Tit for Tat

Listing the polar bears as threatened was indeed a good move for our government – however, ignoring the real reasons WHY they are in danger has not been prevented, or even properly researched. Labelling the polar bear as threatened is one thing, but alleviating the thing that is threatening them is the key. Why am I not at all surprised this idiocy is happening on Bush’s watch? Only in America can this sort of nonsense happen! Sad country we live in !

None of this will matter when the Ice Age begins. The Global Warming police will be reviled for not letting us warm the planet even more. When Green becomes White we will be drilling anywhere and everywhere to find energy for survival. That’s what I read on the all-powerful, all-knowing Internet. ;-)

squeenter squillo -
I’ll take that bet.

jock59801, why don’t you face facts. People are NOT united on this issue. MANY doubt your conclusions. Even the scientists themselves are badly divided.
A lot of what squeenter squillo predicted is already coming true.

Todd,
First, the ice returns in the winter, as Ive told you, you need to measure after the summer heat has a chance to melt it and then compare from year to year. You can’t say measure half-way through a cycle and quit while you are ahead. heh.
Secondly, your Newsweek story has no quotes supporting the premise. Not one making a direct prediction of imminent cooling. Also, in a NYT article from the same year the NAS makes clear they dont have the data to say one way or the other and that global warming from CO2 is also possible. Today, after years of data collection, the NAS believes global warming is happening.
I still don’t understand why you claim to believe the evidence for global warming and yet continually spam anti-warming material. It totally baffles me.
I’m sure there must be some reasoned arguments against man made global warming but you arent making them.

A harsh winter? Global warming doesnt rule out cycles within cycles. You need to check long term patterns. And the summer melt will need to be examined as well. It all takes time and analysis, not tabloid spin.
Did you manage to find a way to get glaciers all over the world to melt with psychic energy from kilimanjaro yet? Or are you going to misrepresent your support for global warming again?
<<<<The NYT…..!!!! Bahhahhaaahhaa! (belly laugh)<<<
Does that mean what I think it does? That as a conservative you won't accept a report on what the National Academy of Sciences says if the NYT reported it back in 75? But don't conservatives dislike Newsweek as well?
Do you have to vet the scientists you listen to by political affiliation as well? Or do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil lib?
It's sort of like Kremlin politics I suppose. Who is in, who is out, that sort of thing.

s

The debate is not over polar bears, the north pole, the ice caps, global warming. The debate is over if we are a people, as a nation, as a world, are willing to take steps to leave this planet in a better condition then the day we were born. Everyone from both sides agrees that the planet is precious and we want it to protect and keep it beautiful. So you need to ask yourself is putting all the CO2 in the Atmsph good? No. Everyone knows it isnt good, just like everyone knows smoking is not good for you.. It “could lead to global warming” and “may cause the ice caps to melt” It may or may not happen, but if we could do something to prevent it then why wouldnt we?
Some people want every american to takethe little steps to protect the planet (dont drive the SUVs, turn the lights off, dont run your ac, There are some people that think we should de-evolve and not have any cars, factories, anything.
I personally want to drive a big SUV, and turn my lights on, run the ac all day long. does that make me a bad person? No. not anymore then the tree huggers. But I do want to protect the planet.
So why dont we make a change as a people? The technology for zero emission cars is right around the corner. It will be here in the next 10 – 15 years. (Hydrogen and electric). But we need to quit choking off business and allow nuclear, solar, and wind plants to be built. Loosen the regulations, lower the tax burden, offer incentives, encourage mankind to build, ZERO Emmissions. We could save the polar bears, save the ice, save the devastating heat wave, or cold wave from coming. All of these may be true, or none of them, but either way we are leaving the plant cleaner then when we started. But all we do it fight about polar bears. WE are missing the big picture!!!
Hydrogen = zero emission cars (Tech is coming soon). Hydrogen = lots to electricity to produce. Build a nuclear plant, solar plant, wind plant next to a hydrogen plant. no emissions from cars, no emissions from power plants, no depending on foreign oil

brian…..hydrogen requires electrical power to separate the h2 from water. Nuclear would be a great way to go about that. If you use current coal technology to generate power you get more greenhouse gas vs. the gasoline you would otherwise have burned driving your car. In the near term, gas/electric hybrids are the best choice I imagine.

brian
A goal of zero emissions is simply unrealistic IF you consider CO2 as one of those emissions (do you plan to have every living thing stop breathing?) but the actual “bad” emissions are being tackled by new techs already. Unfortunately the universe has not been cooperating with the planet very well lately.
Throughout SSC22 and 23 the sun became increasingly hotter and broke all records for flare activity. Alignments of 1975-76 and two subsequent partial alignments have created greater than normal tidal flows in the sun and increased volcanic activity on the earth (not erupting volcanos but more activity below the crust, causing melting in Greenland/Artic and extreme El Ninos. None of this was even thought of back in 1991 with the first IPCC report. Thank the skeptics for their research.

bubba-
I think the deniers who have an agenda and know what they are doing have already moved on to arguing about causes rather than the reality of global warming. But all of their previous denial talking points are still circulating, and their less-informed “followers” are still slow to catch up with the program. What is really funny is the people who just deny everything so automatically that they can’t even keep track of which point they are trying to make.

Yeah, the internet is a big honeypot for people looking for easy answers. The lower brow creationists have the same problem. All of that outdated information trying to lure them into looking foolish. They wind up on 3 sides of an issue.
ctrl-c is not always your friend.

Quietman, You are right it does take an extreme amount of electricity to produce hydrogen. But with a plan that all of America agrees to needs to be implemented. Lets say America, (both the right and left) agree to a 20 year plan to switch to zero emission automobiles (hydrogen / electric) and reduce power plant emissions as much as possible. How do we get there?
Build the nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal plants – Have goverment incentives to help aid in the construction. Have goverment help, not hurt industry.
Build hydrogen plants next door to the zero emission power plants. Make enough of them to supply ALL the nation.
Have the AMERICAN oil and car companies begin to phase in hydrogen cars and fueling stations. Goverment needs to help. Not hurt.
We need to call on our children to be our new young engineers and our American companies to develop, implement, and build new technologies. All this will is fuel out economy (similar to the race to the moon in the 70′s. How many technologies came out of that that we use everyday now?) This will be the race to zero emissions.
In the meantime with the goal of zero emissions in EVERYONES mind we need to bring relief to every American that is being stung by the high gas prices. We need to drill for our OWN oil, with the understanding that it wil only be for 15-20 years. Make it a law, a permit to drill for our own oil in Alaska for 15 years. Then the permit will expire.
I guess my only point is I can lay out a plan to get us to zero emissions in 20 years. Is it feasible? I think it is. We as a nation can do anything we put our mind to. But goverment needs to help. Not hurt.
Both sides will need to give and take, but all under the impression that we are doing this for a greater good in 20 years. We will be country that is not knowingly polluting the air.
We need to elect a president, and a congress that can lead us in that direction. As of now, I dont see it from any of our presidential candidates. In 4 years are we going to still be having this argument with gas prices out of sight and pollutants still spewing in the air? Or are we going to be 5 years into a plan that could have us to zero emissions in 20?

>>>In the meantime with the goal of zero emissions in EVERYONES mind we need to bring relief to every American that is being stung by the high gas prices. We need to drill for our OWN oil, with the understanding that it wil only be for 15-20 years. Make it a law, a permit to drill for our own oil in Alaska for 15 years. Then the permit will expire. >>>>
Alaska won’t stop high gas prices if you mean ANWR. One government estimate said it would at best shave 50 cents off the price (and would take 10 years to develop and at best run for 30 years)
Gas prices are expected to hit $4.00 this summer and some estimates have suggested $7.00 a gallon within just a few years. If we are paying $10.00 a gallon in 2018, what will a 50 cent price break even mean?
Market forces should be pushing us off the oil before ANWR could even come online.

>>>Make it a law, a permit to drill for our own oil in Alaska for 15 years. Then the permit will expire>>>
They tried this kind of law before in Alaska but changed it (for $$$) to allow foreign export. Not much went abroad before the stocks began to deplete but it shows that any promises or law regarding oil use is easily broken when money is at stake.
And whether it goes abroad or not the prices will still be set against the global market. They wont give it away after spending 10 years to get it.

Quietman
Thank You, I will take a look.

Quietman: “…signify a less intense warming since AGW can’t happen without the sun’s input (it’s a feedback, not an actual forcing). If the sun cools, the Earth cools.”
The Earth doesn’t necessarily cool if the sun puts out less energy; only if other factors do not compensate. Many factors affect the Earth’s climate, usually with feedbacks between them, as you know.
There are about 20 scientific institutions currently running full-scale global climate models on supercomputers around the world. All of these different models incorporate known cycles in solar output to some degree. I’m sure I couldn’t understand all of it even if I had the time to try, but at some point we have to trust the best scientitific minds in the world to remember to include solar output in climate models (and to look atthe sensitivity of their models to violations of their assumptions).

Jock
I have spent a lot of time lately reading what papers I can download pertaining to AGW and climate cycles.
What the press says does not quite jive with what the actual papers say (that Nature article being a good example).
I have read past articles that said this period of the past 30 years or so the planet had less volcanic activity but I discovered that the truth was the opposite. The past 30 years has been of record amount of volcanic activity, but JUST LESS ERUPTIONS. Earthquakes and subsurface vulcanism is extremely high. The ocean temps are all naturally cooler than land temps but show drastic changes in different directions. Vulcanism is high at the straights of Magellen and under the ice sheet on the Antarctic penninsula but most of the southern ocean is getting COLDER which tends to explain a lot.
The discovery that the crust under northern Greenland is very thin and the magma flow very active also explains a lot. But most telling was the combined effect of the AMO and the PDO.

No, I don’t see how vulcanism can account for increase in global average ATMOSPHERIC temperatures and the retreat of 95% of the world’s glaciers. The biggest way I know of for volcanoes to affect the atmophere is the temporary COOLING caused by increased particulates in the atmosphere. This is somewhat unpredictable but is still included in the climate models. I wouldn’t know if any of them include expulsion of geothermal heat, but if it were significant enough to explain the observed 1.3 degree rise in temperature, I think someone would have noticed.

bubba -
I think most of the heat in the upper mantle that drives vulcanism and continental drift is considered to come from radioactive decay of natural isotopes of Uranium and other elements. I would think that would be a fairly constant heat source, although the amount that is actually brought to the surface could of course vary.

Quietman – Old men in science may be wise with experience, or they may be stubborn with long-held assumptions. It goes both ways. Was it the old men who were right about continental drift? (I don’t know the answer to that, BTW).

jock59801
Its called internal radiative forcing. Magma flows heat up the thin areas of the crust and that heat is transferred to the water. These areas are mostly subduction zones and they create alternating upwelling and sinking currents. The best known is ENSO, or in common terms “El Nino / La Nina”. This effects the atmosphere by changing wind direction (towards the Andes and away from the Andes). It changes the weather in both hemispheres and the El Nino is signalled by volcanic eruptions in the Andes of Peru and Chile. How the eruption is tied to the magma flow is still an unknown but the effect on the climate has been studied intently.
Melting glaciers are another story. But just as an example, go outside in a t-shirt in ambient temps of between 10 and 30 F and walk alternately in and out of the sun. In the 70′s you would have frozen your ### off but recently you could be comfortable in the sun (assuming no wind). The intensity of the sun was higher in the 80′s and 90′s much like it had been in the 40′s and 50′s.
Greenhouse gases require sunlight to do anything. Hide the sun and there is no effect at all. They require something to feedback to and that something is the sun. Raise temps and more feedback, lower temps and less feedback. And keep in mind that in the past CO2 has been over 600ppm and an ice age still came.
Worry about the methane!

Quietman -
Yes, it is extremely complicated. Do we trust a whole bunch of really smart physicists who have devoted their career to this, or yours and my amateur attempts to piece it all together? Normally I would be happy to wait and find out, but when the next several decades of human suffering depends on the answer, the stakes (and the probabilities) become much more important.

Jock and bubba
I would question a skeptic if it was only one or two dissenting voices, but I still would not ignore the science behind the reasoning nor call the person a “denier”. Yes some of the skeptics are in this case “paid for deniers” and you must also realize that many of the opposite are “paid for alarmists”. Both do peer reviewed papers but reading between the lines you can weed out those with an agenda.
That is why I put more faith on the retired scientists who are not being paid for what they say and write. It is their honest opinion on the hypothesis, their better-than-a-peer review that I can accept. :)

Quietman….interesting articles, I recommend it to others interested in the climate change issue!

bubba
The standing in the sun is just an example to demonstrate that it has increased on a personal level (ie. you can test it if you remember what it was like before).
Greenhouse gases do indeed have an effect, otherwise it would be much colder on earth. But different gasses have more or less greenhouse effect. Water vapor is one of the strongest, CO2 is one of the weakest with methane somewhere in between (I don’t recall the numbers offhand but they are available on the web).
Clouds can do either or both, force warming or cooling, depending on the particular cloud formation (density, reflectivity, etc.) but are very short term on an individual cloud basis. But as we all know, even though clouds disapate there are constantly more forming, so they play a very important role both in day to day weather and in the climate. The problem is that they are next to impossible to model.
On glacial retreat there are more issues involved. Glaciers on mountains happen to be sitting either on a volcano or on a fault or worst, over a subduction zone. We tend to forget how active mountains are when they seem to be so quiet. They were formed by uplifting and/or folding, and if they are tall enough for a glacier then they are young and active. I happen to live on an old mountain range – no glaciers – they melted a long, long time ago, but I can see in the rocks that they were here, glaciers leave behind lots of evidence.
Glaciers melt from both the lower surface and the upper surface depending on just what type of mountain they are on and rates vary. There are a few that are actually growing, but the majority (of those that are measured) are/were melting. There is a good blog on glaciers at Skeptical Science as well.

bubba
Consensus means amoungst those who are specialists in that field is normally the majority view. Consensus in the IPCC terms is scientists, not all of which are climatologists. Is there a consensus of climatologists? From what I have read so far there is not, especially since some prominant climatologists are complaining that they are being misrepresented (by BOTH sides).

No Jock, that’s not what I meant. I mean that the ground that they sit on is geologically active albiet a couple of the better known ones are on active volcanos. By activity I mean tremmors, geologic movement or vibrations. Have you ever heard of the earth song?
BTW
Where is Glacier National Park and what, besides having glaciers, is it known for?

Quietman-
Glacier National Park is three hours from my house in northwestern Montana. It is known for its glaciers, one of the most beautiful cliff-hugging mountain roads in the world, and the largest concentration of grizzly bears in the lower 48. It is also by FAR the largest tourist attraction in the state.
Incidently, most of our our other major economies (timber, fishing, skiing, etc.) are also dependent on how fast the snowpack melts in the spring, which is getting noticably earlier every year. Global warming is VERY real to us in Montana, and we are not going to wait any longer for the federal goverment to get its head out of the sand to do something about it.

jock59801
Did you happen to notice the author?

jock…..I don’t know about the glaciers melting globally, you’re probably correct in that much of it is do to GW, but in the single case (and I stress single case) that I’ve looked into and that has been used widely to tout AGW, It seems Mt. Kilimanjaro is losing it’s famous snows mainly due to other factors such as volcanic heating and deforestation. Some people may think that’s a “cherry pick”, but since man-made global warming advocates have used it as an example, I think it’s only fair to discuss it as such.

jock
I used that one as an example precisely because the author was anon. That is the typical “denier”, not a skeptic.
That was this weeks winner at Skeptical Science for the most arguments in a single blog. I laughed my butt off.
But that is EXACTLY where someone is placed or compared to for making any skeptical remarks about AGW. Now do you see why fewer scientists will speak up?

Jock
I was just at NG Maps site looking at sat photos of NW Montana. That round/oblong range looks like it’s being pushed up and out from the center. The lable said flat something county (I could not make it out). Is that the right area?

Quietman….probably Flathead Lake…in the NW part of the State up by Kalispell.

Jock…..I looked at the skeptical science site regarding glacial retreat, pretty compelling stuff except, why are any glaciers building? It appeared like there were a fairly sizeable number of them, is it all due to local factors?
While I was there I found something else I hadn’t even considered, Mars maybe undergoing global warming as well? That would seem to be a fairly straight-forward explanation that solar radiation was the driving force behind GW. Seems like it’s worth looking into further anyway.

Jock….in 2007 PBS rebroadcast a Special entitled “Kilimanjaro – Volcano Above the Clouds” where they go into the reasons for it’s disappearing snow. They follow a team of scientists who trek to the summit and measured the ground temp there to be about 80C. It went on to say they believe magma was within 400′ of the surface and hence an acceleration in the disappearance of the glacier/snow there. Deforestation was also mentioned as a cause of the snow’s disappearance.

The Global Warming crowd of tree-huggers is using this legislation to hobble U.S. attempts at achieving greater oil independence; that’s all. The polar bears will migrate, move, or otherwise adapt. Trust me; they’ve been around for a long time. Attempts to cripple our efforts at energy independence from foreign oil will cripple us, long before the polar bears and the caribou decide to shuffle off to another ice floe or another part of the tundra.

Jock….oh I agree, I’m a avid skier so I watch the weather channel with baited breath every Fall for signs of snow. Over the years it seems like it gets a little bit later in the season, at least where I am.
When I was younger we occasionally skied in October back here in the East, that hasn’t happened in a long time. To me it actually seems like winter is starting later, but lasting a bit longer as well. Now days we can ski into April most of the time, but that maybe due to improved snow-making.
Let me tell you where I’m coming from if I may? I believe that global warming is real, however I am a AGW agnostic who would rather try and digest the varying arguments for and against than to accept what I often see as media hysteria over different subjects.
I also feel like I’m being pushed by used car salesmen when somebody tries too hard to insist they’re right. I appreciate your point of view and those of others on here who try and take the time to figure this out for themselves rather than blindly following someone else’s lead/opinion.
I’m also very anxious that this nation become energy self-sufficient or as reliant on home grown sources of energy as rapidly as we can for the sake of our national security and economic well-being. There, I think that’s full disclosure. How about you?

Which of course is a complete fabrication but it’s interesting because it implicitly recognizes the respect for consensus, or at least numbers. Climate deniers or skeptics are not pleased with not having the consensus even as they disparage the term.
Of course, they accept consensus on matters of galaxy formation, cancer therapy, gene therapy techniques, etc. They just nod and say, “ok”. But don’t cross their political or religious beliefs with scientific consensus. No contest there.
Not that consensus has a lock on truth. But the premise that consensus means nothing smacks of “evolution is just a theory”.
If you really think its 50/50, look up Inhofe’s recent “400″ letter.

bubba
I liked the article that you linked. The 400 list was a professional deniers attempt to prove no consensus. I think the final results were about 20 qualified climate scientists.
Of course just 30 years ago the consensus was that CO2 was totally harmless and good for the planet (read the double helix), as I was taught. Some still hold that to be true (I am undecided as of yet). We were also taught that methane is a strong greenhouse gas as well as not too good to breathe (I think that is still the case). In fact, in 1975 we got the Clean Air Act in effect so we promptly began converting Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide into WATER VAPOR AND CO2 in every passenger car and light duty truck sold in the US. Of course CARB decided that since Oxides of Nitrogen are an ingredient of smog, in california they added catalytic sonverters (actually before the clean air act) to turn NOx, CO and HC into CO2 and ACIDIC WATER VAPOR (as in sulphuric acid) which is why the 50 states vehicles today have stainless steel exhaust systems so that they last more than a few months. And all of a sudden we get acid rain and AGW – WOW.

Quietman -
The hypothesis that human carbon emissions could warm the planet was first proposed in 1896, but Arrhenius never believed it would ever be significant– of course he couldn’t anticipate the explosion in fossil-fuel use during the 20th century.
In the 1970s they still didn’t know enough to make good predictions, but a recent review of the literature showed that more scientific papers predicted global warming than predicted cooling, even then. Scientists have been somewhat more consistent on this than people give them credit for.
And I hope you don’t fall into the logical trap that just because scientists have been wrong before, they must be wrong THIS time too. They COULD be, of course, but that becomes less likely as evidence accumulates.

I have a question for anyone, if meteorologists can’t accurately predict the weather five days in advance, how can they say they know what’s going to happen years or decades from today? The local weatherman’s job is the only one I know that can get it wrong half the time and not get fired, unless you’re in the sports book business!

Jock
“Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change” (Wiki). Unfortunately, his study was on Water Vapor and CO2, and he did not have good data on past CO2 which has since been proven to follow rather than preseed warming. While the current measurements only point to a 10 year lag, core samples indicate both greater variability than expected and much longer lag time (ie. it is a feedback, not the original source of warming).
As today, his findings were disputed immediately. He should have concentrated more on the Water Vapor as it is a much stronger green house gas. But of course in the 19th century they lacked the technology to determine that properly.

DonG -
Weather is not the same as climate. The climate trends we are talking about are averages over vast regions and many years. They are not trying to predict what the temperature will be in Chicago on June 3, 2038. That would indeed be silly. They are trying to predict what the average global temperatures will be in the 2030s or 2050s, etc.

If you think an anonymous internet poll is “proven accurate” whereas the IPCC reports based on peer-reviewed literature is somehow NOT accurate, your bias is even worse than your attitude.

We have a very well-documented survey of the status of climate science. It is called the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There is absolutely no way to review that literature without concluding that the majority of climate scientists support the basic framework of AGW. Of course there is great uncertainty about how serious, how fast, percent of natural vs. anthropogenic, and possible consequences, etc. It is an enormously complicated subject.
But the denialist industry tries to spread the meme that scientists are somehow evenly split on even the basic framework. That is simply a lie.

DonG: “Have their global climate predictions proven to be more accurate than that of local meteorological forecasting?”
The point is that there is no way to even consider such a question. They are talking about different phenomena at vastly different spatial and temporal scales.

Change that last bit to “the Heartland Foundation”…

Yes, Heartland (an equally silly, motherhood-and-apple-pie sort of name). You messed me up!

Climate science probably is more complicated than determining red shift and the findings that led them to believe that andromeda was approaching us. It would probably take someone an afternoon to whip up a simulation of small scale local group movements. But they still cant simulate all possible variables of the climate system. Which doesnt mean that signals can’t be detected in the noise.

I find it very hard to believe that the climate is somehow harder to model accurately than the universe it exists in. You sound like you know something about science, do you work in any of the scientific fields?

DonG
As some of the other posters here already know, I ran an auto emissions testing lab for about 10 years, following the rules of the Federal Register and performed the compliance test known as the 75EPA. Yes, the goal of the emissions systems on cars and LDTs is to convert Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons and Oxides of Nitrogen into harmless water vapor and CO2 and in addition to fine tuning the mixture going into the combustion chamber for less overall emissions, the exhaust gases are also treated using a chemical catalyst to further reduce the CO and HC by changing them into “good” gases. The addition of another catalyst to reduce NOx produced sulphuric acid in a very dilute form.
The sad part is that it would have all been rendered moot by proper maintenance as a properly designed engine in good condition can pass 1981 Fed spec without a single emission device (I did that as an experiment in the late 80s using an efficient 4 cylinder engine that averaged 30 MPG).

That’s my point, thank you. And they can model the universe very well, in fact back to 10 to -43 seconds of it’s origin. There apparently isn’t a similar understanding climate science.

No. That it was accelerating was quite a shock to them. What impact all that dark energy and matter is having on the long term evolution is still unknown.
They can model certain elements, other things they cant. Sound familiar?
The implication of your argument was that our undestanding of cosmology was easy or perfect and yet climate science hasnt kept up. My point is to show you that there are a great many unknowns in both areas, yet predications about specific things can still be made.
Yeah, its blue shift, or doppler effect but red shift just sprang to mind to get the point across. But I don’t know how you can talk about blue shift without being a practicing astronomer. At least your snark would indicate something of the sort.
If you read for comprehension, rather than looking for fuel for snark, youll see that I compated a specific event (andromeda collision or doppler effects) with being simple compared to the whole of the climate system. I dont think thats a particularly daring claim.

Jock
That survey did not actually show whether the respondants were for or against AGW but their confidence levels which as the scale was 1 to 7 means that the consensus had a high confidence level. Why would that be a contrary argument?

Maybe he left NOAA because of this comment: “.” As for climate change affecting hurricane strength, Landsea said that global warming theories and numerical modeling suggest only that “hurricanes like Katrina and Rita may have been stronger due to global warming but maybe by one or two miles per hour.” (ibid)

DonG -
It depends on exactly what you are trying to model. Physicists can predict where a galaxy is going, but they can’t predict where an electron will be 2 seconds from now. The same thing is true with climate. They can predict that global temperatures will be higher in two decades, but they can’t predict what the temperature will be in Chicago 2 weeks from now (although they can put limits on it).
Climate models have become quite sophisticated and are very useful research tools. And they ALL show a warming Earth, vene if they differ on how much. The IPCC reviews that variation in all of its scenarios.

Quietman,
That movie is one of my all time favorites. Ford was a grand master of movie makers, did you know he filmed the WWII battle of Midway (not the movie) the real battle….from the atoll?

DonG
On the exact output of GHG from converters, I don’t know.
We measured CO, HC and NOx specifically, and in static tests CO, HC and Oxygen.
CO2 was never measured because it was considered a harmless gas, nor did we measure water vapor.
The function of the primary catalyst is to encourage HC and CO to break down and recombine into H2O and CO2.

DonG
You may be right, I have seen the film (more than once) and it would certainly deserve such honors. The nattle of midway, being the turning point in the Pacific theatre, I have studied intently and ran computer simulations on it. It was very close and could easi;y have been lost. In my book it’s second only to the battle of Kursk (the turning point in the European theatre).

Quietman
Ah…are you a WWII afficionado, the US got very lucky at Midway didn’t we?

DonG
Not WW2 but all Military history and Natural history although the latter is a passion.

Jock, You said you could easily prove the 50/50 divide amount climatologists a lie. You still need to prove it.
I proved it wasn’t. You just keep clinging to all scientists are in agreement. That poll clearly shows climatologists think diplomats from countries who stand to benefit have corrupted the process and censored the information made available. Too many climatologists have come out and stated the process is corrupt and they ignore whole bodies of work in some fields.
Just a few weeks ago, a writer/scientist on the IPCC conducted another survey of lead authors and conclude only the information of 4 out of 60+ made it into the Summary for Policy makers.

Quietman
I just read the discussion of global sea temperatures and sea level rise at Skeptical Scientist. I liked the idea that some unknown geological process in the ocean basins might account for the discrepancy between the mass, temp., and change of ocean levels if I understood it correctly. How does salinity effect ocean water density, I didn’t see a discussion of that, I imagine it would be some sort of factor though?

It’s also interesting that there are no major scientific organizations on record as opposing AGW. While the pro-AGW camp has a great many scientific organizations supporting it.
If there was parity I just wonder why the skeptics have no power in these organizations? Are they less accomplished? Lack political skills? It would be an interesting question if there was parity. Of course the deniers will claim some sort of conspiracy.
And I’m not saying ACG is absolute truth, I’m just pointing out that consensus does appear to point one way rather than the other.

Nobel
Sorry, I read the document but not the appendix labels (I have difficulty with small print). Thanks

bubba
What is one of your “legitimate criticisms of AGW”? You’re arguments seem to imply you don’t have any.

bubba
When I first started looking into this AGW thing I really did not know what to think because it went against everything I have ever been taught – gradeschool through college.
It appeared that there were 3 groups: deniers, alarmists and those like me who did not know enough to pick a side.
Now I see that there are more groups in between and that most of the authors of peer reviewed papers that you can get to without a subscription are much closer to neutral than being polarized, with some saying that AGW is true but not as big an issue it’s made out to be by alarmists, and some saying it’s not true but there is global warming from another source, and most saying it’s somewhere in-between, but all have seen the warming that has occurred between 1976 and 1998 and cooling since and try to understand it instead of trying to deny it.

bubba
And I agree with your last statement entirely. You sound like I did a couple months ago. Fortunately, being retired I have a lot of free time to read up on the issue but I still find myself undecided.

Nodel
I have read Spencer’s papers and while skeptical did not see any religion in them. What do you refer to?

Well, inhofe *is* a creationist. heh. His list of ’400′ includes amateurs, economists, and 44 weathermen. I don’t think either Inhofe or that list is something a reasonable skeptic would want to associate with.
As for this guy Roy Spencer, he’s an interesting figure. A quick check shows he’s an advocate for Intelligent Design and claimed in a 2005 article that 20 years before he had studied evolution and ID carefully and decided that ID made more sense. Ok, but there was no ID movement then. ID was a movement started by Philip Johnson and which is more of an early 90s phenomena. The term was first used in a 1989 book but didnt really take off until the 90s. So there is certainly a strong argument that whatever material Roy was reading, was old fashioned creationism. Possibly he is embarrassed by that, as he should be, and so fudged it to avoid questions. Maybe he honestly doesnt support old fashioned creationism atm. I dont know.
But he was hardly called a creationist just because of the church he attended.

The Washington Times, the paper owned by the Moonies?
But the point, which you have deftly avoided, was that they didnt judge that man based on his church, as you stated.
Spencer is also very likely is a creationist judging by comments of his Ive read regarding the fossil record. Inhofe certainly believes the planet is 6,000 years old.

I don’t know how many actual scientists there are on this thread, but I see one or two POLITICAL scientists have been blogging.

Nobel….I for one, think the 1st Amendment is great! I know some folks have an overdeveloped sense of “alarm” regarding this issue. They earnestly wish everyone would think as they do. I especially like the manbearpig thing, btw.

They call him a creationist (I agree he likely is), but they don’t base it on his attending a church as you asserted a few post backs.
They base it on his own words. He does seem to be one.
Creationism and faith in the bible are not one in the same. Many churches, including the Catholics have no problem with evolution.

Not the dailygreen, but the rebuttal video to Swindle did. That’s where it started. I’m 95% certain that video was out before the list.

I think the definition and value of ID/Creationism goes beyond the thread topic but it’s an interesting subject. ID makes some specific claims, not simply, “there was a creator”. You can support a creator without supporting the claims of ID/creationism. You should read about it for fun sometime.
The reason the opinions of these men are easily dismissed on those blogs is not due to religion but because that they have displayed ignorance or poor reasoning skills in the past.
The WT, as a conservative paper, certainly does attack both evolution and global warming whenever they get the chance. Those are hot button conservative issues. If you hire editors who agree with you, you don’t need to put your thumb on the scale for every issue.
Inhofe, as a young earth creationist, has introduced the tactics of creationism to his attack on global warming (silly lists). I think there is a strong correlation between creationism and global warming denial at the lower end because once youve accepted that most scientists are deluded, stupid, engaged in a conspiracy, or whatever, it’s easier to believe that going forward. In addition, both tend to be conservative views so they appeal to similar groups.
Which is not to say that all skeptics or deniers are creationists but the reverse probably has a strong relationship.
Which is exactly why so much of the “debate” on the lower end smacks of creationism. They are using some recycled tactics and doing no service to professional scientists who may have legitimate concerns.

FWIW….I don’t want to see creationism taught in public schools, it isn’t science. I don’t think science and religion are mutually exclusive however in society as a whole. Even Einstein believed in God, though he thought the Bible was “silly”. There are more than enough holes in our knowledge to allow for their co-existence for a long time to come.

Todd
Where is “here”?

Todd
I asked because we had a mix last night, in PA near Binghamton NY, but nothing like those photos. Lake effect?

Yeah, I’d say so. I’ve spent some January time in Old Forge over the years doing cold tests and the lake effect snow was unreal. Not as bad as Buffalo in 1978 however.

I was born and raised in Watertown. I remember ’77 blizzard well. Corp of Engineers came in with full tracks to clear some main roads. News stations were warning us with snow shoes not to blunder into power lines.

We used to run over to Watertown from Old Forge at least once every winter for dinner. Old Forge doesn’t have a lot of places open in January. It’s a lot like where I live now except that I am just below the snow belt (no lake effect) but my (new) neighbors told me that 2002-03 was one of their worst winters here. But this past winter was almost as bad as 2002-03. But Jock said that the Glaciers in Montana are still receding – another oddity?

No, I see it’s not just memory loss but reading comprehension. Sorry.

They had a very large statue of Paul Bunyan up in Bimiji, Minn. and a similar one of the Iron Man in Chysm, Minn. when I was there but I don’t remember a statue in Old Forge, at least in the 1990′s, but I was always fairly busy when I was there so I could have missed it. My travels have always been for work, except for weekend trips with the kids.

Summers are glorious that is, except for black fly season, those buggers are awful!

Yeah, there is. Enchanted forest/water safari park. At least there used to be, unless I’m thinking of the North Pole up in the Daks.

My son was a ski racer so we’d go up to Whiteface often, a couple of years ago some kids went back country sking, I forget on which peak, they triggered an avalanche and were killed. That doesn’t happen much in the East. Maybe the Adirondaks are building glaciers?

tallest is PA s/b tallest in PA – sorry.

Getting back on topic, the lake effect is somewhat similar to what happened in Asia this winter. In a paper by Dr. Richard Mackey, he said that when the arctic ocean surface was exposed enough the extra moisture picked up by prevailing winds would cause severe snow fall in Asia. He was apparently correct. It was overall an excellent paper, expanding and explaining a theory that Dr. Rhodes-Fairbridge was working on when he passed away two years ago. If you do a web search for Mackey + Fairbridge you should find it.

Daks are still growing, btw. They measure a rise of 2-3 mm annually. Used to be all sea water around there when the Laurentian ice sheet receded.

Nobel
Yes, in eastern NY and northern NJ there is vertical faulting in places as the midatlantic seafloor spreading pushes us westward. But the chain is supposedly the second oldest range in the world and at one time the tallest on earth. The western edge of both NA and SA is much newer and is still has many active volcanos and a lot of vulcanism pushing up from the tip of SA to Alaska.

Todd
I checked out that link, OK, so where were you when I was tryng to find the tallest ones on a Rand McNally? The height of Mt. Washington’s peak is right around the summer snow line in the Angeles mountains. It came down to about 3000 feet in winter when I was there in the late 1990s.

Yeah, I understand geologists believe that the Appalachian Mts. once exceeded the Himalayas in height, shows you what erosions all about.

Quiteman, it’s not mid Atlantic tectonics that is causing the Daks to rise. It’s the decompression of the earth from the ice sheet receding 10,000 yrs ago. The whole Lake Champlain basin, include the St Lawrence to Clayton and up to ottawa use to be part of the Atlantic ocean.
It (was) called the Champlain sea.

Quietman….I love the mountains, its been a passion of mine since I was a kid. There’s something so aw-inspiring about them, they make you feel like there’s someone bigger than us around (no I’m not a fundamentalist….bubba if you’re lurking).
As such I’ve studied a lot about ‘em from books maps etc. The only peaks I’ve been on top of however, are Whiteface, Pikes, and Blue Mt. in the Adirondacks. Love to study them though. Oh yeah, I’ve on top of a bunch of mountains skiing, but that doesn’t really count.

bubba…..never been up that high, 14k’ tops. Even there, reduced O2 pressure was noticeable, one beer was enough to do the job. How did you wind up hiking in Africa?

I had some friends do a Himilayan trek to Mt. Everest Base Camp, always thought that would be a great one to do.

I didnt do everest base camp but Ive done the two weeks around Anapurna in western Nepal. I did the korah of mt Kailash in western Tibet as well. Thats only three days but it takes a week on trucks to get there. It gets to 19k at one point. It’s really hard to find better hiking than Nepal.
Ive never done anything in yellowstone but Ive hiked alot in the Pacific NW. I did the wonderland trail around mt Rainier in about nine days. Lots of smaller ones.

Yeah, you can’t beat the Himalayas. The north side of Annapurna will blow your mind. Ive never seen anything like it and Ive hiked on 4 continents. You get so many ice covered peaks in view, deceptively close, framed by a plain dotted with a few settlements. It’s like a Conan movie. Looks like CGI. Plus you pass through so many micro climates as you go around. Jungle to Pines to rock fields to meadows.
Tibet is a bleak, windswept moonscape with some amazing views. It’s nice, but you need to work for the great views (imo).
Acclimatizing takes a few days but once youve done a hike you can tear up the next one.

I wouldnt mind seeing the canadian rockies. Ive seen the alps but didnt hike. I did a week in the Pyranees though and hiked along and over them from france to spain. You can look toward france and see ice and green meadows and then a little bit later look down into spain and see brown arid ground with a few pine trees. It’s like night and day.

That sounds cool. Too many places to see. All of our recent trips have been family related unfortunately. I’m always thinking about Nepal again though.