retreat!

[dmarc117]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7026317.ece

 

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-organised.html

 

 

[Perchoutofwater]

Climate vs weather always fun

[McBoog]

"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system."

 

They are intrinsically interrelated. You don't know what climate is without averaging the weather. You can guess at what the weather is by looking at the established climate for an area.

 

Bad science for the beginning.

 

The sun and ocean cycles drive our planet. Stop the arrogance!

 

El Nino, the phenomenon in which unusually hot Pacific Ocean waters disrupt weather patterns, was blamed for the heatwave by preventing the formation of clouds.Rio's heatwave was forecast to continue into the weekend, when the city's famous four-day Carnival starts.

 

And I have one question. What is so bad about global warming anyway? The periods of greatest species diversity have occurred during the when the planet has been at its warmest. Species come and go, when one can't adapt, another fills its place.

 

Live green, live clean, promote clean efficient technology for our health, not for redistribution of wealth and politics, but for our health!

 

[Perchoutofwater]

The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

 

New York Slimes

 

The people don't want it, because they can see it is bunk, but Obama is deaf, dumb and blind.

[MikesVikes]

I'll get the last laugh when I see some non-believers hanging onto a melting iceberg for dear life.

[whomper]

A global warming thread. How refreshing

[bpwallace49]

Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists

Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.

 

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent

Published: 7:45AM GMT 03 Feb 2009

 

 

Link to this video Temperatures for December and January were consistently 1.8 F ( 1 C) lower than the average of 41 F (5 C)and 37 F (3C) respectively and more snow fell in London this week than since the 1960s.

 

But despite this extreme weather, scientists say that the current cold snap does not mean that climate change is going into reverse. In fact, the surprise with which we have greeted the extreme conditions only reinforces how our climate has changed over the years.

 

 

Arctic sea ice thinning dramatically, finds NASAA study by the Met Office which went back 350 years shows that such extreme weather now only occurs every 20 years.

 

Back in the pre-industrial days of Charles Dickens, it was a much more regular occurrence - hitting the country on average every five years or so.

 

During that time global temperatures has risen by 1.7 F (0.8 C), studies have shown.

 

"Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming," said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford.

 

"If it wasn't for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.

 

"As for snowfall that could actually increase in the short term because of global warming. We have all heard the expression 'too cold to snow' and we have always expected precipitation to increase.

 

"All the indicators still suggest that we are warming up in line with predictions."

 

This winter seems so bad precisely because it is now so unusual. In contrast the deep freezes of 1946-47 and 1962-63 were much colder - 5.3 F (2.97C) and 7.9 F (4.37C) cooler than the long-term norm.

 

And with global warming we can expect another 1962-63 winter only once every 1,100 years, compared with every 183 years before 1850.

 

Dave Britton, a meteorologist and climate scientist at the Met Office, said: "Even with global warming you cannot rule out we will have a cold winter every so often. It sometimes rains in the Sahara but it is still a desert."

 

Scientists point out that the people must distinguish between climate and weather. Weather is what happens in the short term whereas climate is the long term trend.

 

"Just as the wet summer of 2007 or recent heat waves cannot be attributed to global warming nor can this cold snap," said Bob Ward, spokesman for the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change at London School of Economics.

 

"What is important to do is look at the long term global trends and they are still up. What we experience in the short term in this country is not important. After all, Melbourne had a heat wave last week."

 

As for the suggestion that the recent cold weather is due to a reversal of the warming Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift - otherwise known as the Thermohaline Circulation - this has been mostly ruled out by recent research.

 

"It has a very low chance of happening and if it does occur it will be in centuries time," added Mr Ward.

 

The North Atlantic Drift is an extension of the Gulf Stream which brings warm tropical water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe, including Britain. Its effect is to bring up the average temperature.

[Savage Beatings]

New York Slimes

 

The people don't want it, because they can see it is bunk, but Obama is deaf, dumb and blind.

 

But I hear he plays a mean pinball.

[Perchoutofwater]

Texas to challenge US greenhouse gas rules.

[bpwallace49]

Texas to challenge US greenhouse gas rules.

 

Are they "drawing down"?

 

I wonder they are upset?

 

Texas, which leads U.S. states in carbon dioxide emissions due to its heavy concentration of oil refining and other industries, will see a major impact if U.S. mandatory emissions reductions take effect.

 

Drill baby drill!!!

[TOTUS]

Oh, great.

[pause, look concerned]

Another global warming thread?

[wry smile, look out to crowd]

Next thing you know, Perch will be starting another thread about me.

[chuckle, look down at your "notecards"]

I'm not too sure what to think about global warming. It's getin' pretty hot at the White House!

[chuckle some more]

[pig devilz]

I'll get the last laugh when I see some non-believers hanging onto a melting iceberg for dear life.

I'l be chuckling right along with you when sea levels rise by 3 feet in the next 80 years (well maybe my grankids)

 

this isn't politics folks....it's nature taking it's course, or at least the course we are providing it....

[RWWB75]

When the AGW hype began in earnest in the late 1980's we had just come from a previous hype about

global cooling. Again, the same culprits as before were dragged out – Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide,

and the other molecules man creates from burning carbon based fuels. The bulk of the scientific

community completely ignored this unfounded hype and unfortunately our silence allowed those who

desired an elimination of carbon based fuels (Malthusians) to gain strength. At this point, there is a

“machine” in place which is making it very difficult for the larger scientific community to have our

voices heard.

I will break down the argument against AGW into several pieces, and attempt to show you where both

the Malthusians and honest scientists have gone “off the reservation”. I will also attempt to show that

the collected data is largely irrelevant to the debate.

First, assuming that some natural event is observed, such as rising temperatures in particular areas or

glacial melting, the very first response from the scientific community should have been – collect more

data. It wasn't. In the late 1980's we simply did not have enough suitable temperature measuring

stations to collect ground based data and apply it to this observation. Our satellite data was problematic

(we don't actually measure temperature from space, the data must be converted and corrected for sensor

fade, orbit degradation, etc) and had only been in place since 1978. One decade of data does not make

a trend. The ground based sensors, normally used for local weather forecasting, were not suitable for

long period, small scale temperature variations due to being located in what are termed “heat islands”

of urbanized areas, such as airports or near buildings. Their readings also lacked the accuracy needed

of 1/100th of a degree, and could not deliver continuous data.

Temperature “reconstructions” while a fascinating science, are simply not capable of the resolution

necessary to determine anything more than gross trends over millennial scales and therefore should be

rejected for this debate. We know only that our planet was both warmer, and cooler, than it is today in

the distant past. We do not yet understand the cause of either.

Unfortunately, this is the data that was used to immediately claim global warming's existence. Many of

the same problems exist even today in the entire temperature record – not to mention the idea of an

overall “average” temperature for the planet. Weather plays a massive role in determining temperature

for a particular locale, and that weather is fairly unpredictable. Just take the last day of any five day

forecast for your area. Keep that information for five days and compare it to the actual high

temperature for that day. You will find that an accuracy of even ±2º F is simply not possible. Over the

entirety of the planet, attempting to accurately forecast “average” temperature to within ±1ºF is just

plain silly. We also cannot know what a “normal” average temperature is, the best we can do is provide

a range good to ±5º.

To attempt to determine whether the planet is retaining more heat energy over long periods of time out

of the “normal” range (which is only ½ of the theory), requires a special satellite system. Multiple

satellites in stationary and stable orbits must be employed to measure the total EM radiated energy to

look for trends. A minimum time scale of 20-30 years, to eliminate solar energy fluctuations must be

employed. One such satellite exists today, much less a system. It was launched in the mid 1990's and

so has only been collecting data for about half of the necessary time scale. However, to date, it is

showing a drop in radiated energy, not an increase.

Since our data is not yet suitable to even determine the existence of long-period warming, it is

completely irrelevant in the meantime. We are thus left with only the theoretical. If the planet is

warming unusually, what could be the cause? Once we know the cause, is there anything we can do

except adapt to the changing conditions? These two questions are paramount to the debate and have

yet to be sufficiently answered by those claiming the existence of AGW.

The Earth has two sources of heat, the Sun and the planet's core. For global atmospheric temperatures

to increase, either of these must increase. The energy received from the Sun can be affected either from

fluctuations in it's EM output, or from an orbital alignment which brings the Earth closer – or a

combination of both.

The other possible cause, which can work with or without any of the previous possibilities, is the

Earth's atmosphere retaining additional heat. This is far weaker in effect, as temporary fluctuations

wind up causing what we call Weather. For example, localized heat rising off a continent produces

wind, increased moisture evaporation, and possibly storms. The effect of these weather events uses up

the excess energy and returns us back to a more equalized state. Excess energy, or temperature, simply

cannot stay in one area and make it warmer. A warm day in the Arctic, for example, passes that energy

to the water and ice, possibly enough to even melt some of the ice. Once used for that purpose, the

excess energy is exhausted, never to return again. As the ocean and ice packs are enormous heat sinks,

a huge amount of energy can be absorbed and converted on a daily basis, far more energy in fact, than

mankind has released since his existence began.

Since increased heat will evaporate more water vapor, more clouds will form, which will both use up

the excess energy, and provide cooling, just as clouds and rain cool a warm summer day. This cycle is

in essence, self-correcting. Cooler overall temperatures bleed moisture out of the atmosphere,

removing clouds and exposing more of the Earth's surface to sunlight. It really is a remarkable system,

and one we are only beginning to understand.

The way science must work is the elimination of all competing theories or possibilities until only one

remains. It is not enough to claim a correlation of cause X to effect Y, simply because X and Y show

similar patterns of growth and reduction. If A, B, and C are also possible causes of effect Y than the

scientist must show how A, B and C are not the cause of Y before X will be considered – no matter how

strong the correlation.

There are a few scientists measuring the EM output of our Sun, others attempting to determine the

extent of our orbital position to global temperatures, and others looking at the cloud formation

correlation of sunspots. Not one single scientist is currently measuring the thermal radiation of our

planet's core, much less attempting to determine how much of a fluctuation would be necessary to

affect global temperatures.

In effect, without eliminating the other possible causes (or collecting enough data to even determine if

the observed effect is permanent), AGW's champions have determined the cause, greenhouse gases,

specifically, man-made CO2. This places them firmly outside the realm of established scientific

protocol and requirements of proof.

Outside of our natural, self-correcting system, global temperatures can possibly be affected by an

increase in the concentration of “greenhouse gases”. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas,

and it is what provides the majority of correction in the system. No other gas exists in enough quantity

to affect global temperatures, and no other atmospheric gas has even 1/10th of the heat retention ability

of water vapor.

There are two physical laws which are used to determine the thermal retention effects of gas X,

Stephan-Boltzmann (S/:wacko:, and Beer-Lambert (B/L). S/B is concerned with the specific frequencies of

EM energy which are absorbed by a particular molecule, and B/L is concerned with what effect

increased concentration has on the EM absorption properties of a particular gas. These are hard and

fast physical laws, as established in their predictive power as the laws of thermodynamics.

S/B shows that CO2 absorbs very little IR radiation (heat), and most of it is in the upper frequencies

which are also lower energy. B/L shows that as CO2 concentration is increased, it absorbs less and less

energy. In other words, the relationship of IR absorption to concentration is not linear, but instead

logarithmic. Unless requested, I will not show how these laws mathematically determine the complete

inability of CO2 to warm our planet. Suffice it to say that I, and many other physicists have done the

math. A world-wide doubling in the concentration of CO2 could only raise the temperature of the

planet by 0.0028ºC ± 10%. Since human activity accounts for only 3% of the total CO2 produced, it is

impossible for us to burn enough fuel to double the concentration. And in order to raise the

temperature of the entire planet by the IPCC's predicted 2ºC, the concentration of CO2 would need to

be so high it would kill every mammal on the planet.

In effect, outside of water vapor (which we know corrects temperature fluctuations), no greenhouse gas

could possibly be the cause of any observed warming trend (without killing us all), regardless of any

perceived correlation. If no gas can be the cause, then humans likewise cannot be the cause. If humans

cannot be the cause, then we most likely cannot be part of the solution either. If in another 15-20 years,

sufficient data has been collected to indeed prove a long range temperature trend, there is only one

thing humans can do – adapt – just as we always have.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Global Weirding

[Perchoutofwater]

Global Weirding

 

What a stupid Op-Ed. I don't think anyone is saying stop trying to improve solar, wind, or any other forms of alternative energy. Yes people are saying we don't want to be taxed on fraudulent science. People are bringing into questions how much if any affect man has on climate change that has happened many times before. People are asking what the optimal temperature is for life on earth, and where and when that temperature are to be measured. If people on the left spent half as much time trying to disprove this religion as they try to disprove classical religions we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[bushwacked]

You got to give it to the right wing leaders; they can effectively deceive and manipulate their base for political purposes like no-ones business. It's almost admirable.

[Perchoutofwater]

You got to give it to the right wing leaders; they can effectively deceive and manipulate their base for political purposes like no-ones business. It's almost admirable.

 

It is funny that you think it is the right being deceptive particularly in light of all the fraudulent data that was used in making the AGW argument.

[driveby]

Green philosophy provides vital nourishment for the intellectual vanity of leftists, who get to pat themselves on the back for saving the world through the control-freak statism they longed to impose anyway. One of the reasons for the slow demise of the climate-change nonsense is that it takes a long time to let so much air out of so many egos. Calling “deniers” stupid and unpatriotic was very fulfilling. Likewise, you’ll find modern college campuses teeming with students – and teachers – who will fiercely insist that DDT thins egg shells and causes cancer. Environmentalism is a primitive religion which thrives by telling its faithful they’re too sophisticated for mere common sense.

 

bingo

[bpwallace49]

I highly recommend reading the book by Micheal Crichton "State of Fear"

 

It is a great read, and very relevant to the current discussion. A lot of info about since the death of the USSR, the US politcians and businesses have need to focus the "fear" of the citizens on specific subjects . . . . spread of communism worked, but without the USSR a new target was needed. Global environmentalism . . and lately "the war on terror" have been specific examples of the new "State of Fear" that is needed to keep the US populace in check . .

[bpwallace49]

bingo

 

Environmentalism is a primitive religion which thrives by telling its faithful they’re too sophisticated for mere common sense

 

Is that kinda like saying "let us tap your phones, track your purchases, and monitor the books you check out from the library in the name of securing ourselves against potential terrorist attacks"? Because they "know better"?

 

[Perchoutofwater]

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

 

First the hockey stick is broken, now mistakes found in study showing sea levels to rise.

[Caveman_Nick]

A global warming thread. How refreshing

 

Almost as refreshing as a thread suggesting a roster size increase.

[whomper]

Almost as refreshing as a thread suggesting a roster size increase.

 

 

[Perchoutofwater]

 

Just can't help yourself can you.

[pig devilz]

First the hockey stick is broken, now mistakes found in study showing sea levels to rise.

 

read through it....temps are rising, ice is melting...only debate is how fast