their own HADCRUT series. And, as the article points out the "British" dataset and satellite data still show 1998 as the peak year. In this sense, the data sets do not agree. Why do you think that is? Do they have a good explanation for it?

Also, just so we can have something other than a flame war I'll be very clear here:

I won't dispute that the trend is currently going "up" in some data sets, but it's still lower or about the same as 1000 AD, when the amount of the dreaded atmospheric carrrbuuunnn was significantly less. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we should only be measuring long term climate in less than 200 year increments?

315 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:00:37pm

re: #314 saik0max0r

Why do you think that is? Do they have a good explanation for it?

Oh noes... it's the great Gore-UN conspiracy to put out false data!

Um... no.

The differences between the UKMET data set as graphed and say the GISS data set as graphed is well discussed throughout the internet. In short, the UKMET does not cover the high latitudes (Arctic) like the GISS data.

316 saik0max0r  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:33pm

re: #315 freetoken

UN Conspiracy? No, we're just discussing the difference between NOAA data sets and "British" data (the AP article in question doesn't specify the source.) and Satellite data. IIRC, the GISS data includes *some* satellite data, it doesn't include doesn't actually include arctic *data* but rather reconstructions of arctic climate based on data that is yet to be released to many folks requesting it via FOIA).

In any event, we're supposedly dealing with "global" climate, not regional, so I'm assuming you failed to find anything to directly address my questions with a couple google searches. Nice try. Please come again, assuming you can't admit that maybe making the case that carbon might not be the the major forcing in climate "change".

BTW, if this is an example of the "Discussions" taking place on the "[I]internet" then you've got a lot of work to do. This issue is more than just cribbing links from search engines, and it's pretty sad that we go in the same circles over and over again when stuff like R is freely available for people to conduct their own research.

317 saik0max0r  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:46:50pm

One other thing.

If you look at the HadCRUT data you'll notice that it's at 0.43°C, still lower than the GISS number of 0.67°C.


Why is it out of three major data sets, Hansens' GISS number is abnormally higher than the rest of them?

318 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:58pm

re: #317 saik0max0r


Why is it out of three major data sets, Hansens' GISS number is abnormally higher than the rest of them?

Trick question - the premise is false. GISS agrees very closely with NOAA. HADCRUT is the outlier for reasons discussed here.

319 freetoken  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 2:52:55pm

re: #316 saik0max0r

Get a clue dude... some things are not just worth the time and effort, and that includes trying to deal with the armchair scientists who get their talking points from WUWT or other questionable sources.

MinisterO linked to just one discussion at RealClimate about this issue... but anyone who has followed the efforts of the denial-o-sphere will readily attest that the effort to dismiss the data on temperature usually includes at least one of the following:
1. NASA and UKMET data are different;
2. The Satellites tell a different story so GISS must be wrong or lying.

You picked up on both.

As MinisterO said - your premise is flawed. But not just your claim that GISS is the outlier, but also your inference that somehow that there is something wrong with the science of AGW because different researchers present different graphs of temperature data.

320 saik0max0r  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 3:33:02pm

re: #318 MinisterO

The premise is certainly not "false", nor is it a trick question. Your response is also confusing, since GISS *uses* NOAA.


However, GISS is always (which is very spotty in terms of coverage for swaths of china, Siberia, major ocean masses, and Antartica. in addition to making more or less "estimates" of the arctic) higher than HADCRUT, RSS/MSU, UKMET, and UAH. (Don't fret, they all have problems so I would they are all "wrong", and that's what makes this fun. UAH has some major issues, but they are very similar to problems with GISS.)


If you toss out RSS/MSU as the "floor" (It's always lower than the others; Gavin is wrong in saying that Hadcrut3 is the lowest) you still end up with significant discrepancies. In addition to that, GISS makes adjustments after the fact by fudging past temperature records to make them fit the models... without adequate explanation. (The explanation is not adequate, but I believe they were made in good faith for legitimate reasons. They are just being clannish d*bags about fessing up. More on that later..)

Comparing a single data set with a sequence is a good way to make pretty pictures, but it's an inapt comparison of coverage of different things... The following paper will enlighten you on this topic specifically.

[Link: www.springerlink.com...]

321 saik0max0r  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 4:21:01pm

re: #319 freetoken

Your appeal to authority logical fallacy is not worth commenting on, so I'll pretend you didn't start off on the wrong foot.

At no point did I "Dismiss" anything. That's not my game. I pointed out it's flaws. IT IS NOT PERFECT. EVEN GAVIN SAYS SO IN THAT LINK YOU SENT, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE ARCTIC DATA. That is a huge freaking caveat coming from that crew, if you've actually been following the papers and analysis instead of the commentary on realclimate.

If MinisterO knew what he was talking about, instead of appealing to authority, he would have provided links to the latest research papers like I did and not conflate the NOAA and GISS relationship.

"inference that somehow that there is something wrong with the science of AGW because different researchers present different graphs of temperature data."

I will flat out state that their are many things wrong the the science of AGW^H^H^HClimateChange. The heavy reliance on models, the lack of decent data are all problems with the current state of affairs. Especially when both "sides" pick starting and stopping points of measurement that most support their case. In this instance, you'll notice that Gavin made a post in Nov 2008 (when some additional 2008 hadcrut data was actually available) where he chopped off the data comparison in 2007. I would suspect an agenda, however he wisely cautions that the model simulations are just that and cannot, by themselves, be considered as evidence of a specific temperature trend. (From the RC link)

On the flip side, saying a 10 year period of slight cooling means the problem isn't real is a big stretch. In fact, as an atmospheric chemist, I prefer the theory highlighted in the UNEP study on Atmospheric Brown Clouds to explain the measured reduction in some temperatures vs. the "zomg, it's all a scam" position taken by what you label "deniers." Unfortunately, you also conflate skeptics with deniers at your peril.

Anyways, back on track:

In contrast to pretending that it's a done deal with scientific certainly, which it clearly isn't, let's get it to that point. I want to fund additional research where a lot of these issues can be addressed in a more scientifically valid manner with some valid engineering outputs.

If all we are discussing is the credibility of ones sources vs. the credibility of accurate data, with reproducable models, we aren't discussing "science". We're discussing "politics."

322 freetoken  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 5:20:08pm

re: #321 saik0max0r

I would suspect an agenda, ...

This is why many of us here are dismissive of attempts, such as yours, to try and posit that there is something fundamentally wrong with AGW science. The underlying tone of your posts, and your explicit statement quoted above, is that you really do believe that there is a hidden agenda, specifically in this case at GISS, to dupe the public (or perhaps to dupe other scientists.)

Unfortunately, you also conflate skeptics with deniers at your peril. ...

Not really in peril of anything here... at blogs like this one, and perhaps especially at this one, there is a never ending stream of people writing comments that range from silly to downright heinous (the latter get deleted here.) If you would bother to look over the history of defending science at LGF over the past several years you would find that an overwhelming, a truly overwhelming, portion of the naysayers are "deniers" of some sort or another. The hypothesized neutral "skeptic" is a rare phenomenon.

If all we are discussing is the credibility... we aren't discussing "science". We're discussing "politics."

Which gets us back to your beef, that there is/are agendas behind AGW science, other than that normally assigned to science endeavors.

BTW, I've linked to Prof. Ramanathan's presentations and works on Asian brown clouds here in the past, to raise this issue both for its own merits as well as demonstrate the complexities of the human perturbation to the climate.

323 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 5:30:19pm

re: #320 saik0max0r

You write a lot of words to say little. You've more than once implied that Hansen is fudging the numbers for his agenda. It's sleazy. "Hansens' GISS number" agrees closely with NOAA's.

324 freetoken  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 5:35:04pm

re: #323 MinisterO

Given that his first post here was essentially a defense of McIntyre's latest follies, it is not surprising.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

It's all about YOU! YOU! YOU!

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

MikeySDCA
American Community Survey: Why Republican Hate It.
41 minutes ago
Views: 17 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
'I Was Looking Forward to a Quiet Old Age': Instead, Etta Shiber, Helped Smuggle Stranded Allied Soldiers To Freedom
12 hours, 12 minutes ago
Views: 154 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
19 hours, 53 minutes ago
Views: 143 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
20 hours, 45 minutes ago
Views: 158 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
1 day, 1 hour ago
Views: 289 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
2 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 618 • Comments: 11
Tweets: 18 • Rating: -7

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
2 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 255 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
2 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 324 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
2 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 557 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Curt
Brian Banks: (Video) Falsely accused of rape speaks out
2 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 301 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

 Frank says:

They're serving burgers in the back!