Saturday, February 23, 2008
|
|
Climate Change and the Andes
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:17 AM
|
Posting from the Amazon is a bit of a challenge, but this story was the subject of a presentation I attended by Jean-Michel Cousteau. Cousteau avoids the emotional alarmism of much of the climate change debate, and his short presentation on the glacier retreat in the Andes was the sort of presentation that climate change skeptics need to examine in detail. His argument about the imminence of the major changes looming in Peru as a result of climate change is the best case I have heard yet about the specific negative consequences of global warming. Since the internet connections are so tenuous here, I'd appreciate pointers to supplemental information on the Andes glacier story from anyone familiar with it, via hugh@hughhewitt.com.
|
|
Frey wrote;
"Over the last 10,000 years, the CO2 level has varied, but only within a 40 PPM range, at most. Then our "small fraction" comes along, and it rockets up by 100 PPM."
The role that a presumed variable plays in any process can be deduced by holdng it constant while other variables are allowed to increase or decrease. And then allowing the presumed variable to increase or decrease while observing its effect on the process,ie climate change.If the earth's climate is considered a process then the effect of CO2 can be studied as follows:
Assuming that CO2 level effects the climate process then for 10,000 years CO2 has been essentially constant while the earth has undergone at least four or possible more major climatic shifts between extreme cold, little ice ages, and extreme warm periods.Next during the last few years the CO2 level has increased, approximately 100ppm total, while the mean average global temperature has remained relatively constant for the last 10 years, no increase but a recent slight decrease.
Any scientist or engineer reviewing such results would conclude that the CO2 level has no or very little effect on the earth's cyclical climate changes. |
|
my two cents.
Composition of
dry atmosphere, by volume[4] ppmv: parts per million by volume
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.25% over full atmosphere, typically 1% to 4% near surface
Minor components of air not listed above include[citation needed] Gas Volume
nitrous oxide 0.3 ppmv (0.00005%)
xenon 0.09 ppmv (9x10-6%)
ozone 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7x10-6%)
nitrogen dioxide 0.02 ppmv (2x10-6%)
iodine 0.01 ppmv (1x10-6%)
carbon monoxide trace
ammonia trace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
|
|
------Of course, as you've shown, a major catastrophic event is possible, but how often does that happen?.....Frey.....
Lazy @ss liberal dimwit making the Conservative do the work………….
AWU Sangihe Islands (Indonesia) 1966 Aug 12
FERNANDINA Galápagos Islands 1968 Jun 11
TIATIA Kuril Islands 1973 Jul 14
FUEGO Guatemala 1974 Oct 17
TOLBACHIK Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1975 Jul 6
AUGUSTINE Southwestern Alaska 1976 Jan 22
ST. HELENS Washington (USA) 1980 May 18
ALAID Kuril Islands 1981 Apr 30
PAGAN Mariana Islands 1981 May 15
EL México 1982 Mar 28
EL México 1982 Apr 3
GALUNGGUNG Java (Indonesia) 1982 May 17
COLO [UNA UNA] Sulawesi (Indonesia) 1983 Jul 23
AUGUSTINE Southwestern Alaska 1986 Mar 27
CHIKURACHKI Kuril Islands 1986 Nov 20
GALUNGGUNG Java (Indonesia) 1982 May 17
COLO [ UNA UNA] Sulawesi (Indonesia) 1983 Jul23
AUGUSTINE Southwestern Alaska 1986 Mar 27
CHIKURACHKI Kuril Islands 1986 Nov 20
KLIUCHEVSKOI Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1990 Jan 30
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1990 Feb 10
PINATUBO Luzon (Philippines) 1991 Jun 15
SPURR Southwestern Alaska 1992 Jun 27
CERRO Southern Chile 1991 Aug 12
SPURR Southwestern Alaska 1992 Jun 27
LASCAR Northern Chile 1993 Apr 19
RABAUL New Britain 1994 Sep 19
ULAWUN New Britain 2000 Sep 29
SHIVELUCH Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 2001
RUANG Sangihe Islands (Indonesia) 2002 Sep 25
REVENTADOR Ecuador 2002 Nov 3
MANAM Northeast of New Guinea 2005 Jan 27
RABAUL New Britain 2006 Oct 7
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm |
|
|
algorism (n.), a hyperbolic expression of imminent disaster based upon faulty data, and uttered by someone known for frequent, exaggerated alarm. See "crying 'wolf.'" Also, algorition, algorizing, algoristic. Deriv: At the turn of the 21st century, a politician named Al Gore convinced millions of followers that the polar ice caps were melting. "Algorism" later became a common, dismissive term denoting lack of credibility. |
|
Our High, today balmy 17!
Enjoy yours!
Nah, this is not our coldest winter, yet! |
|
|
Well, yeah, it's things like that give me a problem with An Inconvenient Truth. There are all these examples, Mt. Kilamanjaro among them, that are good examples of what are probable effects of global warming, but they're presented as having been caused by global warming, and in most cases, it's just not true. I mean, it's true that global warming is reducing the size of glaciers, but Mt. Kilamanjaro is not one of them. It's true that global warming will impact fresh water sources, but the reduction of Lake Chad is not due to global warming, at least not very much. It's true that global warming will impact species diversity, but the extinctions that Gore talks about were not due to climate change! It's frustrating. I used to be a big admirer of Gore, but now, not so much. |
|
great here in Central Florida...AS USUAL.
MaryS, I wish we could send you some of our current 85 degrees. Sounds like you could use it! Ya know how it works, Persian Gem, if it's the coldest Winter since 1966(it is), then the GW-Nutters cover their tails by terming it Climate Change. |
|
|
|
"Frey, humans emit a small fraction of the CO2 sent into the atmosphere. Bazillions of bacteria are by far the largest source, and so are the exhalations of virtually all animals, and the decomposition of plants and animals."
That's true, but it only looks at one side of the equation. It ignores the absorption of CO2 by growing plants, buildup of soil organic matter, the oceans (net absorbers of CO2, at least right now), etc.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm
Say you have a bathtub, with the faucet turned on and the drain open. Water's coming in at 10 gallons/minute, and it's draining out at 10 gallons/minute. Then you open up the faucet so that water's coming at 10.2 gallons/minute. Leave it for an hour; what do you think will happen to the water level?
Over the last 10,000 years, the CO2 level has varied, but only within a 40 PPM range, at most. Then our "small fraction" comes along, and it rockets up by 100 PPM.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.h tm
"http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
to learn how small the human contribution is to ALL greenhouse gases, except for THE major one, water vapor."
I've seen it. If I remember correctly, they have seven references for the water vapor claim, only three of which are actual scientific papers. One of them isn't even about the greenhouse effect, and the other two don't back up the webmaster's claim.
On the relative contributions of different gases to the greenhous effect:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
|
|
Of course, as you've shown, a major catastrophic event is possible, but how often does that happen? It's like saying you shouldn't plan for retirement because the Earth could get hit by a large meteor.
And thanks, by the way, for showing an example of how increasing greenhouse gases can lead to catastrophic heating!
"CO2 is not the only gas released during an eruption. You also have hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen fluoride."
Those aren't actually greenhouse gases. Volcanoes do emit another greenhouse gas, H2O, but that has a much shorter residence time. Say an island volcano erupts, emitting CO2, H2O, and various other gases. A year later, most of the CO2 will still be in the atmosphere, while almost all of the H2O will have condensed back into the ocean.
This isn't a scientific reference, but it does help explain it:
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-do minant.html |
|
"Go watch an Unconvenient truth..."
For the record, on the subject of An Inconvenient Truth, I do think Al Gore is an alarmist when it comes to the likely effects of global warming. They'll be bad, but likely not as bad as he's implying.
"Provide a link to back up your 1% assertion."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
From the section, Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities:
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year). (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
|
|
How I wished, and Pray, global warming was true, Please, please Lord.
From the last storm, we had to pay to remove few trees, last week, now another storm.
Maybe, I should put a good word with some ancient deities, demigods, merciful fairies, and the his most peacefulness the Enlighten one, the Buddha, I am DESARATE.
No, I will not go to the other side!
Never, a democrat. |
|
Well, as the article itself states,
"one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades."
Although, what's bad science for the goose is bad science for the gander. When someone claims that one hot year proves global warming, he's equally wrong. You have to look at the overall trend. |
|
|
|
"I ask you to explain why CO2 concentration increases LAG, not presage, mean temperature rises."
Under natural conditions, CO2 concentrations are dependent on temperature (CO2 is released as oceans and soil warm up). When the CO2 is released, it further increases the temperature in a positive feedback. In this case, CO2 is being released independent of temperature. That's what I meant when I said "Show me the natural process that burns coal and oil." Once it gets up there, it does enhance the greenhouse effect, however it was released in the first place.
Of course the natural process is still going on, but the rise in CO2 is not natural, it's from human activity. |
|
Fair enough. I was pressed for time last time, and unfortunately I'm pressed for time, so I hope you'll forgive the lack of links for the time being.
"Again, I ask you for evidence that CO2 and not sun cycles, not masssive ocean current shifts, not natural variability are "the " cause for what warming has been seen,"
OK, first of all, there is no "the" cause. Natural processes are playing a role (as even Al Gore admits). The claim is that greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the warming trend we're currently seeing (the one that's been happening since the late 70s.
It's not sun cycles, because the sun's been relatively stable for that time.
It could be natural internal variability (i.e. weather), but I just find it hard to believe
that it could be responsible for a thirty-year trend.
As for ocean current shifts, I have to admit that I know very little about that theory. Go ahead and rip me for that, I don't care.
But, I do know that CO2 has been rising by over a third in the past half century, I know that CO2 accounts for between a tenth and a quarter of the greenhouse effect, and I know that the temperature rise we're seeing is consistant with that. The AGW theory isn't perfect (in science, nothing is), it just fits better than any other. At least so far.
"AND that you provide us with an experiment that can FALSIFY your claim."
Unless you have another Earth-type planet out there (preferably several) that we add CO2 to and see what happens, and another Earth-type planet (preferably several) that can act as a control, that kind of experiment is impossible. Although, the piece of evidence that really convinced me was the temperature change pattern in the atmosphere. The troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is cooling, which is exactly what the AGW theory predicted.
|
|
-------The point is not to protect integrity of the vote, it is to keep those who don't have such ID's (largely Democratic-leaning minorities, elderly and urban dwellers who never had a drivers license) from casting their vote at all--------
Pure unadulterated BS. You leftists really are abundantly stupid. Every “poor” person has an ID, whether it’s a drivers license or one simply for ID. Illegals don’t have real ID’s as you dimwits well know and that’s the sole reason you’re against providing proof of identification; you want voter fraud. If you have to provide ID to get alcohol or get into a club you should damn well have to when voting. How do you suppose the poor get their beers if they have no ID?
You dimwits are such transparent frauds. |
|
“CORVALLIS, Ore. -- A team of scientists announced today confirmation of a link between massive volcanic eruptions along the east coast of Greenland and in the western British Isles about 55 million years ago and a period of global warming that raised sea surface temperatures by five degrees (Celsius) in the tropics and more than six degrees in the Arctic.
The findings were reported in this week’s edition of Science.
The study is important, experts say, because it documents the Earth’s response to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide and methane – into the atmosphere, and definitively links a major volcanic event with a period of global warming.
The scientists speculate that massive release of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide and methane – from the "out-gassing" of the lava flows and heating of organic-rich sediments in basins along the east Greenland margin were responsible for the global warming and changes in ocean chemistry.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-vea04230 7.php
--------I also find it deliciously ironic that you think we should follow the lead of a Communist country.--------
I was born in a communist country, the USSR. The Russian communists entered the space frontier before the Americans. Their educational system puts ours to shame; there are no homosexual studies or chicano studies or courses in PC bullshyt. What’s taught in 8th grade Russian classrooms is taught in 11th grade American schools. Russians probably know American history better than many Americans. If only our political jackals did what’s best for America with no apologies like the Russians do for their nation.
|
|
My comments need to be broken into 2 posts due to length.........
-------Yo, Great Satan You're a perfect example. It's so obvious you don't know anything about the science that is involved with global warming. I spotted three errors just in the last post. Eh, I'll give you one:--------
The irony of a leftist halfwit telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Go watch an Unconvenient truth again, moron.
-----The sum total of CO2 from all volcanic eruptions around the world in a typical year is 1% of the sum total of CO2 from human activities in a typical year. Even there were a once-in-a-million-years catastrophe and the number of eruptions were to go up 10x, the CO2 emissions would still be dwarfed by human activity. Of course, if that happened, global warming would be way down on our list of problems.--------
Provide a link to back up your 1% assertion. It may be but I’m not going to take a dimwits word for it. CO2 is not the only gas released during an eruption. You also have hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen fluoride. |
|
Liberal narcissists, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop natural “global warming” any more than you could have stopped the preceding ice ages. We’re better off setting billions of dollars on fire than filling the coffers of these thieves like Al Gore.
Liberal idiots [redundancy], the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. |
|
God, bless you too.
Watching libs Choreographing their choice of words. Juicy one:
Obamasito, SHAME ON YOU. that is
priceless. |
|
|
God love you! Climate of Medacity! Priceless. |
|
Frey, humans emit a small fraction of the CO2 sent into the atmosphere. Bazillions of bacteria are by far the largest source, and so are the exhalations of virtually all animals, and the decomposition of plants and animals. Vulcanism makes a contribution, as well, but it varies gretly from year to year.
See this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
to learn how small the human contribution is to ALL greenhouse gases, except for THE major one, water vapor. |
|
There is a change in the direction of the wind.
There is Justice, and there is a God.
GLOBAL COOLING! is coming your way
Time to change your strategy again.
Global Warming, evolved to
Climate Change, now since Obama is going to be our next el-presidente, we shall call it:
Climate of HOPE CHANGE,
or Climate of Hope, change, or simply
CLIMATE OF MENDACITY! |
|
Frey said: Yours is the "It happened naturally then, therefore it's happening naturally now."
No, my position is: it happened naturally then, and UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, it is very likely that it's happening naturally now."
Your arguement is essentially the fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" --- "after this, therefore because of this".
Again, I ask you for evidence that CO2 and not sun cycles, not masssive ocean current shifts, not
natural variability are "the " cause for what warming has been seen, AND that you provide us with an experiment that can FALSIFY your claim.
I ask you to explain why CO2 concentration increases LAG, not presage, mean temperature rises.
Instead, you just ignore those questions.
Unless you address them, you are not practicing science. |
|
|
This has been the coldest winter since 1966 in North America, China, Mongolia and Siberia, according to the U.S. NCDC. China has suffered through its coldest winter in 100 years. Ice in the Bearing Straits is up to 20 cm thicker than last year. Toronto and other parts of Canada have experienced the coldest weather since 1950. Some climatologists believe we are in for a protracted period of global cooling not seen since the 1600's. The culprit is the sun, which appears to be entering a period of low solar activity. If so, time to fire up the coal plants. We are going to need all of the man-made hydrocarbons we can create. Except that: Man-made hydrocarbons will have about as much warming effect as a candle in the arctic. |
|
Juandimenstional wrote:
"At this point, I have to trust them [scientists who promote AGW] because I trust the scientific method more than I trust any alternative."
Perhaps he would provide the names of a few of the pro-global warming scientist/promoters that he trusts.
Here are a few who dispute the AGW>
Frederick Seitz-Emeritus of Rockefeller University and past President of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS).
Jack Hollander,emeritus professor of energy and resources at the University of California-Berkeley.
Dr Paal Brekke from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (Soho).
Dr. Robert Balling who is director of the office
of climatology, Arizona State University.
Professor Richard Lindzen MIT
Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer,authors of "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" |
|
And people actually believe this. Even Hugh. |
|
For years we rejected communism, socialism, therefore, liberals had to come with a brand new cause that will especially play on your values and morals, timing is perfect, as we have removed religion and God from school and society. Now, we have the religion of worshiping our environment, and paying steep taxes and fines worldwide.
This issue is so rediculous, everyone, would like to breathe clean air, and we all love our planet, and do our best to pass a better place to the next generation. No big government needed to enforce something comes natural.
It is just idiotic, if they believe,we are that naive to accept or obey their false premises. |
|
|
...on October 18, 2007 to be exact, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration predicted a mild to warm winter for the U.S. No predictions of the most snow in Madison, Wisconsin, ever. No prediction of the coldest weather in Fairbanks, Alaska in 50 years. No predictions of sub-zero temperatures in Chicago. No predictions of Lake Erie freezing over. Spring will arrive in three weeks. Tell that to the mid-west, to New England, to the mid-Atlantic states, to Seattle and Denver. Global warming is apparently causing global cooling. |
|
My wife is going to kill me for staying up too late. Oh well.
Yours is the "It happened naturally then, therefore it's happening naturally now." Show me the natural process that digs up coal and pumps up oil and burns it at an ever increasing rate, and I'll agree with you. Your argument works only if the circumstances are the same, and the circumstances are obviously very different now. |
|
You're a perfect example. It's so obvious you don't know anything about the science that is involved with global warming. I spotted three errors just in the last post. Eh, I'll give you one:
The sum total of CO2 from all volcanic eruptions around the world in a typical year is 1% of the sum total of CO2 from human activities in a typical year. Even there were a once-in-a-million-years catastrophe and the number of eruptions were to go up 10x, the CO2 emissions would still be dwarfed by human activity. Of course, if that happened, global warming would be way down on our list of problems.
I also find it deliciously ironic that you think we should follow the lead of a Communist country. |
|
-----Kyoto was a bad treaty but that does not mean there is still not a big need to curb CO2.------
Agreed. Let's have liberal idiots worldwide hold their breaths until they're unconscious. Then we'll lock them away in a lead chamber so they can't further pollute the planet with their dreaded co2 they excrete every time they take a breath. Who cares if plants need co2 for synthesis, we'll all feel better about ourselves. And once we have a volcanic eruption all our work would be for not. You'd be more productive pissin' up a rope. When water evaporates co2 is released. How do you propose stopping that along with the aforementioned volcanic eruptions? |
|
Kyoto was a bad treaty but that does not mean there is still not a big need to curb CO2.
Al Gore is an alarmist, but he didn't invent the idea of global warming. There are alot of people concerned and they are not all liberals.
Not every single issue in the world should be politicized beyond comprehension.
|
|
----What'd I tell ya?
Falling on deaf ears. Most of the anti-AGW arguments I've seen on this board don't even make sense.----
Did it ever dawn on you that it didn't make sense because you're a blithering idiot? [rhetorical question]
"Global Warming" is a scam of the highest order; a mechanism to fleece nations and destroy our economy. Why is India, China [and Russia] exempt from this Kyoto protocol? The first two are the worlds largest polluters. The reason they're exempt is because the Indians and Chinese laughed these tree hugging hermaphrodites out of their respective countries. So the bedwetters have to prey on the white guilt-ridden western nations.
Tell me fool, why do you suppose Al Gore the leading propagandist of AGW is in the carbon credit business? Do you find it the least bit suspicious that he's openly attempting to profit from this scam? Of course not, you're a liberal idiot [redundancy] who does what his puppet masters tell him with no questions asked.
|
|
Apropos of nothing at all, xpressit wrote:
"Nice to know
the terrain there,
just in case McCain's coup attempt goes sour they might need somewhere to gather."
Yeah, that's it: a coup. A coup carried out by winning a free, secret and democratic election.
Moonbats: you just gotta pity them for their idiocy. |
|
"At this point, I have to trust them [scientists who promote AGW] because I trust the scientific method more than I trust any alternative."
Then you will be able to point us to an experiment that FALSIFY the AGW conjecture. It would be stated something like "IF my theory is true, then X MUST happen".
That's the scientific method, not a string of assertions, not a "consensus", not a bunch of "results" from computer models mostly put together by software geeks and not climatologists.
p.s. anyone who uses the term "denialists" to describe those who disagree with the CONJECTURE called AGW betrays himself as utterly unschooled in science.
Science often moves forward precisely because someone had doubts, was a naysayer, ran against the grain. Think Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Wegener (continental drift), etc.
It's telling that the AGW crowd has to adopt, in a particularly half-*ssed way, a term from discredited Freudianism, like AGW a doctrine that could explain everything but predict nothing. |
|
|
the terrain there, just in case McCain's coup attempt goes sour they might need somewhere to gather. |
|
"Apparently being an average student with BA in a non-science major,a divinity school drop-out, a life long politician and producer of an error filled propaganda film makes one a scientist and global warming guru."
You won't get any argument from me on that. I haven't seen an "Inconvenient Truth", because I don't expect Al Gore to tell me the truth. I don't go to Al Gore for my science. I DO go to the guys who do it for a living.
Believe me, I get how coveniently global warming fits in with the enviros who have been telling us for a hundred years that we're in danger of imminent collapse. It makes me look twice that their answers to global warming just happen to be the answers they've been prescribing for every other ill. Their answers may not be the right answers, but the science is overwhelmingly in favor of anthropogenic global warming.
I know a few scientists and one of them, a microbiologist at an Ivy League school, put it pretty succinctly: "Scientists are by nature conservative. You don't want to be the first one to come up with something completely off the charts because if you can't back it up, you lose funding, and you lose the trust of your colleagues."
At this point, I have to trust them because I trust the scientific method more than I trust any alternative. But petitions signed by M.D.s and B.S.s are not scientific consensus. They are political ruses. |
|
"Legendary Nessie hunter Robert Rines is giving up his search for the monster after 37 years. […] Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that {{{{Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.}}}}"
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_ 45.html
Liberals are unquestionably the dumbest idiots on the face of the earth.
What can't "Global Warming" do? |
|
The benefits of "global warming" greatly outweigh the negatives. Agriculture alone would be a major beneficiary benefiting the third world and basket case nations. Global cooling would be far more destructive.
Liberal idiots [redundancy], try and get it to rain in drought-ridden areas, then we'll discuss your Don Quixote mission to take on Mother Gaia.
It’s amusing how the liberal misfits ignore the real enemy- islamists- but are ready to go nuclear on Mother Gaia. It’s a byproduct of being a coward to the core. And I thought the only thing the liberal bedwetters were willing to fight for was the closest parking spot to Starbucks. Watch out Mother Gaia, the frolicking tree hugging hermaphrodites are coming with a vengeance……..
|
|
"The scientists are scientists, and know which side their bread is buttered on - they know they will get none of the 5 billion in Climate research funding/year (from the anti-science Bush administration) if they even hint that AGW will not lead to catastrophic global changes."
Sorry. MOST of the AGW zealots are funded by governments, including our own. UNiveristy scientists mostly get their grants from the feds, after all. As for government scientists, Hansen at NASA, in particular, has been braying like a jackass on the topic --- and he hasn't been fired. But he probably doesn't care, since George Soros secretly sent several hundred thousands his way.
As for none of the anti-AGW arguments making sense, Frey: do you have the STONES, sir, to explain why not? For starters, just tell us why four ice ages in the past million years mean nothing. Why the data showing CO2 levels LAG, rather than PRESAGE, mean temperature increases, can be ignored?
Finally: a hoary maxim, which can be applied to science and many other fields says
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Frey: where's the BEEF!? |
|
|
Falling on deaf ears. Most of the anti-AGW arguments I've seen on this board don't even make sense. |
|
and check in to his site...Please, Ladies.
Keith: My wife has a close friend in Cottonwood, close to Sadona & the magical Oak Creek Canyon. She's a baseball nutcase and went for a few days of Pring Training with a Baseball Girlfriend to Cactus League every year until we moved to Central Florida from L.A. I LOVE Flagstaff and the San Francisco Peaks.
LOUT: The Homo bashing is cute, butacup. Cease. |
|
To Juandimensional,
Apparently being an average student with BA in a non-science major,a divinity school drop-out, a life long politician and producer of an error filled propaganda film makes one a scientist and global warming guru. Engineers snd doctors have more of a science subject background than most of the global warming alarmist, vocal environmentalist, politicians,journalism graduates, TV newsreaders and weatherpersons all who pontificate endlessly on climate change. |
|
Hugh must be getting ready to endorse Mr. Global Warming (R), John McCain.
Jean-Michel Cousteau is the son of Jacques Cousteau, famous ocean explorer and would-be eliminator of human beings.
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Jacques Cousteau*
*father of four; I guess it's other people's children who need to be eliminated. |
|
I'm praying for global warming!
God promised us that heaven and earth would pass away but the change of seasons would not. The rainbow is part of that promise. The Leftists are fear-mongering about something man has no control over.
Why would I believe scientists when they cannot get a 7 day weather forecast right. Much less 50 years from now? |
|
We are celebrating our heat-wave of 33 degree weather, today, most of us, here, constantly pray to all sorts of deities for intensive global sweetness heat, whichever way it comes our way, I will cherish it.
Paddy, why does God love you more than some us, who have to put with freezing ice, and minus zero wind chills?
I guess, goes back to free will! |
|
Paddy, I live on the Colorado Plateau. Sometimes referred to as the Coconino Plateau, and other colorful names. Just a few miles north is The Grand Canyon. Not as big as Valles Marineris (Mars) but still gloriously magnificent. I wouldn't mind moving back to the mountains of Colorado, but this is where my job is...
MaryStella "MICHAEL CRICHTON Book, STATE OF FEAR,
with detailed charts point by point,
A must read." I whole heartedly agree. I read it after my late father gave it to me about 3 yrs ago. As relevant today as when it came out.
People don't be an ostrich, get out and read. Do the reaearch. As Neal Boortz says "do your homework." He even has reading assignments on is website (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html.) |
|
Re: Not All Scientists Agree
Did you read the criteria by which that petition defines a scientist? Anyone with a B.S. So your brother-in-law the electrical engineer is a scientist qualified to sign.
Also, they include M.D.s, apparently under the impression that their observations of weather ont he golf course allow them to make authoratative statements on climate. |
|
A few things. First, the "global cooling" phenomenon was predicted thirty years ago, by a small number of studies, and was repudiated almost immediately. Further, climate modeling at that time was at its infancy, and the computing power of the equipment they modeled with are dwarfed by any laptop. The "They predicted global cooling!" dog doesn't hunt.
Second,the agreement on climate change is coming from across disciplines. Meteorologists are not climatologists, are not paleoclimatologists, are not physicists. They have different spheres of study and they can't synchronize their findings across disciplines. These separate disciplines agree that the earth is getting warmer.
Third, people miss the point about the Arctic temperature warming before the rise of atmospheric CO2. That rise in temperature may be caused by any number of reasons, but the rise in atmoshperic CO2 MULTIPLIES the effect of the original increase in temperature and exacerbates the effect of the original stimulus.
For anyone here who is scientifically minded check out : realclimate.org, and read it with an open mind. They have answers to Crichton and other skeptics. |
|
Perhaps the Mr. Cousteau needs to spend more time reading scientific studies and less time watching the Al Gore propaganda film which by the way was found by the British Court to have eleven-11- inaccurate claims and found these unsupported representations were propaganda and the film cannot be shown in British schools without a qualifier pinpointing these inaccuracies.
Had Mr. Hewitt read any of the above and following following and searched out more detailed studies he might have raised several question with Mr.Cousteau regarding the global warming myth.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cool ing.html
"Peer reviewed global cooling" January 21 2007
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/top_russian_sci entistglobal_co.html
January 03 2008 Top Russian Scientists: global cooling coming
A few other facts:
-Arctic ice has returned earlier than expected.
-the Antarctic ice pack is increasing and growing in size
-the polar bear population is increasing
-the Southern hemisphere experienced one of the coldest winter in recorded history in 2007
-the USA and parts of Europe and the Middle East are experiencing one of the coldest winters in 2008
-the warmest decade in the last one hundred years in the USA was the 1930s without SUVs
-the average global temperature has not increased for the last six years.
|
|
Over 19,000 scientists have signed the following petition:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
|
|
-----It was with great alarm that I read your post Hugh. It seems that you are wavering and may even be close to flirting with scientific thought. Fortunately, I could tell that most of the other commentators here have rejected science and have their feet firmly planted in an earlier era -----
Oh, the irony. Tell me, stupid, what happened to the ice sheet covering North America thousands [if not millions] of years ago? What happened to the half dozen ice ages? Were neanderthals driving their SUVs causing "global warming"? |
|
....my temperature was 98.5; today it is 98.6. I want all of you to get rid if your SUV's right now...!
I'm mmmmeeeeellllllttttttiiinnnngggggggg.....!!!
Keith, I thought you lived in CO....???
Keith/marystella - cordially invited to visit:
paddyspad.blogtownhall.com
An oasis... |
|
"The quality of the so-called "public" debate on global warming is abysmal particularly from the right."
-----
I couldn't disagree more. The 'debate' is terrible coming from any ignoramus or idealogue -left or right. Gore and his entertainment minions are the worst, since they know virtually nothing - they are simply 'true believers' - The scientists are scientists, and know which side their bread is buttered on - they know they will get none of the 5 billion in Climate research funding/year (from the anti-science Bush administration) if they even hint that AGW will not lead to catastrophic global changes. Many of these people say that there is 'no debate' about the science, despite the fact that all of the predictions are based on models with highly limited inputs. For most of the true believers it's faith without reason. They blindly trust the scientists, and the scientists are dishonest about the predictive powers of their models (and either ignorant or dishonest) about their (or anybody's)inability to predict the geological future. |
|
happended. Through thousands years back in history, when humans did not exist, we surly had climte change, as Kieth so eloquenthly, also my hopefull friend, Neo mentions, mostly it does depends on location of earth, sun, sun activity, and water vapour and its movement above the earth surface, this is my kindergarden explanation!
More than 30 years ago, they predicted we are going to freeze, actually, went through a warming period and now, since, our dear Lord, has a wonderful sense of humor, we are indeed heading toward cooling period. Sweet justice to those who claim are the wisest among us.
MICHAEL CRICHTON Book, STATE OF FEAR,
with detailed charts point by point,
A must read. |
|
|
Come out here. It's the Cactus League. Here in AZ (I'm no fan of McCain) we have had a lot of rain, and snow. Our reservoirs are near capacity, with lots of snow still in the mountains. Looks like a drought buster! And it's been unseasonably cold. |
|
Sun: Bigass sumbish. HOT sumbish. BIG-HOT sumbish.
Earth: Little fella. Tiny lil'pissants called Folks on it. But, in the larger scheme'o'things, they be tinier than atoms.
Keith: Take him from here, Bud, please. I'm going to watch some Spring Training(Grapefruit League)and I'm way, Way...WAY too scientific for Frey.
This is well known. :-) |
|
Here in Marxachusetts, we have received our
average winter snowfall, and the season isn't
over yet. How that is supposed to mean "global
warming" is beyond me! I'm glad that BG also
gets it that radical environmentalism is a false
gospel; it is in fact a denial of God (Choke on
that one, "minister" Huckabee!)
I'm still not voting for John Kennedy Gore Hoover
McCain. |
|
|
Do some reading on solar astronomy. |
|
|
One human bean emits as much heat as a 150 watt light bulb. That is why the AC in movie theatres is turned on high. (See a movie with just a few people, you'll understand.) A human emits as much heat as the Sun per cubic centimeter. The difference is there is a lot more SUN!!! I don't have the reference, sorry. |
|
|
OK, then why has the Earth been heating over the last thirty years, when solar activity (including sunspots) has been stable over that time? How can the sun be causing change at the same time when it's not changing? |
|
|
That's one big problem I had with Kyoto, and that's why "the enviros" are all saying that any future agreement will have to include China and India. |
|
and put inside a vastly bigger circle called Sun. Now, below your circle drawing, write this words: "Things Change--DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH"
Okay, that's your science assignment for today. Even us old History Majors can 'get it.' |
|
if the glaciers that are receding were not exposing so much debris covered from the last time they grew.
But fear mongering is a world wide popular sport, and sheep, as we see here, love it. |
|
"when the prof answered that he thought Kyoto method would do little good, Prager took that to mean that man's influence on warming was small or non-existent, when if fact the prof was clearly indicating that he felt international controls would do little good, only because China and India would be unlikely to comply with them."
I heard that show too. I'm pretty sure that the guest said that Kyoto would "do little good, ONLY because ...China and India would not comply".
Even if you're right, it shows the naked political agenda from the Enviros- weaken the U.S.
If it was about climate, you'd be working on China and India. It's impossible for us to clean up enough to compensate for their emissions. |
|
Good comment. As we all know, scientists are never wrong. They never make false predictions - all their models and hypotheses are absolutely correct. That's why we spend so little on research, since our models always correctly predict the outcome. Pauling published the structure of DNA before Watson and Crick - it was a triple helix. Funny that I don't see that in the journals. Funny also that some doctors endorse hormone replacement therapy for post-menapausal women while others think it's a bad idea. How can this be so, if scientists have the absolute truth at their fingertips.
Also, since scientists obviously have clairvoyance at their service (they must to know all the future conditions OTHER than C02 levels) that will ensure the planet will warm. The scientists CANNOT be wrong. Perhaps they are speaking excathedral? |
|
|
Thanks Hugh, I'll keep an open mind - just like the AGW advocates do. I'm just happy that GWB is forking out 5 billion a year in climate research - another way he earns the title of the anti-science president. |
|
Mercury offsets. Here's the scam: I don't pump Hg into the environment, but I have a set allotment available. Since you want to pollute more, you can pay me for my Hg output. I get paid, and you still get to pollute. Isn't that peachy? The only difference is that instead of paying across state lines, now we pay the Chinese to build 'cleaner' coal burning plants that they were going to build anyway. That's right, carbon offset people pay the Chinese to feel good about themselves.
|
|
Composition of
dry atmosphere, by volume[4] ppmv: parts per million by volume
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.25% over full atmosphere, typically 1% to 4% near surface
Minor components of air not listed above include[citation needed] Gas Volume
nitrous oxide 0.3 ppmv (0.00005%)
xenon 0.09 ppmv (9x10-6%)
ozone 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7x10-6%)
nitrogen dioxide 0.02 ppmv (2x10-6%)
iodine 0.01 ppmv (1x10-6%)
carbon monoxide trace
ammonia trace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere |
|
"Get used to the idea of supporting McCain for President while fighting him on important issues."
Sorry, I have to worry about being true to my own convictions. So holding my nose and voting for McCain is NOT an option. Don't feel bad though, I'm not voting for Hillary or Barak either.
|
|
Interpretation is not equivalent to verification, proof, confirmation, or corroboration.
The Andes are not equivalent to the whole globe.
Get used to the idea of supporting McCain for President while fighting him on important issues.
"His argument about the imminence of the major changes looming in Peru as a result of climate change is the best case I have heard yet about the specific negative consequences of global warming."
How about the argument as to global warming itself? He's got you worried about the consequences which would follow from premisses which are what need to be established.
Sometimes it's better to have been a lib dem for a while before being a conservative. Then one has some experience with those wondrous detailed arguments, organized with colored tabs or whatever. Premisses and consequences aren't so assured in real life. And to reason from consequences back to premisses is risky affair.
|
|
|
by the son of Jacques Cousteau - one of the most scurilous enviro radicals going. To get yourself up to speed on this issue I would recommend you regularly visit smalldeadanimals.com as the host Kate posts debunking stuff regularly (Mark Steyn is a regular reader apparently). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a growing market in GHG credits to combat or even "reverse" global warming. HA!!! The Goracle has unleased alot of shizters and suckers in this field. The GHG market is nothing more than another way to part fools from their money and won't do a damn thing to "stop global warming." Is the planet's climate changing ??? - yes it has been for as long as it has existed. What bloody conceit to think humans can change something as dynamic and HUGE as climate on a planetary scale. All this stupidity on reducing carbon foot prints is a waste of time. Energy and funds would be better spent on researching how we can best adapt to a warming climate. |
|
The earth has gone through 4 distinct ice ages on its own, prior to the invention of the evil internal combustion engine. Believe it or not, Earth cooled into these periods, and warmed out of them, quite on its own. 15,000 years ago 1/2 of what is now the U S of A and the entire region of what is known as Canada were covered by a massive ice sheet, the depths of which in some places were over ONE MILE. Thank God the solar cycles became warmer and melted the ice, or none of us would have made it this far in life...
If you global warming alarmists, and yes, you are alarmists, want to fight the sun getting cyclically hotter, good luck. Solar cycles have contributed more to the warming and cooling of the planet than any other single criteria. But why bother to think about something logically when you can alarm and make a political issue out of something, right Ye of the Left? |
|
|
|
I have gotten to the point of not believing a damn word I am told about AGW. It's almost as if these alarmists forget that we have had climate change for the past 4.5 billion years. Climate Change did NOT start just in the last 200 years.
Will it change again, you bet! Can we stop it, nope! |
|
|
There will be much more from Hugh attempting to help McCain when he returns from his trip. My prediction is the next gambit will be to portray pro-sovereignty/enforcement types as nutters, like he did to Tancredo last spring. He provided a tremendous service in killing amnesty last May/June, but that shift was tactical to assist Romney. Now we will be nutters again. |
|
|
Seems to me this is the beginning of the cover for MCcain, and his looming global warming bill with Sen. Lieberman. Oh I forgot, read his lips... no new taxes. |
|
I'll admit it, I've never liked Hugh Hewitt. I've always thought of him as sanctimonious and hyper-partisan. But this is an honest effort to put some realism into the debate, to ask "OK, what's really going on here?" The answer, of course, doesn't lie with the alarmists or the deniers.
Thank you, Hugh, for your effort. A pity it's falling on such deaf ears. |
|
|
Carbon offsets are the modern day equivalent of the medieval practice of buying indulgences. The people who purchased them fervently believed they would work to get them into Heaven. Let's just say I have my doubts. |
|
|
Tell the MidWesterners this winter about carbon offsets, climate change. More snow has fallen in the MW this year than any in recorded history. Perhaps the mamoths will be returning too. Who Knows? But, change is such an inword now that I will not be surprised that the Messiah from Ill. will not have a govt. answer for it too. |
|
From another perspective, do you really believe Al Gore can prevent the prophesies of the last days from fulfilling?
First point: The earth will continue is normal cycles with or without carbon offsets or any other green nonsense.
Gen. 8: 22
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Second point: leading up to the second coming there will be a great heat. Men will suffer but not turn to God. Al Gore will not prevent this unconditional prophesy from happening even if he makes the planet carbonless.
Rev. 16: 9
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
Third point: At the second coming, global warming is of no consequence. The earth is going to burn with a fervent heat and Al Gore is not going to stop it.
2 Pet. 3: 10, 12
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
• • •
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Fourth point: Carbon Offsets are an exercise in futility.
|
|
where did we pin the blame for wacky weather before there was global warming?
The weather's ALWAYS been changing. I come from farming stock, and my uncles can and do devote a whole afternoon to talking about the weather: They should, as it directly affects their livelihood. When a sudden rainstorm can ruin a harvest and put you hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, you pay very close attention to the weather. |
|
|
this global warming business does not accord with my sense of rugged individualism. This may be why I reject out of hand any coincidence between the industrial revolution and global warming. It's the sun stupid! Wait now the commies say we're cooling? |
|
|
scientists, said we are headed for global cooling because of solar inactivity, and that inactivity will last some 200 hundred years, whatever, but there is no doubt that our Sun has the greatest influence on the climate, and mankind has no influence on this, therefore, our culpability in the so called global warming is sphere nonsense. All this warming scare is no more than a scheme by liberal Fascists, to raise taxes on earners, their arch enemy. From Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to the old USSR, from Ortega to Chavez, from Gore to OBama, liberal Fascists never change, they always attempt to ensnare, and govern by dictate, and never ever by the will of the people. Make no mistake, if these Fascists in our country could, they would love to bring the Caracas model to America. This is their ultimate goal. Notice that leftists worldwide all sign on to this warming nonsense, why is that, because it brings them closer to their goal, thats why. |
|
The Real Question is not "are we warming"?
The Real Question is "can we do anything effective about it?"
When have we ever been effective in controlling the weather? In this case we are not talking about a little cloud seeding, we are talking about controlling the weather of the whole planet.
We can't even alter much less prevent tornadoes or hurricanes. Those are local weather events.
It is pathetic that the majority think we will somehow control the weather of the whole planet with a few carbon offsets. Talk about miss placed vacuous hope and delusion of grandeur! Gore beats Obama by a mile in that department.
How gullible and stupid are the media and the majority of voters? |
|
|
that the recent rise in greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures coincides with the industrial revolution. The fact that massive use of fossil fuels beginning in the late 18th century has tracked this phenomenon doesn't seem that relevant. The whole sun thing seems a more likely cause. Or the wobble of the planet... |
|
Hughs, links were both empty. I suppose Hugh got bit by the enviormental bug. These kind of trips are intended to do just that.
The Andes precip patterns are determined by 2 major oscillations, the PDO and ENSO. Precipitation patterns at these high altitudes determined the amount of glaciation this regions undergoes. At such high altitudes, the temps are always below freezing. Therefore, ice build up is determined by precipitation and not temperature. Most of the ice cores conerning these glaciers are stored by Dr Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State. He is a big AGW Alarmist, but refuses to release his cores to outside auditors for verification. Hugh, if you want a stroy follow the major alarmists like Penn St Dr Mann, Hadley Center's Phil Jones, and Dr Thompson. The shrinking of the tropical glaciers is much more complicated than these men say. |
|
|
Give it time. I predict when Hugh returns from his trip he will begin trying to get us all in line behind McCain. The pro-sovereignty/enforcement types will be attacked as nutters. Amnesty will be a good thing again. Huch was only taking the anti-amnesty tack to help Romney. |
|
Yes, there is climate change. The climate always changes, always has, always will. Where I live in Virginia has been both glacial and tropical. That was before people had even appeared to mess anything up. The factors that affect climate far more than human activity are solar activity, volcanic activity, the wobble of the panet spinning on its axis, ocean currents and the elliptical nature of Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Many climatologists contend CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature rise, not cause it. When you figure out how to turn down the Sun, let me know.
|
|
|
Now that Romney is out. Come on, Hugh, climate change in the Andes??? I hope you recover some of your former politcal sharpness and sparkle. |
|
Yesterday I think I found the cause of global warming.
Homer Simpson calls it "day-moon" and "Old Blazey". |
|
is that some of us understand that we live on a dynamic planet and whatever happens now has probably happened before, without our "help".
Have air temperatures warmed appreciably in the Andes? There are other possible explanations. Have there been some changes in natural weather patterns that result in less precipitation? It may be that the glaciers are not being replenished as they once were. Sometimes land-use patterns might have an effect on local precipitation, i.e., too much deforestation might interrupt the evaporation/transpiration part of the local water cycle.
Everything in nature that happens is not necessarily our fault. It would take a while to unravel the local geologic/climatological history (through lake/continental shelf core samples, etc.) to determine when the last time the glaciers retreated. |
|
|
|
|
Your two links in this article go nowhere. I'd like to see 'em! |
|
|
|